0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But LIGO employed a good artist to draw their chirps.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 03:53:32But LIGO employed a good artist to draw their chirps. The artist only produced an "illustrative" version of the signal. They did not invent the original signal that was actually detected. I will agree that LIGO is at fault for not being clear about this from the beginning, but that is a long way off from being evidence of a conspiracy.
The Germans were correct. One German was wrong.
Yes. But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration
Quote from: mad aetherist on 02/02/2019 21:03:30The Germans were correct. One German was wrong.At the time, Germany didn't think so. (As I said, they kept trying to build a bomb that was only possible if he was right). So, how come, in spite of all the political pressure to say "Einstein was wrong", did German scientists keep on using his theory?
Quote from: ParadigmerI have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of accelerationA clock does have a memory - the time now is 1 second more than it was 1 second ago (in the frame of reference of that clock).If you subject a clock to varying acceleration, various gravitational fields and various velocities, then these changes will have an impact on the speed at which this clock runs (from the viewpoint of an external observer). So the clock integrates the cumulative effect of all these effects over the operational lifetime of the clock. So a clock does have a history of it's acceleration (and velocity, and depth in gravitational fields).
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 06:54:35Yes. But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.No Because there were plenty of ballsy German scientists in 1939 to 45.
No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 06:54:35Yes. But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like you are nudging slightly towards begging the question again. One has to assume that there is a conspiracy in the first place in order to propose that someone could come forth and reveal it.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 10:53:30No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that.Actually, it's been tested to an accuracy of four-tenths of one part in one million. But knowing you, you'll probably claim that the results of that measurement were hoaxed: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2 http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2 https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a
And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that.....
Its like this, if u annihilate.....(a) Atoms -- u get electrons & protons & neutrons (with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.(b) Protons & Neutrons -- u get elementary particles (electron quark etc)(with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.(c) Elementary particles (confined photons) -- u get free photons (& no other energy).(d) Free Photons -- u will get a Nobel, because u will be the first.(e) Aethons – u get Praethons (Aether is an excitation of Praether)(Aethons are a sub-quantum process not a thing).(f) Praethons – this cant be done, Praethons are the fundamental essence (& are sub-quantum)(& are things).Therefore the complete annihilation of ordinary mass in (c) gives zero energy, unless u count photons as having energy (photonic energy), in which case u might say gives zero kinetic energy.There is no complete annihilation of all mass, because free photons have mass, & (d) says that free photons cant be annihilated. Ranzan prefers to say that free photons have mass equivalence, but my criteria for having mass is that if it annihilates aether then it has mass (& free photons do annihilate aether), but for sure free photons do not have ordinary mass, ie the same kind of mass possessed by elementary particles. Free photons are not ordinary particles, only ordinary particles can have kinetic energy (ke=mvv/2). Free photons dont move at c they propagate at c. There is no mass or energy in the sub-quantum world of Aether & Praether.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 22:51:02And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that.....Given that the value of the speed of light, the mass of the neutron and the masses of the sulfur and silicon isotopes have been measured to high accuracy, that's not a problem.Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 22:51:02Its like this, if u annihilate.....(a) Atoms -- u get electrons & protons & neutrons (with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.(b) Protons & Neutrons -- u get elementary particles (electron quark etc)(with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.(c) Elementary particles (confined photons) -- u get free photons (& no other energy).(d) Free Photons -- u will get a Nobel, because u will be the first.(e) Aethons – u get Praethons (Aether is an excitation of Praether)(Aethons are a sub-quantum process not a thing).(f) Praethons – this cant be done, Praethons are the fundamental essence (& are sub-quantum)(& are things).Therefore the complete annihilation of ordinary mass in (c) gives zero energy, unless u count photons as having energy (photonic energy), in which case u might say gives zero kinetic energy.There is no complete annihilation of all mass, because free photons have mass, & (d) says that free photons cant be annihilated. Ranzan prefers to say that free photons have mass equivalence, but my criteria for having mass is that if it annihilates aether then it has mass (& free photons do annihilate aether), but for sure free photons do not have ordinary mass, ie the same kind of mass possessed by elementary particles. Free photons are not ordinary particles, only ordinary particles can have kinetic energy (ke=mvv/2). Free photons dont move at c they propagate at c. There is no mass or energy in the sub-quantum world of Aether & Praether.Your untested hypothesis is not a refutation of anything. Get back to us when aethons and praethons have been detected.
Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887. U can google. And say 30 times using say 10 different techniques since. The best being i think Demjanov's twin media MMX in 1970.
That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested. And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.
How is your search for the fabric of spacetime going? It must have a hole or tear in it by now, all of that bending & unbending. But it makes sense that the fabric is itself made of something, Rayon mightbe, Nylon, Teflon, Cotton. A Woolen blend.
But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.
My reality was invented to describe & explain what we now know, therefore what we now know is the proof of my reality. Our current knowledge is the proof.
Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.
Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.
No there are say four categories of untestable. (1) Where we dont know of any current test, & cant think of any possible test. (2) Where we dont know of any current test, but can think of a possible future test. (3) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we cant think of any possible way of making it sensitive enuff. (4) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we can think of a possible way of making it sensitive enuff.
It seems to me that a long time ago Madus Aethus posited that all things were made of indivisible atoms much too small to be seen, & some guys called Kryptidus & Poppus effectively put him down by saying that that theory was not testable & therefore not scientific. Well well well.So because of the censoring of the concept of atoms, it took 2000 years before atoms were shown to exist. And along came Krytid who tried to hold science back for another 2000 years.
No i supported it.
Yes.
I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do.
I doubt that i said that it might not be possible to detect photaenos.
What competing explanatory ideas?
There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation
But aether is proven ok.
Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).
Tell u what, how about after u come up with a test that proves the existence of photons & then i will have a good go at a special test for photaenos.
And i explained to u that a very good scientific idea can be untestable at the time, but it nonetheless is scientific, & true, & later tested to be true.
Praps if i place my photaenos inside some sort of thort-X involving twin lightning flashes or involving a ray crossing a spacious chest then that u would make u happy.
f their measurement was ok to 1 part in 50 billion then that might support that E=mcc/2 (which is closer to the truth).
Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887.