0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me.
It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.
Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of supporting observationsFaith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of contradictory observationsScientific knowledge: the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been contradicted by observation
The problem is there: "observation".
In what way is that a problem?
And not all things can be observed
What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?
And not all things can be observed with the actual technology because too fast and/or too small.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 22:12:29Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist. QuoteNo, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?That postulate doesn't make sense. Where was this from?
Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist. QuoteNo, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?
No, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?
QuoteSince the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?
Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.
Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 21:34:38Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.Oh, so not any step in the actual scientific method at all then. I must admit, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not something I have looked into often. Can you supply me with a link to the original studies and address the criticisms that have been filed against it (such as those non-null results you speak of being within the range of statistical error)? Also, why have much more sensitive experiments (such as this one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf) not reproduced the non-null MMX results you speak of?
I had a look at that link -- Eisele et al used a vacuum chamber -- Cahill has explained that an MMX needs gas (vacuum gives zero fringeshift)(Demjanov 1970 likewise). What Eisele (Laboratory test of isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level) has shown is that the Lorentz gamma equation for LC is accurate to the 17th decimal. Eisele did his X in 2009, therefore he had no excuse for not being familiar with Cahill (2002), but Demjanov didnt publish in English till 2010 i think.
I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's. He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX. Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.
Roberts's (2006?) hitjob on Miller's MMX says that the error bars would have to be drawn off the page (a lie).Shankland's 1955 hitjon says the fringeshifts were caused by temperature (a lie).
The scientific method should not include lieing & fudging & ignorance, but thems are the key factor for Einsteinism.
I karnt remember. It might be found in a listing of Einstein's wordages. It is the only way to try to overcome the twins paradox (apart from philosophical arguments). Clearly average acceleration doesnt work, so Einstein nominated that it is not the average accel, ie that a clock's future ticking was affected by its history. If u ever find the wordage then tell me.
Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.
QuoteHave a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised: The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of spaceFirstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review.
Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised: The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space
Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.
You sure do like the "turning in his grave" line.
Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?
The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating.
The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating. If you are confident of yourself, why do you need to create a separate section for new theories? No offence to this forum of course, I am just talking in general.
In philosophy it was the same window dressing, not with math, but with new words ......, to express something very simple.
- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits. - The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.