0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If it's ok with you, PmbPhy, I'd like to backtrack a bit so as to avoid losing the main thread. But first, yes, I believe I can construct a logical argument, but perhaps not in one paragraph. That's why Hydrocosmica is 80 pages long. But then you haven't read it, have you?
Little sound bites and single sentences taken out of context, quoted, and then proclaimed upon isn't logical refutation either. That seems to be your favorite modus operandi. Done serially the usual result is sniping and petulance.
I think that not accounting for the cause of basic charge back when it was discovered may have been a mistake. Scientists took the easy way out and just assumed, by convention, that charge "just is." First cause. God given. No accounting necessary.
I think you are unwilling to check it, for fear that your comfortable world-view may be shattered.
All the other members of the particle zoo are likewise chimeric. If a particle can't hang around for at least a few seconds, it isn't real.
The aether. Which is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second.
Which is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.
PmbPhy; I doubt that you and I are going to agree about much of anything. That's fine.
As we will never agree, we will have to agree to disagree. I will leave this now, but wish you well for the future and hope you are able to use your thinking skills to good effect.
Quote from: Phaedrus on 01/05/2015 21:35:57All the other members of the particle zoo are likewise chimeric. If a particle can't hang around for at least a few seconds, it isn't real. How long does a particle have to exist in order to be real, in your book? The positrons I use at work seem to hang around for a bit.An excellent point. It was stupid of me to not include anti-particles.QuoteThe aether. Which is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second. down from where? And unless you are a flat-earther, what's your definition of down? From space, normal to the surface.QuoteWhich is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.But the experiment has been done many times, principally using other frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, on all sorts of scales from a few centimeters (ring lasers) to the moon and back, in every conceivable direction (including, presumably, "down", if you allow that the moon, an aircraft, or an orbiting satellite, is "up") and to my great delight (since I rely on radar, ring laser accelerometers and satellite navigation to get from A to B without hitting anything) the speed of light appears to be entirely independent of direction.
Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 04/05/2015 17:06:53Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree. This is even more so in the history of science, they rarely give a good explanation of why thinking has moved on.
Quote from: Phaedrus on 30/04/2015 19:47:54PmbPhy; I doubt that you and I are going to agree about much of anything. That's fine. Unfortunately I doubt that you and I are going to agree about much of anything also. That's a pity. I always read the New Theories as it would be exciting to be in on the beginning of something radical. You have obviously put a lot of work into your paper and it is a cut above the standard pseudoscience as it avoids esoteric, meaningless word strings (see MichaelMD, Michdelf and TonyLang) and does include some maths!However, I find it full of misunderstandings about physics. To go through all the misunderstandings would take considerable time, so I will briefly go over some examples, from the Light chapter, that are easy to explain.
The aether... is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second. Which is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.
Is charge really an inherent property of protons and electrons?
New "heretical"models are welcome in science only if they can account for an observed phenomena that could not be explained by canonical theories, or if the new theory can produce the same answers more easily....
Quote from: PhaedrusThe aether... is flowing straight down into the Earth at 11,200 meters per second. Which is also why the famous Michelson- Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect the aether. The interferometer arms could only look out laterally, while the medium was flowing straight down.Historically, we didn't have to wait until the Michelsom Morley experiment [nofollow] was repeated vertically, or even to the Moon to detect any "downward" flow of the aether.It was performed on the site of today's Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, which is at Latitude 41.5 degrees North. The original apparatus was sensitive enough to detect the orbital motion of the Earth through the supposed aether.At this lattitude, "lateral" points in different directions at different times of the day. Even if the Aether were undetectable because it was coming straight down 9am, it would be coming in at a considerable angle by 3pm, and would be quite measurable if the Earth was passing through it.To be undetectable, they would have had to conduct the experiment at the North or South poles - and the aether would have to be traveling in a North-South direction.
Too bad the particle zoo already includes neutrinos muons and many types of quarks (and their antiparticles), all of which have been observed directly. You can't just assert that protons and neutrons are elementary particles and the other particles don't exist, when there is so much experimental evidence of other particles and of the internal structure of hadrons.I am open to theories that rely on some sort of aether, but I don't see this particular theory (as presented thus far) as a realistic alternative to currently accepted physics.Occam's Razor alone will not suffice...
To the best of my knowledge, no sub-atomic particle has ever been observed directly. They are all inferred.
Atoms are "doing" stuff all the time. Spinning; orbiting; vibrating; whirring; pulling; pushing.
That also smacks of perpetual motion.
Hydrocosmica overturns both of these assumptions and shows how they both have a part in a universal cycle of energy transport and transformation. The aether is presented as an entirely different level of reality. It is what charged particles and hence the world of things is made from. It is the substrate of what we call reality. All is energy.