0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And, all due respect, but it might take someone who was not taught the current system to see something familiar from a different angle.
Quote from: Phaedrus on 04/05/2015 21:27:56And, all due respect, but it might take someone who was not taught the current system to see something familiar from a different angle. I understand what you are saying, but where do such people come from?Although for new science there are always early adopters and followers (to use the marketing terms), all have tended to come from the science community. As ChiralSPO says, the ideas rarely came from nowhere but were part of the discussions between leading figures. Galileo supported Copernicus; Kepler, a student of Tycho Brahe, wrote to Galileo, they were at the heart of the science community and had been educated in the old geocentric theories. Bear in mind that even for educated people the heliocentric view was not fully accepted until 200 yrs later, mainly due to religious ideology. Even today surveys show between 16 and 20% of people in Western countries believe the geocentric model.If you look at the OPs in New Theories, very few have the background in maths, fluid dynamics, cosmology, wave and particle physics to understand the points you are making (JefferyH and David Cooper are exceptions).The aetherists await a messiah who will bring them a fixed aether through which light and astronomical bodies move. They will consider you a heretic with your relativistic aether moving within the frame of reference of a mass.
Greetings. I am not a physicist
One question: If all this aether is continuously flowing into the Earth, is it building up or is it going somewhere?
Quote from: PmbPhy on 04/05/2015 17:06:53Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.That's OK I can keep my side, mainly due to lack of time and many other interesting things to think about.I must say however, if he turned his mind to mainstream he is a much more connected thinker than jccc or Box. It's just that he is starting with a disadvantage, many school textbooks and most web sites have to summarise information and try to make it 'accessible' (hate that word, same with 'dumbing down') and quite often their explanations are somewhat lacking. This is even more so in the history of science, they rarely give a good explanation of why thinking has moved on.
Good luck with that. People like him never agree to disagree.
What I find very irritating is how little some people think about mainstream physics. They make it appear as though the workers in the field aren't thinking and are unable to think differently and are stuck in their ways merely because they were taught it that way and aren't willing to think or something equally as silly. In fact that's the furthest thing from the truth that one can get.