0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
when you start from a solid base.
cube nucleus, electric shell and magnetic field, retraction of shell, frequency, and conductivity. All of these and more make sense to the theory of temperature and stationary heat and connect.
That should be what makes a theory solid.
Not building on anti aether.
why don't you guys come up with something to work on?!? all you do is bitch.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 22/06/2023 00:09:11why don't you guys come up with something to work on?!? all you do is bitch.Critiquing your ideas is completely in line with the purpose of this forum. If you don't like being critiqued, then you're not in the right place. You should know, based on past experience, that we are going to correct you when you say something that goes against the grain of the current state of scientific evidence. With that in mind, why did you want us to un-ban you so that you could come back and face the same kind of push-back that you got before? Did you think that we would discard current scientific theory in favor of a model for which you cannot offer evidence? Why?
Its funny that we agree we 100% see it our own way and not the other.
But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science
there's no way in hell I'm bending for you just the same as you for me! haha
why don't you guys come up with something to work on?
But I seriously wasn't born yesterday and know when something is unknown in science,
Huh, I guess when you get off on the wrong foot, with particle physics and dismissing the aether in 1905, this is what happens readers.
You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".It was discarded because of empirical evidence.
So the shell around the nucleus is composed of electricity not spinning electrons. Electricity is not made up of particles called electrons.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/06/2023 08:54:18You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".It was discarded because of empirical evidence.If light was discredited as travelling along the aether, why would making it a particle and not a wave change the expectations of M&M? or is it just simply overlooked that a photon would experience the same change in momentum that was predicted by M&M?
Photons can be waves as well as particles. What the M&M experiment ruled out was a non-relativistic aether. There could, in principle, be a relativistic aether (one of the tenets of Lorentz aether theory). However, that would make the aether undetectable. If it is undetectable, and relativity doesn't need it to explain the behavior of light, then there is no need to invoke it as an explanation.