[baudrunner]

Thank you,

I appreciate your timely response. It is refreshing to read from an articulate and coherent writer.

My personal views on the fundamental nature of reality are fairly well settled in my mind and particularly with respect to the ongoing process of creation ocurring at the periphery of the Universe. This of course, implies that one cannot calculate a single value for the mass of the aether, since I maintain that this Universe is constantly growing and creating more space and more matter as we speak, so perhaps it would be better to exact a ratio of proportions than a definitive value. As for the empirical evidence, the fact is that this Universe is accellerating and that it had a beginning and that this is the characteristic of a process which is in perpetual motion so we can derive the one unknown thereby without using mathematics.

I attribute the very slight "drift" of the aether observed by Miller to be the result of the hysteresis effects of the residual components, including space, of the creation front. I agree that my post #37 is highly theoretical (I don't at all see the philosphical implications, perhaps you can enlighten me) but as a matter of fact the inference is that there were (are) many big bangs by virtue of this description and as evidenced by the photographic evidence of colliding galaxis and perhaps soon by recently extrapolated data from the background radiation studies done by COBE and others which curiously thus far do not seem to support the currently accepted model of a Big Bang Universe.

My one big question is this, and it is directed at all theoretical physicists:

How does one use the value of c in an equation? Einstein's E=mc² is given to symbolize the huge amount of energy represented by matter and should not be taken too literally. When one does the actual calculation of the exothermic reaction of the ideal fusion of enough hydrogen and enough neutrons to yield one gram of helium the experiment generates enough force to acellerate a one million kilogram mass at the rate of approximately seven million kilometres/sec²! Highly improbable. Furthermore, a new constant for the speed of light should be developed to more accurately complement physical theory, since what it actually refers to is the rate of the like polar repulsive force of atomic interaction and this should be represented by a temporal value. It is not represented by the velocity of a photon streaking across space because that just doesn't happen, and couldn't be constant for vaccuum, 1G, or water at 1G at any rate.

Again, I appreciate the attention that you are giving my posts.

"Brothers in TOE's"