Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: sim on 30/01/2019 21:14:44
-
There is no scientific method We keep hearing that what makes science science is the "scientific method"
but
There is no scientific method
x rays where discovered serendipity
penicillin was discovered serendipity
the micro wave was discovered serendipity
radioactivity was discovered serendipity
Einsteins cosmological constant ad hoc
Maxwell's displacement constant ad hoc
Go read Feyerabend "Against method" where he shows science is anarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method)
Against method
Feyerabend summarises his reductios with the phrase "anything goes". This is his sarcastic imitation of "the terrified reaction of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history
Go read Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)
the Structure of Scientific Revolutions introduced a realistic humanism into the core of science, while for others the nobility of science was tarnished by Kuhn's introduction of an irrational element into the heart of its greatest achievements
.
And read
Scientific method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)
these debates clearly show that there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes the "scientific method".[93]
-
What would you advocate instead?
-
There is no scientific method -- We keep hearing that what makes science science is the "scientific method" but --There is no scientific method
Yes, we are in an Einsteinian Dark Age, & science is controlled by an aether denying Mafia, especially in theusofa.
For 1500 years it was the Papal Dark Age. We could have walked on the Moon in 969 AD.
But times they are a'changin.
I probly dont have time to buy & read thems books.
The scientific method is allowed to exist in areas where it might not hurt, eg art & stamp collecting.
Nowadays big money hurts science, especially in theusofa.
And politics, especially in theusofa.
And Christians, especially in theusofa.
-
What would you advocate instead?
-
What would you advocate instead?
Scientific method.
But that is problematic. Lets say that theusofa was controlled by the mafia & religion & ceo's. Then u would ask what would i advocate instead. And i answer law & order & civil rights & the constitution & free speech & democracy & get big money out of politics. The problem is how do u do that.
So how do u get scientific method back into science. The mafia control the universities the societies the money the magazines the prizes. It is a cult (Einsteinology) that censors & fires scientists & bullies & threatens.
And this cult will lose face when the truth comes out (that SR & GR are fake, & aether exists)(that the BB is krapp)(that GWs are krapp)(the accelerating expanding universe is krapp)(etc etc etc).
The answer probly lies in China. They have a superior system, & will not lose face when Einsteinology falls.
-
There is no scientific method.... XXX were discovered serendipity
Chance favors only the prepared mind.
- x rays were discovered by Roentgen, as part of his scientific experimentation on vacuum tubes
- penicillin was discovered by Fleming in his scientific studies of bacteria
- the micro wave (oven) was discovered by Spencer in his engineering work with radar transmitters
radioactivity was discovered by Becquerel due to his scientific interest in geology and photography
- Relativity was discovered by Einstein due to his scientific interest in what would happen if his tram travelled (a lot) faster
- Electromagnetic waves were discovered by Maxwell due to his mathematical interest in unifying scientific discoveries by Faraday, Ampere and others.
Science, mathematics and engineering prefer:
- data over opinion
- objectivity over subjectivity
- quantitative over qualitative
- repeatable results over random results
- knowledge over ignorance
As Bored Chemist asked, what alternative are you proposing?
- Which of the above preferences would you reverse?
Oops! crossover with mad aetherist...
-
The scientific method is
Observe
Hypothesise
Test
Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have survived testing.
It has nothing to do with how why when or by whom the initial observation was made.
Literary criticism has been dismissed as "reams of bad English written about a few lines of good English". I wish I could come up with an equally succinct dismissal of the philosophers of science.
-
There is no scientific method.... XXX were discovered serendipity
Chance favors only the prepared mind.
- x rays were discovered by Roentgen, as part of his scientific experimentation on vacuum tubes
- penicillin was discovered by Fleming in his scientific studies of bacteria
- the micro wave (oven) was discovered by Spencer in his engineering work with radar transmitters
radioactivity was discovered by Becquerel due to his scientific interest in geology and photography
- Relativity was discovered by Einstein due to his scientific interest in what would happen if his tram travelled (a lot) faster
- Electromagnetic waves were discovered by Maxwell due to his mathematical interest in unifying scientific discoveries by Faraday, Ampere and others.
Science, mathematics and engineering prefer:
- data over opinion
- objectivity over subjectivity
- quantitative over qualitative
- repeatable results over random results
- education over ignorance
As Bored Chemist asked, what alternative are you proposing?
- Which of the above preferences would you reverse?
Oops! crossover with mad aetherist...
I believe that we should have all of thems.
It can all be boiled down one thing, the lie that the MMX was null. This was partly Michelson's fault for his krappy write-up where he mis-used the word null whilst his results were not null. Thusly all of Einstein's SR is krapp. In which case all of GR is krapp. In which case any accord with measurement or experiment is obviously a lucky equivalence (except for the 43 arcsec per century, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).
What we have is an aether. As proven by every gas mode MMX, & lots of other kinds of experiments.
Unfortunately or fortunately the Einsteinian Dark Age that we are presently in has no major dollar effects. We can still make lots of tech stuff despite the flaws in the science. It is mostly a case of teaching krapp to skoolkids who in their turn teach that krapp to skoolkids etc, a happy little cycle, & no-one is badly hurt (except for the few scientists who have the balls to speak out). Just a few billion dollars going to waste here & there. Lots of fake heroes, no great harm done.
Ending the Dark Age wont necessarily lead to major new inventions etc. But there are likely to be lots of little improvements.
One area that is lagging concerns observations made by Ivor Catt, showing that amps & volts are fake. What we need is a better theory for current & for em radiation. As usual this will involve aether.
-
The scientific method is
Observe
Hypothesise
Test
Scientific knowledge is the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have survived testing.
It has nothing to do with how why when or by whom the initial observation was made.
Literary criticism has been dismissed as "reams of bad English written about a few lines of good English". I wish I could come up with an equally succinct dismissal of the philosophers of science.
Wrong. Scientific knowledge is what u protect till death, at which time the truth might have a chance, but nowadays death doesnt help, the mafia are in charge.
-
, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).
IMO, on intellectual gun points by the Einsteinian mafia, Einstein was merely the figurehead of the Einsteinian Dark Age.
-
, that was simply a case of fraud by Einstein working backwards towards a known number, & making his nonsense equations appear good).
IMO, on intellectual gun points by the Einsteinian mafia, Einstein was merely the figurehead of the Einsteinian Dark Age.
The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god. The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth. But this makes it worse for themselves down the road. But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.
In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter. For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn.
The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science. If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change. The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently. But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know.
Its a bit like arguing whether God created us. Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs. The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.
-
The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god. The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth. But this makes it worse for themselves down the road. But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter. For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn. The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science. If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change. The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently. But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know. Its a bit like arguing whether God created us. Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs. The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.
Indeed. So, you can't really blame the Einsteinian mafia on its modern physics religion that tailors for pragmatic theories of truth.
“The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.” - Richard Fenyman
Einstein did had many significant discoveries, one example is on the photoelectric effect, which is instrumental for solar cell developments.
BTW, he did not win the N prize for SR or GR. He should be recognized for the geodesic effect for his SR paper, but unfortunately this was hijacked and adulterated by the Einsteinian mafia to promote their religion of science.
-
The mafia have a problem. They cant afford to admit that SR & GR are complete krapp, & that Einstein is a false god. The easy thing is to deny & censor & hide the truth. But this makes it worse for themselves down the road. But they hope that something will come up & somehow cushion their fall, or in any case they themselves will have died so it will embarrass someone else.In a way this bizness is merely a sideshow. Its a bit like watching Islamology & Jewology fighting it out, the winner doesnt matter, they all disappear into their churches once a week, & it doesnt matter which building they enter. For most of the week they are doing something productive like growing corn. The Einstein question represents say 1% of 1% of 1% of science. If we all agreed that aether exists & that SR & GR are krapp then nothing much would change. The large colliders would not be designed differently, the fusion gizmos would not be designed differently. But praps Einsteinology is holding some important discovery or invention back. We dont know. Its a bit like arguing whether God created us. Or whether Noah's flood killed the dinosaurs. The argument is almost superficial, there might not be much harm done. Or, it could destroy the planet.
Indeed. So, you can't really blame the Einsteinian mafia on its modern physics religion that tailors for pragmatic theories of truth.
“The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.” - Richard Fenyman
Einstein did had many significant discoveries, one example is on the photoelectric effect, which is instrumental for solar cell developments.
BTW, he did not win the N prize for SR or GR. He should be recognized for the geodesic effect for his SR paper, but unfortunately this was hijacked and adulterated by the Einsteinian mafia to promote their religion of science.
Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect. Pretty much all of that was already known.
I dont know what the geodesic effect is. Praps it refers to the Minkowski. Anyhow there is nothing of any value in SR.
Which reminds me that it was Minkowski that made Einstein famous, a bit like Paul making Christ famous -- no Minkowski then no Einstein, no Paul then no Christ.
The Einstein mafia have made Einsteinology compulsory for skoolkids. But truth will prevail.
-
Go read Kuhn The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
This is a book any man of science should read and correctly understand.
The contemporary scientific method is meant for pragmatic theory of truth, and it has significance for its technological accomplishments. It could weed out pseudoscience for example, this is despite it fails on epistemic theory of truth for its theory of justification.
I have a piece on "Critiques of the scientific method (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)" you might be interested
p.s. scroll up a bit to find the topic if somehow it did not show the right topic.
-
Go read Kuhn The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
This is a book any man of science should read and correctly understand.
The contemporary scientific method is meant for pragmatic theory of truth, and it has significance for its technological accomplishments. It could weed out pseudoscience for example, this is despite it fails on epistemic theory of truth for its theory of justification.
I have a piece on "Critiques of the scientific method (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)" you might be interested
p.s. scroll up a bit to find the topic if somehow it did not show the right topic.
I will have a read of that & that.
The twins contradiction kills SR. Nothing more needed.
-
Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect. Pretty much all of that was already known. I dont know what the geodesic effect is. Praps it refers to the Minkowski. Anyhow there is nothing of any value in SR.Which reminds me that it was Minkowski that made Einstein famous, a bit like Paul making Christ famous -- no Minkowski then no Einstein, no Paul then no Christ.The Einstein mafia have made Einsteinology compulsory for skoolkids. But truth will prevail.
Simply put, geodesic effect describes the inertia accelerations of an orbiting object.
Am googling on "Einstein plagiarized the photo electric effect". Please provide your sources.
Yes, truth will prevail.
The twins contradiction kills SR. Nothing more needed.
The twins contradiction merely kills the Einsteinian SR.
-
Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect.
Found this:
http://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165
Philipp Lenard and Einstein ever worked cordially initially. Their later fallouts was in personality, which spiral out of control. I still didn't find anything on Einstein plagiarized others work on photoelectric effect.
In the backdrop of WW1, it was not the fault of Einstein when the scientific community at then surpressed Nazi physics.
-
Einstein plagiarized even the photo electric effect.
Found this:
http://theconversation.com/when-science-gets-ugly-the-story-of-philipp-lenard-and-albert-einstein-43165
Philipp Lenard and Einstein ever worked cordially initially. Their later fallouts was in personality, which spiral out of control. I still didn't find anything on Einstein plagiarized others work on photoelectric effect.
In the backdrop of WW1, it was not the fault of Einstein when the scientific community at then surpressed Nazi physics.
I did find this.
Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?
No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know! He is probably best known for his "oil drop" experiment, but he also made a vital contribution to photoelectric theory. His experiments confirming that Nature really does seem to obey the law that Einstein had predicted in 1905 are still taken as definitive. In his main paper on the subject, (Millikan, R A, "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's 'h'", Physical Review 7, 355-388, 1916) he says in the introduction:
It was in 1905 that Einstein made the first coupling of photo effects and with any form of quantum theory by bringing forward the bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis of an electro-magnetic light corpuscle of energy h?, which energy was transferred upon absorption to an electron. This hypothesis may well be called reckless, first because an electromagnetic disturbance which remains localised in space seems a violation of the very conception of an electromagnetic disturbance, and second because it flies in the face of the thoroughly established facts of interference. [My emphasis]
Millikan's concluding discussion includes fascinating ideas about what really happens, some sounding remarkably similar to my own [see my faq file]! He repeats several times his vehement objection to the idea of localised packets of light. For example:
... if the equation be of general validity, then it must certainly be regarded as one of the most fundamental and far reaching of the equations of physics; for it must govern the transformation of all short-wave-length electromagnetic energy into heat energy. Yet the semi-corpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present to be wholly untenable . . .
Finally, he says that a modification of Planck's latest idea [in which light is not in packets of h? but of nh?, where n is any integer]
"... seems to me able to account for all the relations thus far known between corpuscular and ethereal radiations É If any particular frequency is incident upon [a substance containing oscillators of every conceivable frequency] the oscillators in it which are in tune with the impressed waves may be assumed to absorb the incident waves until the energy content as reached a critical value when an explosion occurs and a corpuscle is shot out with an energy h? ...
It is to be hoped that such a theory will soon be shown to be also reconcilable with the facts of black body radiation. "...
-
No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know!
That dispute does not amount to Einstein had plagiarized others on photoelectric effect.
-
THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL'S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO
BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that
Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments. In this same plagiarized
article of Einstein's, he suggested to the scientific community, "Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory
using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium)." This remark
demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying
this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles and that he was writing about a
topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment
"lies beyond the realm of possible experience." The last subject dealt with in Einstein's 1905 papers was the
foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect
is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is
particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922
Nobel Prize.
But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE
THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is
emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The
photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard,
worked on understanding this phenomenon.
Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not
governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.
Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max
Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite
units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein
limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy light energy. But the principles and equations
governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the
obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in
this paper of Einstein's was original.
After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein
continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position
at a school . Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With
Einstein's academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people's
work as his own more openly.
He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways
to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit. In this
vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed
calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of
Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.
-
The twins contradiction merely kills the Einsteinian SR.
Yes but the Einsteinian SR or STR is the only SR or STR out there. There are other relativities, in particular the Lorentz relativity.
Actually there are say 25 STRs out there, because Einstein changed his tune so often, only stopping when he died in 1955. I daresay that the inscription on his headstone was plagiarised.
-
Yes but the Einsteinian SR or STR is the only SR or STR out there.
No, the contemporary Einstein relativity that proposed the twin paradox, is not the original Einstein's relativity. It was not the fault of Einstein those mafia did not award the prize to the rightful originators.
And as a matter of fact, if Einstein had not intervened, the Bose-Einstein condensate would have been plagiarized, if not buried.
Science has been politicised and underseiged since its inception.
Sun Yat Sen is the figurehead of a communist country. Many hardcore comminists of course would not qualify him as an advocator of communism. Its not his fault he was made the communist figurehead.
-
Yes but the Einsteinian SR or STR is the only SR or STR out there.
No, the contemporary Einstein relativity that proposed the twin paradox, is not the original Einstein's relativity. It was not the fault of Einstein those mafia did not award the prize to the rightful originators.
And as a matter of fact, if Einstein had not intervened, the Bose-Einstein condensate would have been plagiarized, if not buried.
Science has been politicised and underseiged since its inception.
But Einstein was heavily involved in the twins contradiction, he even proposed the silliest excuses.
-
But Einstein was heavily involved in the twins contradiction, he even proposed the silliest excuses.
Einstein debunked the twins paradox with geodesic motion, which the postulated inertia accelerated, is the equivalent principle of GR.
-
But Einstein was heavily involved in the twins contradiction, he even proposed the silliest excuses.
Einstein debunked the twins paradox with geodesic motion, which the postulated inertia accelerated, is the equivalent principle of GR.
I recall that Einstein's excuse involved the concept that a clock had a memory of its history of acceleration.
-
I recall that Einstein's excuse involved the concept that a clock had a memory of its history of acceleration.
Could not find anything on what you had mentioned.
Nonetheless, it is a fact that the universe has a memory of its history for any past event, which is recorded in the time dilated image that could be perceived on different timeline. Berserk as it may be, it is a fact that this is possible.
Let just say, an advance civilization located 65 million year away from Earth, with its super capability telescope, people there can observe what wiped out the dinosaurs here.
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration; information from radioactive decay is insufficient to record complex variations of historical acceleration. Update me if you find the link.
-
I have a explanation why people are so keen to dismiss GR and SR , while on an engineering course at Siemens Hell in Kiel I quoted Einstein to the "ex" Nazi instructor his reply "but he was a Jew"l
-
I have a explanation why people are so keen to dismiss GR and SR , while on an engineering at Siemens Hell in Kiel I quoted Einstein to the "ex" Nazi instructor his reply "but he was a Jew"l
Awkward...
But it does raise an interesting point.
There was a conference where a bunch of nazi scientists (I use the term loosely) under the direction of their government all pointed out "problems" with Einstein's theories.
He was asked what he thought about such a powerful and prestigious group attacking his ideas.
His response was that, if they were actually correct, then a single undergraduate student pointing it out would be all that was needed.
So, we had a situation where the political forces went the other way- the nazi government was determined to undermine Einstein and his ideas.
Great blessings of a powerful elite would rain down on anyone who could do it.
And yet, the Germans continued to try to build an atom bomb that could only work if he was correct.
So the idea that Einstein's theories are only supported by a political conspiracy is nonsense.
We know that when a political conspiracy tried to oppose them, it failed.
All that stuff about
"owadays big money hurts science, especially in theusofa.
And politics, especially in theusofa.
And Christians, especially in theusofa.
is nonsense.
-
And this cult will lose face when the truth comes out (that SR & GR are fake, & aether exists)(that the BB is krapp)(that GWs are krapp)(the accelerating expanding universe is krapp)(etc etc etc).
You mentioned Prof Reg Cahill and his link to GW with assertions in another thread, so for a while I thought you agreed with the global warming science. Am glad you know that the GW science is crap, for it has absolutely flopped for its application of the contemporary scientific method, which is another crap when it comes to actuality.
Reality check by nature on the GW propositions, is underway.
Or have I mistaken your GW mentioned here, actually refers to gravitational wave?
Just read Prof Reg Cahill actually mentioned Earth climate is cooling, and IMO he was correct.
-
Prof Reg Cahill actually mentioned Earth climate is cooling, and IMO he was correct.
It's not a matter of opinion, is it?
Either it's cooling or it isn't.
And the evidence says it's warming
-
And this cult will lose face when the truth comes out (that SR & GR are fake, & aether exists)(that the BB is krapp)(that GWs are krapp)(the accelerating expanding universe is krapp)(etc etc etc).
You mentioned Prof Reg Cahill and his link to GW with assertions in another thread, so for a while I thought you agreed with the global warming science. Am glad you know that the GW science is crap, for it has absolutely flopped for its application of the contemporary scientific method, which is another crap when it comes to actuality.
Reality check by nature on the GW propositions, is underway. Or have I mistaken your GW mentioned here, actually refers to gravitational wave? Just read Prof Reg Cahill actually mentioned Earth climate is cooling, and IMO he was correct.
I realized later that the initials GW can mean global warming, however i did say GWs which infers that i meant gravity waves. Re global warming i believe that it is mainly man-made global warming. The question is not whether MMGW is real, u & everyone else should be krapping your pants that it might be real. All of the needed remedies are worthy in their own right -- renewable energy -- population control etc etc.
Cahill reckoned that we were entering or in a 30 yr cooling period, based i think on zener diode history or solar flare history or something. This makes the MMGW problem worse, because if Cahill is correct then it means that cooling is presently masking the warming, & that when the cool period ends the warming will go ballistic.
The science for MMGW is ok. However from my readings years ago i found that scientists had lied twice re MMGW. One Indian arsehole exaggerated re the melting of glaciers -- however recently it has been found that glaciers are indeed melting quickly -- but nonetheless he had lied. Another scientist resigned because he reckoned that the computer predictions for north Atlantic hurricanes were overblown -- & they were -- however we now find that north Atlantic hurricanes are accelerating -- but thems scientists had lied nonetheless.
And the lieing by Einsteinologists & their LIGO krapp re GWs can only make things more difficult for the credibility of the very important science of MMGW. A part of me is afraid that when the Einsteinian lies are revealed that the important science of MMGW will be more easily brushed aside. There is no Plan B, there is no Planet B.
-
And the lieing by Einsteinologists & their LIGO krapp
Still going on about that LIGO conspiracy, eh?
-
I have a explanation why people are so keen to dismiss GR and SR , while on an engineering at Siemens Hell in Kiel I quoted Einstein to the "ex" Nazi instructor his reply "but he was a Jew"l
Awkward...But it does raise an interesting point.
There was a conference where a bunch of nazi scientists (I use the term loosely) under the direction of their government all pointed out "problems" with Einstein's theories. He was asked what he thought about such a powerful and prestigious group attacking his ideas. His response was that, if they were actually correct, then a single undergraduate student pointing it out would be all that was needed.
So, we had a situation where the political forces went the other way- the nazi government was determined to undermine Einstein and his ideas. Great blessings of a powerful elite would rain down on anyone who could do it.
And yet, the Germans continued to try to build an atom bomb that could only work if he was correct. So the idea that Einstein's theories are only supported by a political conspiracy is nonsense. We know that when a political conspiracy tried to oppose them, it failed.
The Germans were correct. One German was wrong. The funny thing about the whole saga is not that non-Jews ganged up to oppose a Jew, it was that Jews ganged up to support a Jew (cant u see that?). But the main opposition to Einstein came from non-Jews, eg Lorentz Poincare etc etc, & everyone in England. At the same time Michelson a Polish Jew was the leader of the opposition. Silberstein a German Jew who supported SR & GR in the early days (probly No2 to Einstein) had by 1930 changed camps.
In any case SR & GR are not Jewish. Einstein's wife Mileva invented most of that (the silly bits), & she wasnt Jewish. And all of the good (non-silly) bits were plagiarised from non-Jews. So SR & GR is not Jewish.
However the Einsteins had managed to invent a theory that created a new classification of theories, this classification is theories that are proven wrong before they are invented. Up till then we only had the classification of theories that are proven wrong after they are invented. Its a bit like a Two Ronnies Sketch. I can see Ronnie Barker now, announcing to little Ronnie -- U have selected for your topic theories that have been proven wrong before they were invented, u have 60 seconds & your time starts now......
Little Ronnie -- Yes. Big Ronnie -- Wrong -- u did not have 60 seconds, because we could not synchronize the studio clock with the BBC clock. All that stuff about "Nowadays big money hurts science, especially in theusofa.
And politics, especially in theusofa.
And Christians, especially in theusofa.
is nonsense.
Are u saying that big money & politics & Christians are not hurting science, or are u saying that it aint especially in theusofa. Either way that doesnt even need an answer from me.
-
And the lieing by Einsteinologists & their LIGO krapp
Still going on about that LIGO conspiracy, eh?
I think that there must be a conspiracy surrounding LIGO & Co, ie not just inside LIGO. It will be interesting to see how the GW stuff develops. They already got their Nobel.
-
I think that there must be a conspiracy surrounding LIGO & Co, ie not just inside LIGO.
What evidence do you have for such a conspiracy?
-
I think that there must be a conspiracy surrounding LIGO & Co, ie not just inside LIGO.
What evidence do you have for such a conspiracy?
The evidence of a conspiracy inside LIGO is in the results, ie they have some.
The evidence of a conspiracy reaching outside LIGO is in the agreement of results. I think that this shows collusion. If the collusion is good then it is collusion. If it is sinister then it is conspiracy.
The difference tween LIGO & TRUMP is that TRUMP has elections. And has anyone seen LIGO's tax returns or birth certificate?
-
The evidence of a conspiracy inside LIGO is in the results, ie they have some.
The evidence of a conspiracy reaching outside LIGO is in the agreement of results. I think that this shows collusion.
You're going to have to explain how this is evidence of a conspiracy. I don't see how that follows.
And please, please don't respond with something ridiculous along the lines of, "since relativity is wrong, any positive results that LIGO, VIRGO or other gravitational wave detectors obtained must have been put there by a conspiracy," because that would be one of the worst cases of the "begging the question" fallacy I have ever seen: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question
-
The evidence of a conspiracy inside LIGO is in the results, ie they have some. The evidence of a conspiracy reaching outside LIGO is in the agreement of results. I think that this shows collusion.
You're going to have to explain how this is evidence of a conspiracy. I don't see how that follows.
And please, please don't respond with something ridiculous along the lines of, "since relativity is wrong, any positive results that LIGO, VIRGO or other gravitational wave detectors obtained must have been put there by a conspiracy," because that would be one of the worst cases of the "begging the question" fallacy I have ever seen: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question
Yes but if the winner of a cockfight quacks & lays an egg, & if u found out that LIGO bet $1 billion on the winner, then i call that evidence.
-
Yes but if the winner of a cockfight quacks & lays an egg, & if u found out that LIGO bet $1 billion on the winner, then i call that evidence.
I don't know what a cockfight has to do with anything. Can you rephrase that in plain English?
-
Yes but if the winner of a cockfight quacks & lays an egg, & if u found out that LIGO bet $1 billion on the winner, then i call that evidence.
I don't know what a cockfight has to do with anything. Can you rephrase that in plain English?
I was alluding to Pres Reagan's joke re the Pole bringing a duck to the cockfight & the duck winning, u must be too young.
http://kentmitchellsramblings.blogspot.com/2010/09/president-ronald-reagans-polish-italian.html
But LIGO employed a good artist to draw their chirps. Praps their artist colluded with other's artists. Anyhow time will tell. All it needs is one disgruntled scientist to write a book.
-
But 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.
-
But 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.
Yes. But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.
-
The 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?
-
Yes. 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.
-
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration
A 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).
-
The 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?
(1) They didnt try to build an A bomb. (2) It wasnt his theory. (3) He wasnt right. In other words he didnt say that E=mcc. (4) He wasnt right. No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that. (5) No one ever used that theory.
And Einstein is the guy who said that fission would never be used for power generation.
-
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration
A 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).
Yes -- but Einstein said that a clock remembers its acceleration history & that that history affects its ticking at a later time.
-
Yes. 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 i meant a scientist in the inner circle at LIGO. Alltho it wouldnt surprise me if they had a 100 yr old Nazi on their team.
-
Are you deliberately ignoring the point because you can't address it?
-
Yes. 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.
No 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
-
Yes. 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.
Yes.No 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
I see that they have to measure the mass of rotating ions to 1 part in 100 billion to get an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million in their E=mcc tests. And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that..... . If their measurement was ok to 1 part in 50 billion then that might support that E=mcc/2 (which is closer to the truth).
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.
Einstein never said that E=mcc. He said that the absorption-emmission of a photon changes the mass of the absorber-emmitter, in accordance with delta E = delta m cc. U will find papers about this argument, which is still ongoing.
-
And 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.
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.
Your untested hypothesis is not a refutation of anything. Get back to us when aethons and praethons have been detected.
-
And 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.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.
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? The weft is time dilation & the weave is length contraction, dyed with the color of the constant speed of light. U would soon recognize it if u saw it. But it must have some holes & tears by now, all of that bending & unbending.
-
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.
I wasn't talking about the standard aether model, I was talking about your model where photons contain photaenos, aether "centrifuges" and all of that other stuff you post about.
That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested. And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.
If they aren't testable then the idea isn't scientific.
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.
Are you using the equivocation fallacy now?
-
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.
I wasn't talking about the standard aether model, I was talking about your model where photons contain photaenos, aether "centrifuges" and all of that other stuff you post about.
Ok fair enuff. 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. All of that is an excellent start. I have shown the way, its up to others to do more tests & get Nobels.That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested. And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.
If they aren't testable then the idea isn't scientific.
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. 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.
Are you using the equivocation fallacy now?
No certainly knot. But nowadays Einstein would not get away with that. The EEU has strict guidelines on the labeling of fabric.
-
But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.
Unsupported claim.
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.
By that reasoning, since caloric and phlogiston were invented to describe and explain what was known at the time about heat and combustion, what they knew about heat and combustion was proof of their existence.
Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.
(1) Last I heard, that result had not been consistently replicated by those attempting to duplicate the research. Whether or not that was even a real phenomenon has yet to be conclusively determined.
(2) Even if it is a real phenomenon, no experiments have been done that demonstrate aether has anything to do with it.
Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.
Caloric and phlogiston helped explain heat and combustion respectively, but both turned out to be non-existent. You need an experiment that can detect your photaenos (or, at the very least, some kind of test that can indirectly and unambiguously reveal their existence against competing explanatory ideas). Since such a thing has yet to be done, your photaenos remain at the hypothesis level (or just the "conjecture" level, since you said earlier that it might not even be possible to detect them).
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.
Then I will amend my earlier statement slightly: it won't be scientific unless a way to test it is discovered. So, as of now, it isn't scientific.
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.
False analogy. Explaining to you why an untestable idea is not scientific is not censorship.
-
But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.
Unsupported claim. No i supported it.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.
By that reasoning, since caloric and phlogiston were invented to describe and explain what was known at the time about heat and combustion, what they knew about heat and combustion was proof of their existence. Yes.Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.
(1) Last I heard, that result had not been consistently replicated by those attempting to duplicate the research. Whether or not that was even a real phenomenon has yet to be conclusively determined. (2) Even if it is a real phenomenon, no experiments have been done that demonstrate aether has anything to do with it.
I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do. Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.
Caloric and phlogiston helped explain heat and combustion respectively, but both turned out to be non-existent. You need an experiment that can detect your photaenos (or, at the very least, some kind of test that can indirectly and unambiguously reveal their existence against competing explanatory ideas). Since such a thing has yet to be done, your photaenos remain at the hypothesis level (or just the "conjecture" level, since you said earlier that it might not even be possible to detect them).
I doubt that i said that it might not be possible to detect photaenos. I am happy for photaenos to turn out to be non-existent. What competing explanatory ideas? There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation, & my photaenos can accommodate that. I am happy with hypothesis & conjecture. At present it has to compete with photons are em waves & em radiation is photons.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.
Then I will amend my earlier statement slightly: it won't be scientific unless a way to test it is discovered. So, as of now, it isn't scientific.
I forget what we are talking about. But aether is proven ok. Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether). Photaenos are a problem, there might be a special test of some sort to test some sort of prediction. 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.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.
False analogy. Explaining to you why an untestable idea is not scientific is not censorship.
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.
-
No i supported it.
Then give me a link to peer-reviewed articles where aethons, praethons, photaenos and aether centrifuging were experimentally detected.
Yes.
So you don't understand thermodynamics either, then...
I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do.
Then there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of what you call centrifuging aether.
I doubt that i said that it might not be possible to detect photaenos.
Perhaps. I probably mixed that up with when you said aethons and praethons were probably undetectable.
What competing explanatory ideas?
Quantum mechanics and relativity.
There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation
According to what peer-reviewed studies?
But aether is proven ok.
Not according to the majority of the scientists with the tools and expertise necessary to test for its existence (cue "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).
Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).
How could he have possibly proven centrifuging of aether when we don't even have proof that his results are a real effect? On top of that, who ever proved that the effect that he reported necessarily had anything at all to do with the 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.
I don't need to. Others already have: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf4
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.
It isn't science until a way to test it is figured out. Until then, it's conjecture. Also, just because the concept of atoms ultimately turned out to be correct doesn't mean that your idea is also correct.
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.
A thought experiment would be insufficient. An actual, physical experiment would be needed.
-
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).
Come off it.
You can't propose that the right answer is half of what everybody has measured, and expect to be taken seriously.
Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887.
That's not what they said they found...
-
No i supported it.
Then give me a link to peer-reviewed articles where aethons, praethons, photaenos and aether centrifuging were experimentally detected.
Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein. Yes.
So you don't understand thermodynamics either, then... So u dont understand 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.
Then there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of what you call centrifuging aether.
That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.What competing explanatory ideas?
Quantum mechanics and relativity.
Since when could anyone call quantum mechanics an explanatory idea. Likewise relativity.There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation
According to what peer-reviewed studies? Have a look at this thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75611.0But aether is proven ok.
Not according to the majority of the scientists with the tools and expertise necessary to test for its existence (cue "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...). Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).
How could he have possibly proven centrifuging of aether when we don't even have proof that his results are a real effect? On top of that, who ever proved that the effect that he reported necessarily had anything at all to do with the aether?
Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.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.
I don't need to. Others already have: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf4
That link didnt work for me. But it probly goes a little like this. (kryptid) Hey everyone great news we have used a new test & have proven that a photon exists to 3 decimal places better than the last test & we are confident of getting a Nobel. (Halc) Hooray, hooray, hooray. (Colin 2B) I will get the champaigne. (mad aetherist) What is a photon? (kryptid) We dont know.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.
It isn't science until a way to test it is figured out. Until then, it's conjecture. Also, just because the concept of atoms ultimately turned out to be correct doesn't mean that your idea is also correct.
Scientific conjecture is science. But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it? Fancy that, a nucleus with lots of electrons whizzing round & round it. Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom. Neither does Miles Mathis. He (& i) reckons that an atom is kind of molecular, made up of lots of alpha particles.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.
A thought experiment would be insufficient. An actual, physical experiment would be needed.
Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.
-
If their measurement was ok to 1 part in 50 billion then that might support that E=mcc/2 (which is closer to the truth).
Come off it. You can't propose that the right answer is half of what everybody has measured, and expect to be taken seriously.
No, Einstein proposed that the answer is double what everybody has measured, & was taken seriously. Just joking -- it wasnt Einstein (he stole the idea). But Einstein did propose 1.7 arcsec which was double the 0.83 arcsec that everybody else reckoned, & of course he was proven correct (albeit he postulated the wrong reasons). But why are u so allergic to mcc/2, because what everybody has measured doesnt come any closer than mcc/10. My mcc/2 is closer to mcc than it is to the measure of mcc/10. And the measure of mcc/10 is the largest measure, all of the others were a smaller fraction of mcc.Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887.
That's not what they said they found.
They found 6 kmps which Munera has shown (correcting their averaging) was 8 kmps which Cahill has shown (using a better calibration) was 200 kmps. Michelson was looking for 30 kmps for Earth orbiting throo a fixed aether & declared that a fixed aether didnt exist, which is correct. But u know all of that as well as i do.
-
The measured values are always near MC^2
Any other value is pretty much ruled out by experiment.
Why are you trying to ignore reality?
-
But u know all of that as well as i do.
I also know that more recent measurements have shown that we are not traveling through any ether at more than a slow walk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments
-
The measured values are always near MC^2. Any other value is pretty much ruled out by experiment. Why are you trying to ignore reality?
The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.
-
But u know all of that as well as i do.
I also know that more recent measurements have shown that we are not traveling through any ether at more than a slow walk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments
Modern MMX tests use vacuum, whereas an MMX needs gas (ie a dielectric).
Vacuum only gives 3rd order fringeshifts (for the aetherwind). This would be a slow walk i suppose.
A gas mode MMX gives 2nd order fringeshifts.
A twin-gas mode MMX (carbondisulphide & air) gives a 1st order fringeshift (Demjanov in 1970).
Unfortunately all of the modern tests using maser lasers etalons etc use vacuum. In any case i am suspicious of any tests using lasers etc because lasers are a kind of MMX in themselves, so u have an MMX inside an MMX.
-
Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein.
I can give you four of them, all published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905:
- On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light: https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/references/Einstein1905b.pdf
- On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c1d/91a9f0a37e578ee9a6605b224ad554ec6e86.pdf
- On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
- Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
So u dont understand yes.
I knew you were a science denialist, but I never thought it went so deep that you believe that caloric and phlogiston are real things. You need to look into molecular motion and redox chemistry.
That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.
An experiment with unverified results is insufficient. Otherwise, science would accept homeopathy because there are people who report that it works.
Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.
Regardless of whether it is badly needed or not, it hasn't been done yet and as such you can't point to Podkletnov's work as proof of any physical effect.
Have a look at this thread.
So that article was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Which one?
Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.
He was talking about particular forms of MMX that measure fringeshifts. The experiment that I am thinking of did not.
That link didnt work for me.
My mistake. I made a typo: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf
But it probly goes a little like this. (kryptid) Hey everyone great news we have used a new test & have proven that a photon exists to 3 decimal places better than the last test & we are confident of getting a Nobel. (Halc) Hooray, hooray, hooray. (Colin 2B) I will get the champaigne. (mad aetherist) What is a photon? (kryptid) We dont know.
No, not at all. We do know what photons are (light quanta), but even if we didn't know what they were, how you can use that to argue that we therefore don't know that they exist? Humans didn't know what the stars were for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we could clearly see that they existed. What I find more bizarre about this is that you claim that photons are made of photaenos and that neutrinos are made of photons, so denying their existence would break your model.
Scientific conjecture is science.
That is a self-evident statement. Of course scientific conjecture is science, but not all conjecture is scientific conjecture. If you're going to argue that a piece of conjecture is automatically scientific because we might find a way to test it in the future, then that would mean that every piece of conjecture ever thought of is scientific. I guess fairies are scientific because we might find a way to test for their existence in the future, huh?
But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it?
And you think that automatically means that your idea is correct, how?
Fancy that, a nucleus with lots of electrons whizzing round & round it. Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom. Neither does Miles Mathis. He (& i) reckons that an atom is kind of molecular, made up of lots of alpha particles.
If that was true, then scattering experiments would have detected multiple nuclei inside of atoms instead of just one.
Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.
And?
Since when could anyone call quantum mechanics an explanatory idea. Likewise relativity.
Pretty much since the beginning. Physicists sure do use them to great effect.
-
The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.
And the better experiments disagree with your memory.
Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.
Yet nobody noticed- which tells us that they can't be important.
-
Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein.
I can give you four of them, all published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905:
- On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light: https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/references/Einstein1905b.pdf
- On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c1d/91a9f0a37e578ee9a6605b224ad554ec6e86.pdf
- On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
- Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.
So u dont understand yes.
I knew you were a science denialist, but I never thought it went so deep that you believe that caloric and phlogiston are real things. You need to look into molecular motion and redox chemistry.
The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.
An experiment with unverified results is insufficient. Otherwise, science would accept homeopathy because there are people who report that it works.
I agree. The more verification the better. Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.
Regardless of whether it is badly needed or not, it hasn't been done yet and as such you can't point to Podkletnov's work as proof of any physical effect.
Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof. Praps not good proof. And DePalma found the same. Isnt that a verification?Have a look at this thread.
So that article was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Which one?
Here below is that posting with that link to Gasser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories.
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.
So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc?
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.
He was talking about particular forms of MMX that measure fringeshifts. The experiment that I am thinking of did not.
I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.
That link didnt work for me.
My mistake. I made a typo: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf
Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort. Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.
But it probly goes a little like this. (kryptid) Hey everyone great news we have used a new test & have proven that a photon exists to 3 decimal places better than the last test & we are confident of getting a Nobel. (Halc) Hooray, hooray, hooray. (Colin 2B) I will get the champagne. (mad aetherist) What is a photon? (kryptid) We dont know.
No, not at all. We do know what photons are (light quanta), but even if we didn't know what they were, how you can use that to argue that we therefore don't know that they exist? Humans didn't know what the stars were for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we could clearly see that they existed. What I find more bizarre about this is that you claim that photons are made of photaenos and that neutrinos are made of photons, so denying their existence would break your model.
Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.Scientific conjecture is science.
That is a self-evident statement. Of course scientific conjecture is science, but not all conjecture is scientific conjecture. If you're going to argue that a piece of conjecture is automatically scientific because we might find a way to test it in the future, then that would mean that every piece of conjecture ever thought of is scientific. I guess fairies are scientific because we might find a way to test for their existence in the future, huh?
Fairies are fairy-conjecture. Anyhow fairies are different. We all know very well what fairies look like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist. Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it?
And you think that automatically means that your idea is correct, how?
No, it means that my idea might be correct. Fancy that, a nucleus with lots of electrons whizzing round & round it. Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom. Neither does Miles Mathis. He (& i) reckons that an atom is kind of molecular, made up of lots of alpha particles.
If that was true, then scattering experiments would have detected multiple nuclei inside of atoms instead of just one.
All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.
And? Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.Since when could anyone call quantum mechanics an explanatory idea. Likewise relativity.
Pretty much since the beginning. Physicists sure do use them to great effect.
A model model or a math model explain little or nothing. They are just math, that gives a good looking number. The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.
-
The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.
And the better experiments disagree with your memory.
In my opinion Uranium fission is a good way to test for E=mcc.Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.
Yet nobody noticed- which tells us that they can't be important.
I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. They just keep muttering
photons is em waves & em radiation is photons
day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.
-
I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.
Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It is, however, irrelevant as discoveries regarding his predictions have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you say the same for photaenos or centrifuging aether?
The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.
That was not why I brought up caloric and phlogiston. It was to illustrate that your argument was ridiculous because you said, "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." and that argument can also be used to "prove" that caloric and phlogiston exist. Both were invented to explain what was known, and both turned out to be wrong. So that whole "what we now know is the proof of my reality" is fallacious reasoning.
Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof.
Unverified claims are not proof of anything.
Praps not good proof.
What is "good" proof? You either have proof or your don't. Science doesn't even use proof, it uses evidence. A handful of unreplicated experiments are not strong evidence. Otherwise, we would have to say that the Phillip experiment is strong evidence of ghosts and/or psychokinesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_experiment
Isnt that a verification?
Not any more than isolated claims of homeopathy working is verification that homeopathy works.
I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories.
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.
So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc?
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?
I don't see any mention of peer-review in there.
I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.
And in the optical cavity experiment, the lack of an atmosphere isn't going to prevent it from working because it doesn't work by the same mechanism as the fringeshift one. What it searched for was a change in frequency that was dependent on the orientation and speed of the detector. Since the frequency of a wave is its speed divided by its wavelength, a change in speed must result in a change in frequency. How is a vacuum going to have any adverse effect on that?
Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort. Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.
That's a bad analogy. We can generate photons at will, measure their energy, and see what kind of particle reactions generate them or consume them, and see that they carry momentum. We know a ton more about photons than your Igor knows about the "photohog".
Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.
If it's a galaxy then it's a galaxy. Galaxies exist. You don't have to know what a galaxy is in order to detect it.
We all know very well what fairies look
Do you? How?
like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist.
So you think fairies should be upgraded to a scientific concept?
Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.
We don't have to know what photons look like with our physical eye in order to know what kind of properties they would need to have in order to account for the behavior of light.
No, it means that my idea might be correct.
Any idea in the world that has yet to be tested "might" be correct.
All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.
They are based on well-documented physical laws (Coulomb's law and Newton's laws in particular for scattering experiments). But if you believe it's on such shaky ground, why not elaborate on which step(s) of the scattering experiment you think is/are dubious?
Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.
Such as?
A model model or a math model explain little or nothing. They are just math, that gives a good looking number.
Models have been very good at explaining physical phenomena. The VSEPR model is very good at predicting molecular geometry. The nuclear shell model, liquid drop model and interacting boson model have collectively been very good at explaining and predicting the properties of atomic nuclei. The Casimir effect was predicted in advance using quantum mechanical principles. Only later was it found that the Casimir effect was real and it was confirmed to be of the predicted strength to high accuracy.
The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.
Except that reality on the most fundamental level is unknowable to us directly, so we have to use models and equations as a way of representing it. You can't see inside of the Earth or the Sun or atoms, so we have to devise models as the best way to understand them. The better a model is at making predictions consistent with future discoveries, the more likely it is that the model is a good representation of reality.
-
I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.
Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It is, however, irrelevant as discoveries regarding his predictions have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you say the same for photaenos or centrifuging aether?
Then if articles re photaenos & centrifuging aether are in time published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be a parallel history. However Einstein in 1905 didnt have to deal with a stupid Von Kryptid.The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.
That was not why I brought up caloric and phlogiston. It was to illustrate that your argument was ridiculous because you said, "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." and that argument can also be used to "prove" that caloric and phlogiston exist. Both were invented to explain what was known, and both turned out to be wrong. So that whole "what we now know is the proof of my reality" is fallacious reasoning. No u have missed the point. Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof.
Unverified claims are not proof of anything.
There is proof & there is proof. DePalma verified an effect on ticking.Praps not good proof.
What is "good" proof? You either have proof or your don't. Science doesn't even use proof, it uses evidence. A handful of unreplicated experiments are not strong evidence. Otherwise, we would have to say that the Phillip experiment is strong evidence of ghosts and/or psychokinesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_experiment
If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.Isnt that a verification?
Not any more than isolated claims of homeopathy working is verification that homeopathy works.
Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories.
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.
So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc?
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?
I don't see any mention of peer-review in there. Did u read the article? What do u think? I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.
And in the optical cavity experiment, the lack of an atmosphere isn't going to prevent it from working because it doesn't work by the same mechanism as the fringeshift one. What it searched for was a change in frequency that was dependent on the orientation and speed of the detector. Since the frequency of a wave is its speed divided by its wavelength, a change in speed must result in a change in frequency. How is a vacuum going to have any adverse effect on that?
I will get back to u on that?Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort. Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.
That's a bad analogy. We can generate photons at will, measure their energy, and see what kind of particle reactions generate them or consume them, and see that they carry momentum. We know a ton more about photons than your Igor knows about the "photohog".
U guys havnt got a clue what a photon is.Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.
If it's a galaxy then it's a galaxy. Galaxies exist. You don't have to know what a galaxy is in order to detect it.
So u dont have to know what a photon is in order to detect it. If it looks like a photon then its a photon.We all know very well what fairies look
Do you? How?
They are small skinny nice looking young fairy-like boys & girls with colorful fairy clothing & two or four delicate fairy-like dragonfly wings in cartoons or with butterfly wings in books & they can hover like fairies & they help children who are in danger & they have a small voice with an american accent. like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist.
So you think fairies should be upgraded to a scientific concept? They deserve the same status as SR & GR.Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.
We don't have to know what photons look like with our physical eye in order to know what kind of properties they would need to have in order to account for the behavior of light.
Ok, then why were u so worried about what fairies looked like?No, it means that my idea might be correct.
Any idea in the world that has yet to be tested "might" be correct.
My centrifuging idea accords with 2 old tests. Whereas SR & GR didnt accord with any old test.All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.
They are based on well-documented physical laws (Coulomb's law and Newton's laws in particular for scattering experiments). But if you believe it's on such shaky ground, why not elaborate on which step(s) of the scattering experiment you think is/are dubious?
I havnt got time to look into scattering just now, i will later.Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.
Such as? Slowing bending refracting diffracting scattering. But mainly in em radiation, where photaenos are the major player, the only player. Here em radiation can travel at up to 5c, whereas we know that light can only travel at up to 2c, so em radiation is photaenos. A model model or a math model explain little or nothing. They are just math, that gives a good looking number.
Models have been very good at explaining physical phenomena. The VSEPR model is very good at predicting molecular geometry. The nuclear shell model, liquid drop model and interacting boson model have collectively been very good at explaining and predicting the properties of atomic nuclei. The Casimir effect was predicted in advance using quantum mechanical principles. Only later was it found that the Casimir effect was real and it was confirmed to be of the predicted strength to high accuracy.
I repeat, no model can explain reality. Reality is a mechanical thing. So sometimes is a model, but it aint a real mechanics. Reality aint some math that describes how numbers change.The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.
Except that reality on the most fundamental level is unknowable to us directly, so we have to use models and equations as a way of representing it. You can't see inside of the Earth or the Sun or atoms, so we have to devise models as the best way to understand them. The better a model is at making predictions consistent with future discoveries, the more likely it is that the model is a good representation of reality.
Agreed. Models are good, i like mechanical models & math models, they give u numbers. Reality is good too, in a different way, & knowing the real mechanics might allow better use the model. But this is all hypothetical, dont ask for examples (i aint got any). Anyhow even if reality at fundamental levels is unknowable why not have a bit of conjecture anyhow (cant hurt).
-
Then if articles re photaenos & centrifuging aether are in time published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be a parallel history.
Saying that an idea might be accepted by science in the future isn't evidence that it is correct.
However Einstein in 1905 didnt have to deal with a stupid Von Kryptid.
And that's the ad hominem fallacy.
No u have missed the point.
And that would be what?
There is proof & there is proof.
What is that even supposed to mean?
DePalma verified an effect on ticking.
I'd be wary of any claims made by Bruce DePalma, given that he has also claimed to have produced machines that violate conservation of energy. You said in the past that you are skeptical of everything, but that is far from being true in practice. You bend over backwards trying to undermine high-accuracy, well-documented experimental evidence for many different scientific discoveries (even if you have to invoke conspiracies and fallacies in order to do it) and yet you latch onto unverified, fringe claims that don't have anywhere near the same level of supporting experimental evidence that conventional science does.
You think that claims made by a few people about having discovered some kind of "ticking" anomaly counts as good evidence (or in your words, even proof), yet when multiple teams of scientists report the discovery of gravitational waves multiple times over using different detectors hundreds and thousands of miles apart, you don't count that as good evidence. You are very choosy about what you apply your skepticism to.
If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.
And yet the evidence for the Podkletnov's effect is not particularly strong. I don't think it's been refuted, but it hasn't been verified by the larger scientific community either by well-controlled tests.
Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do it. Even if an effect was observed, how would you go about establishing that the aether had anything to do with it?
Did u read the article? What do u think?
I think extraordinary claims like that need to be verified before being accepted.
U guys havnt got a clue what a photon is.
It's a quantum of light energy: the smallest "piece" of light that you can have.
So u dont have to know what a photon is in order to detect it. If it looks like a photon then its a photon.
Strictly speaking, no, we don't have to know what it is. Other particles have been detected before we knew what they were as well. The determination of the nature of a particle can come after its discovery.
They are small skinny nice looking young fairy-like boys & girls with colorful fairy clothing & two or four delicate fairy-like dragonfly wings in cartoons or with butterfly wings in books & they can hover like fairies & they help children who are in danger & they have a small voice with an american accent.
Technically, the appearance of fairies varies from one culture to the next.
They deserve the same status as SR & GR.
So despite the fact that we might be able to come up with a way to detect fairies in the future, you still think they shouldn't be considered scientific? In that case, your aethons and praethons shouldn't be considered scientific either, since, just like fairies, we only "might" come up with a way to detect them in the future.
Ok, then why were u so worried about what fairies looked like?
Fairies have ill-defined properties that vary from one culture to the next. Photons must have a strict set of properties that line up with experimental results.
Whereas SR & GR didnt accord with any old test.
The majority of physicists (the ones who have actually done the experiments) would obviously strongly dispute that.
Slowing bending refracting diffracting scattering.
How is that any different from existing models of light?
I havnt got time to look into scattering just now, i will later.
So you basically just admitted to dismissing the results of scattering experiments without even knowing the specifics behind them.
Here em radiation can travel at up to 5c, whereas we know that light can only travel at up to 2c, so em radiation is photaenos.
Since when were there any verified instances of superluminal radiation?
I repeat, no model can explain reality. Reality is a mechanical thing. So sometimes is a model, but it aint a real mechanics. Reality aint some math that describes how numbers change.
I don't think anyone expects a model to reflect reality completely, but it's a terrible idea to write off any and all models because of that.
Anyhow even if reality at fundamental levels is unknowable why not have a bit of conjecture anyhow (cant hurt).
It doesn't hurt, no. But unless it's testable, that conjecture isn't scientific.
-
You know what? Scratch all of that. I don't know why I ever get involved in long-winded debates when I never have the patience to finish them. This is an uphill battle and I'm not dealing with it anymore.
-
DePalma verified an effect on ticking.
I'd be wary of any claims made by Bruce DePalma, given that he has also claimed to have produced machines that violate conservation of energy. You said in the past that you are skeptical of everything, but that is far from being true in practice. You bend over backwards trying to undermine high-accuracy, well-documented experimental evidence for many different scientific discoveries (even if you have to invoke conspiracies and fallacies in order to do it) and yet you latch onto unverified, fringe claims that don't have anywhere near the same level of supporting experimental evidence that conventional science does.
You think that claims made by a few people about having discovered some kind of "ticking" anomaly counts as good evidence (or in your words, even proof), yet when multiple teams of scientists report the discovery of gravitational waves multiple times over using different detectors hundreds and thousands of miles apart, you don't count that as good evidence. You are very choosy about what you apply your skepticism too.
If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.
And yet the evidence for the Podkletnov's effect is not particularly strong. I don't think it's been refuted, but it hasn't been verified by the larger scientific community either by well-controlled tests.
Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do it. Even if an effect was observed, how would you go about establishing that the aether had anything to do with it?
I did a search & found a number of threads re DePalma & re Podkletnov, & i sort of copied & consolidated the best bits into two main existing threads.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75539.msg560753#msg560753
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg556848#msg556848
-
You know what? Scratch all of that. I don't know why I ever get involved in long-winded debates when I never have the patience to finish them. This is an uphill battle and I'm not dealing with it anymore.
I feel the same, however i did learn a few things from u & others, & it made me tighten up my thinking & wordage in a few areas. Thanx.
And i have or will add to my DePalma & my Podkletnov threads.
In fact i found a third set of experiments re the centrifuging of aether affecting ticking, it was a study carried out by Alan Calverd & involved the clocks on plane instrument panels being chronically affected by the gyros located on the same panels, i dont know how many planes were involved. I hope Alan writes a paper, there might be a Nobel in there for him if he manages to get it into one of the major journals.
I will follow up on Gasser & his em radiation going at 5c too.
-
I recall that Einstein's excuse involved the concept that a clock had a memory of its history of acceleration.
Could not find anything on what you had mentioned.
Nonetheless, it is a fact that the universe has a memory of its history for any past event, which is recorded in the time dilated image that could be perceived on different timeline. Berserk as it may be, it is a fact that this is possible.
Let just say, an advance civilization located 65 million year away from Earth, with its super capability telescope, people there can observe what wiped out the dinosaurs here.
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration; information from radioactive decay is insufficient to record complex variations of historical acceleration. Update me if you find the link.
I havnt forgotten, i am still looking for Einstein's silly excuse. Today i am looking throo Gasser's stuff re twins paradox etc. Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies (Time Dilation, Twin Paradox) -- By Wolfgang G. Gasser
http://www.pandualism.com/d/SR_refutation.html Twins starts at #39. And also......
http://www.pandualism.com/d/twin_paradox_einstein.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~nrc25/red/specrel.pdf
http://www.pandualism.com/index.html
-
By Reality Check in #52:
Show that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox is wrong. Start with citing his paper that you should have read.[The following analysis is wrong. See #109]
The article Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918 is quite revealing and shows that poor Einstein really had to struggle with the many serious objections against Relativity. The Critic of the dialog at least somehow represents also Einstein's own "reservations about the theory" and insecurity. For instance (first paragraph):
"We have no wish to dwell on whether this neglect [to deal with objections] was due to arrogance, or a sense of weakness, or laziness – maybe it was a particularly effective mixture of these afflictions of the soul".
Interestingly, Einstein also uses his Critic to criticize other critics (second paragraph):
"I am not so full with the status of my guild so as to make me act as a superior being with superhuman insight and certainty (…). On the contrary, I talk as a human being, since I am aware that it is not rare for criticism to originate from lack of own thoughts."
I've compiled a short text with the essence of Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox, Essence of Einstein's Resolution of the Twin Paradox, using only extracts from his original (translated) text. Here I deal with the last paragraph of this compilation. At first, I quote Einstein, and then, I show the implications for my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox in #43 and #56.
Einstein: "According to both descriptions the clock U2 is running a certain amount behind clock U1 at the end of the observed process."
Implication: When both clocks meet again, travelling T-clock is behind R-clock, because only 2.0001 year have passed in T-clock whereas 200.01 year have passed in R-clock.
Einstein: "When relating to the coordinate system K' the behavior explains itself as follows: During the partial processes 2 and 4 [inertial motion] the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the [in K'] resting clock U2."
Implication: With respect to T-clock, R-clock runs indeed slower according to Lorentz-factor 100 during inertial motion of both forward and return trip of the journey. This results in 0.020001 year in R-clock versus 2.0001 year in T-clock.
Einstein: "However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3."
Process 3: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again."
Implication: During direction reversal, R-clock runs faster by 199.99 year. In this way, the time delay of 2.0001 - 0.020001 = 1.98 year of T-clock with respect to R-clock during inertial motion is transformed for the whole journey into a time delay of 200.01 - 2.0001 = 198.01 year of R-clock with respect to T-clock (implying a two-time change by factor 100).
I'm genuinely flabbergasted by Einstein's continuation:
"According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher [weaker] the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher [weaker] gravitational potential than U1."
I had to read this several times on different days before noticing and becoming (almost) certain that already this statement stems from confusion and wishful thinking. Einstein must have confused "higher gravitational potential" with "stronger gravitational potential" or "[in K'] resting clock U2" with "clock at rest U1". If clock U1 is accelerated by a gravitational field, then U1 is located at a lower (stronger) gravitational field potential. And this makes clock U1 running slower, and not faster as it would be necessary to resolve the paradox.
"The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."
Even if instead of gravitational time dilation we had its opposite, gravitational time contraction, this statement still would be untenable, and Einstein should have written:
Under the premise that Relativity Theory is consistent, a calculation must show that this speeding ahead of clock U1 constitutes on a logarithmic scale exactly twice as much as the clock's lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.
I know from personal experience that all too willingly one accepts the result of a superficial calculation or reasoning, if it agrees with one's expectation, for whatever reason.
In any case, even if I do not agree with every detail of On Einstein's resolution of the twin clock paradox, C. S. Unnikrishnan, 2005, I have to subscribe to Unnikrishnan's conclusion:
"It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general setting."
-
I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. They just keep muttering
photons is em waves & em radiation is photons
day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.
"I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. "
If you consider how many prize winning scientists there are, and that you are not one of them, it's fair to say that you are the "nobody" here.
" No one has been able to stop them."
It would be perfectly simple to stop them.
You simply have to provide an experimental result which shows that they are wrong.
Thus far, all the evidence supports them so why wouldn't they keep saying it?
-
I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. They just keep muttering photons is em waves & em radiation is photons day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.
"I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. " If you consider how many prize winning scientists there are, and that you are not one of them, it's fair to say that you are the "nobody" here. " No one has been able to stop them." It would be perfectly simple to stop them. You simply have to provide an experimental result which shows that they are wrong. Thus far, all the evidence supports them so why wouldn't they keep saying it?
The Gasser-X (which has its own thread) shows that charge radiation from a spark travels at up to 5c in the near field. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75611.msg561849#msg561849
I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings. I think zero. My photaenos have no worthy competition.
-
-
I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings.
2018
“for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics”
2014"Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura “for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources”"
2009 Charles Kuen Kao“for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication”
2006
John C. Mather and George F. Smoot“for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”
2005 Roy J. Glauber“for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence”
John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch“for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”
2000 Zhores I. Alferov and Herbert Kroemer“for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics”
1997 Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William D. Phillips “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light”
And so on... all the way back to 1901
"Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen“in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays subsequently named after him”"
I think zero.
That seems about right.
-
I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings.
2018 “for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics”
2014"Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura “for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources”"
2009 Charles Kuen Kao“for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication”
2006
John C. Mather and George F. Smoot“for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”
2005 Roy J. Glauber“for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence”
John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch“for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”
2000 Zhores I. Alferov and Herbert Kroemer“for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics”
1997 Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William D. Phillips “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light”
And so on... all the way back to 1901
"Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen“in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays subsequently named after him”"
I think zero.
That seems about right.
Zilch for em radiation as i thort. Some for photons, & one for particles.
Will Smoot & Co be giving their Nobels back. Likewise all of the others who got Nobels for bigbang stuff & expanding universe stuff etc.
-
It's not a matter of opinion, is it?Either it's cooling or it isn't.And the evidence says it's warming
IMO, the mechanisms that contribute to climate change is not yet fully understood and account for.
I agreed with the finding that sunspot count is a good indicator for ocean temperature change on Earth, but I reserved that this is not the only factor that significantly drives climate change. Nonetheless, IMO, his analysis is in the right direction. And that was my specific reply to mad aetherist.
But I can't say the same for the Anthropogenic Global Warming proposition.
It is a fact that water vapor the most potent greenhouse gas on Earth, and it is in the order of 10 times more potent than the natural CO2, which is >99% of the anthropogenic CO2.
And it is discovered in independent ice core studies that naturally occurring CO2 volume changes in the atmosphere, lags the global temperature change by 800 years; the IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming proposition is a bad science.
The scientific method and the IPCC AGW model combined, is a super embarrassing science flop.
And the evidence says it's warming
What evidence?
-
I havnt forgotten, i am still looking for Einstein's silly excuse. Today i am looking throo Gasser's stuff re twins paradox etc. Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies (Time Dilation, Twin Paradox) -- By Wolfgang G. Gasserhttp://www.pandualism.com/d/SR_refutation.html Twins starts at #39. And also......http://www.pandualism.com/d/twin_paradox_einstein.htmlhttp://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~nrc25/red/specrel.pdfhttp://www.pandualism.com/index.html
I need no convincing on the contemporary Einsteinian SR is a flop.
I reteriate: Einstein and Max Born debunked the Einsteinian SR with an equivalence in principle of GR, stating the acceleration of geodesic motion for explaining the time dilation phenomenon that physically transform the near light speed clock, thus eradicated the said paradox.
The obfuscations in the mixed up of the time dilation propositions are so severe that it makes a simple thing so difficult to explain to get it right. Nonetheless, responding to your remarks, I shall make another attempt:
Einstein has never mistaken higher gravitation potential would make clocks tick faster.
It is a fact that any high velocity orbiting object, would experience geodesic motion that manifests centripetal acceleration, and this would render the physical transformation of atoms to intrinsically spin at a slower rate, thus slow their aging, or its clock ticks at a slower rate.
This is despite the atoms or the clock in high speed velocity can be high up in the orbit far away from Earth with higher gravitational potential. The higher gravitational potential will physical cause the clock to tick faster, and concurrently, the centripetal acceleration will physically case the clock to tick slower, much slower when near to light speed. And the Earth bound observer observing with a referencing stationary clock, also has to account for the optical effect of simultaneous time dilation in SR for its time dilation observation.
It is not time that had undergone time dilation effect in SR. In flat spacetime, simultaneous time dilation in high velocity relative motion, is an optical effect that needs to be accounted for.
You already knew that time dilation of mesons with centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion at high velocity, was experimentally proven to a high degree of precision.
-
Zilch for em radiation as i thort. Some for photons, & one for particles.
We are not going anywhere here until you either accept that they are the same thing, or prove that they are different.
What evidence?
It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence that the world is warming. So there must be a shortage of your understanding.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3pXJoseu4AIVApztCh1_3QoIEAAYASAAEgKHevD_BwE
https://climate.nasa.gov/
etc
-
It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence that the world is warming. So there must be a shortage of your understanding.https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3pXJoseu4AIVApztCh1_3QoIEAAYASAAEgKHevD_BwEhttps://climate.nasa.gov/etc
Those are anecdotal evidence that were deliberated to support its self-fulfilling prophercy
with circular reasoning to substantiate a bad science that postulates anthropogenic global warming.
And you are ignoring the fact on anthropogenic CO2 is a miniscule factor in the greenhouse effect of the Earth. Whatever caused the observed warmings, are merely collections of observations that were being cherry picked for a niche aspect, and largely they were not caused by human activities.
Your respond boarders on the profile of a mythologist preaching his half-baked belief with his confirmation bias touted as the evidence. And your logic committed the causal fallacy.