Post by: thedoc on 01/07/2016 06:50:03
Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?
Post by: Villi on 01/07/2016 07:11:13
Post by: jerrygg38 on 01/07/2016 11:40:00
Scientific theories come from the inner minds of the various scientific prophets. They use logic and reason and attempt to relate their beliefs with actual measurements. In general no force is used but over time they become part of the belief system of their followers. Then it becomes like religious dogma.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/07/2016 11:43:46
Post by: puppypower on 01/07/2016 12:22:56
Quote
One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
The dogma of statistics is so blindly followed and taught in biology, science has been willing to ignore hard reality for over 50 years. One only has consider how many students have been indoctrinated with science misinformation, due to the blind faith in a god of casinos. In this religion, one worships with black boxes and blind folds, to appease a god of chaos and gambling, using math oracles. This religion is old and dates back to before the age of enlightenment.
On the other hand, this religion may not be entirely based on blind religious faith. It may also have a medical explanation. Gambling is very addictive. Any religion of jackpots and lotteries may be very hard to give up, due to the compulsive behavior associated with gambling. If you had a religion centered on alcohol or drugs, the drug addiction itself will make it hard for reason to get through the compulsive actions; physiological faith.
In US, there is a separation of church and state, so maybe the government needs to be consistent and not support any faith based science. It may be healthy for the addiction to confront itself, so it can sober up to get back in graces; tough love.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 11:23:20
René DesCartes
Discours de la Méthode (1637)
That advice is rarely heard from religious preachers toward their follower. But it could be used for converting purpose, if they are confident with their argument against other religions/denominations.
On the other hand, it is often heard from science teachers. But we can see some science authority figures try to force their views to general audience through unscientific ways, containing logical fallacies such as argument from authority and blinding with science.
Post by: Villi on 03/07/2016 04:59:33
One example is connected to the statistical assumptions of classical biology as applied to life. It has been known for some time that proteins are bound together with very weak binding forces and can be easily denatured. Proteins are held together with the binding strength equivalence of a few hydrogen bonds. Due to these weak binding forces and the thermal energy in water, classical statistical assumption assume proteins should fold with average folds, governed by statistics. Over 50 years ago, it was observed that proteins actually fold with exact folds not governed by statistics; probability=1.0.QuoteOne is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.
The dogma of statistics is so blindly followed and taught in biology, science has been willing to ignore hard reality for over 50 years. One only has consider how many students have been indoctrinated with science misinformation, due to the blind faith in a god of casinos. In this religion, one worships with black boxes and blind folds, to appease a god of chaos and gambling, using math oracles. This religion is old and dates back to before the age of enlightenment.
On the other hand, this religion may not be entirely based on blind religious faith. It may also have a medical explanation. Gambling is very addictive. Any religion of jackpots and lotteries may be very hard to give up, due to the compulsive behavior associated with gambling. If you had a religion centered on alcohol or drugs, the drug addiction itself will make it hard for reason to get through the compulsive actions; physiological faith.
In US, there is a separation of church and state, so maybe the government needs to be consistent and not support any faith based science. It may be healthy for the addiction to confront itself, so it can sober up to get back in graces; tough love.
I really liked this post and could relate to it.
It reminds me of something someone in a lab told me: "Science is like playing the lottery."
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/10/2018 02:51:55
I write books and produce both religious theories and scientific theories. Religions are theories of God and the Universe that comes from the inner minds of the various prophets. They use logic and reason to produce followers. Later they use force to insure obedience to their beliefs.Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.
Scientific theories come from the inner minds of the various scientific prophets. They use logic and reason and attempt to relate their beliefs with actual measurements. In general no force is used but over time they become part of the belief system of their followers. Then it becomes like religious dogma.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/10/2018 10:40:03
Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.
Hello Mad, are you educated in science ?
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/10/2018 11:16:03
No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.Hello Mad, are you educated in science ?
I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances.
My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/10/2018 11:33:04
at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).
Thank you for explaining your background to me which helps me to give a simple explanation.
Einstein is not your ''enemy'' , Einstein explains the ''aether'' with space-time, which in essence is relational to a field space within a BH. Large mass objects can curve/bend space-time which is explained in the rubber sheet analogy.
In your own mind , just replace the rubber sheet with ''invisible'' space-time.
I hope this helps you understand. :)
Post by: mad aetherist on 16/10/2018 13:20:58
Unfortunately the rubber sheet analogy is horrible, i cringe whenever i see it. It in no way explains spacetime. In addition i need to point out that if u place a marble on that sheet the marble will run down to the center, whereaz nothing in Einstein's GR would make a marble placed near another massive object move towards that object.at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).Thank you for explaining your background to me which helps me to give a simple explanation. Einstein is not your ''enemy'', Einstein explains the ''aether'' with space-time, which in essence is relational to a field space within a BH. Large mass objects can curve/bend space-time which is explained in the rubber sheet analogy. In your own mind , just replace the rubber sheet with ''invisible'' space-time. I hope this helps you understand. :)
Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory), is superfluous -- there is no need to mention spacetime at all, ie as being a part of anything to do with SR or GR. My understanding is that Einstein reckoned that time is dilated near mass & that light is thusly slowed in all directions near mass [time]. And that length is contracted near mass, radially, thusly (he says) light is slowed radially (ie light going in radially, & light going out radially)[space]. The combined slowing bending gravity etc being called spacetime, or being said to be due to the bending of spacetime. But there is no need for the word spacetime, or that idea -- & there is no need to raise spacetime to the status of a (silly impossible) 4th dimension. Anyone can simply crunch Einstein's time stuff & space stuff in the usual way, spacetime or no spacetime, the concept of a spacetime duznt change anything or help anything by one iota. Spacetime smells to me like a PR & marketing stunt, where u invent some sort of buzzword or gimmick to attract the suckers or to put on a cap (MAGA).
Post by: Paradigmer on 17/10/2018 09:08:43
Yousuf Godir asked the Naked Scientists:
Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?
IMO, I think almost all scientific phenomena have become a religion dogma for most scientists.
Those examples you cited, indeed are not holding their feet on the ground at all.
Am backing the above contentious positions with my works on "Critiques of the scientific method (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)", and "Logic and belief systems (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20logic.htm)".
Post by: Paradigmer on 17/10/2018 10:00:33
Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.
IMO, Einstein was also a victim of your so called "a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research".
Einstein actually advocated the existence of a physical aether, but he later capitulated under peer pressure, which turned his work into a cult science, and also twisted and turned the works of your aether heroes.
This article on "The UVS review on the GR concepts of gravity (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20clarifying%20the%20concept%20of%20gravity.htm)", is my collective views on Einstein actually was an advocate for the existence of a physical aether.
Like yourself, I also hope the dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. But, let's set the target on the real culprits.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/10/2018 11:51:16
Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory),
I have spent over a decade saying the same sort of thing, it took me that long to fully understand Albert Einstein and space-time. I will be blunt and tell you that you are incorrect and are imagining that you know better than the genius of Albert Einstein. ( I use to do the same thing!)
I will make a suggestion to you , spend lots of time trying to understand space-time, put space-time into your own words.
Then you may understand..
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/10/2018 13:02:02
Very interesting. And thanx for thems 3 articles of yours, i downloaded them, & will read them soon. Funny that -- an aether sinks SR -- but no SR then no GR.Einsteinism is a science cult & has given us a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research -- non-conforming scientists are squeezed out, lose their jobs, lose their funding, lose access to publishing in mainstream magazines. But the Einsteinian dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. Amen.IMO, Einstein was also a victim of your so called "a worldwide science-mafia that controls mainstream funding universities magazines institutions & research".
Einstein actually advocated the existence of a physical aether, but he later capitulated under peer pressure, which turned his work into a cult science, and also twisted and turned the works of your aether heroes.
This article on "The UVS review on the GR concepts of gravity (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20clarifying%20the%20concept%20of%20gravity.htm)", is my collective views on Einstein actually was an advocate for the existence of a physical aether.
Like yourself, I also hope the dark age will soon end, & aether will regain its rightful place, its power & its glory, for ever & ever. But, let's set the target on the real culprits.
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/10/2018 13:17:40
I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly. But i must admit that i dont understand the math, so that counts against me.Spacetime in no way explains aether. Spacetime itself, besides being a silly notion (within a stupid theory),I have spent over a decade saying the same sort of thing, it took me that long to fully understand Albert Einstein and space-time. I will be blunt and tell you that you are incorrect and are imagining that you know better than the genius of Albert Einstein. ( I use to do the same thing!)
I will make a suggestion to you , spend lots of time trying to understand space-time, put space-time into your own words.
Then you may understand..
Just because Einstein used a rt triangle & Pythagoras with c one one side & c+v on another & came up with a similar looking gamma to Lorentz is nothing special. Einstein's gamma is different, the symbols mean different things. Hell i came up with the same equation for gamma using the wavelength of an orbiting electron, it took me 5 minutes, & i am an old retired Engineer.
There have been i think 4 different derivations of the fresnel drag equation, done 4 different ways, by different scientists, in different eras, & all of the equations look the same.
Its more a case of how could u not come up with that equation for gamma.
But there is no need to waste time re any of this. The original MMX was not null. And no gas-mode MMX has ever been null. And DeWitte found an anisotropy in the 1way speed of light. The list goes on. SR & GR should not have even been born.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/10/2018 16:55:10
I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.
So you complain about the scientific establishment being closed-minded when it comes to aether, yet you have no trouble announcing your own closed-mindedness when it comes to relativity. Double standard much?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/10/2018 18:00:47
have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.
You seem like you have intelligence so must understand the difference in complete and incomplete education of a subject!
Perhaps you do not know enough of the information to understand it fully, is that a possibility?
Is there anything particular you would like to discuss ?
:)
Post by: mad aetherist on 17/10/2018 18:15:01
Yes i would love to know what % u would give to u possibly accepting the following, bearing in mind your incomplete education of the subjects.have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.You seem like you have intelligence so must understand the difference in complete and incomplete education of a subject!
Perhaps you do not know enough of the information to understand it fully, is that a possibility?
Is there anything particular you would like to discuss ?
Scientology.
Satanism.
Astrology.
Christianity.
Islam.
Jewism.
Communism.
Socialism.
Aetherism.
Allow me to dwell on the last one, Aetherism -- You seem like you have intelligence so must understand the difference in complete and incomplete education of a subject! Perhaps you do not know enough of the information to understand it fully, is that a possibility? Is there anything particular you would like to discuss?
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 03:16:25
I am skeptical re everything, & i change my mind lots (ie after learning something). For example i have a couple of aetheric theories that can explain the 1.75 arcsec of bending of light near the Sun, but at present i am pursuing an alternative explanation based on Einstein being right re the slowing of light near mass (albeit for the wrong reasons, SR & GR are nonsense). And my thinking involves aether, of course.I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.So you complain about the scientific establishment being closed-minded when it comes to aether, yet you have no trouble announcing your own closed-mindedness when it comes to relativity. Double standard much?
Re Einsteinian dogma, there are so many experiments out there that have falsified it. The swinging of Mercury's orbit is no evidence for GR, Einstein's equation worked backwards from the known answer, & frame-dragging is nonsense anyhow.
The prediction of 1.75 arcsec of bending of light at the Sun is excellent evidence for GR. Here Einstein stuck his neck out & was found correct. At least his answer was correct, his reasoning (GR) is nonsense. What we have here is called equivalence -- equivalence is the derivation of the correct equation for the wrong reasons.
For example Einstein's gamma looks the same as Lorentz's gamma, but it aint the same, the terms mean different things, & u need to use the two a different way (because v means different things in both).
There are no aetheric calculations for the bending of light near the Sun, the only calc is i think my own which happens to give 0.87 arcsec, ie a half of Einstein's 1.75 arcsec.
Soldner in 1804 used ballistics to give 0.87 arcsec, but here the fact that this is the same as my aetheric bending is once again due to equivalence (on my part or on his)(depending on who is right)(which in this case looks like being neither of us).
Re Einsteinian dogma, for a theoretical debunking google Crothers, & google Engelhardt. They both show that Einstein fraudulently used a preferred observer for his SR (ie an observer sitting at 0,0) whereas any other co-ordinate makes SR give the opposite result.
Rather than 2 events being simultaneous in only one frame, & not being simultaneous in any other frame, a proper derivation shows that all events can be simultaneous in every frame if one picks a certain co-ordinate. How silly is that, a true SR says the complete opposite of Einstein's fake SR. But the Einsteinian response to that will be -- hey everyone look at that blackhole over there.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/10/2018 03:32:14
I am skeptical re everything, & i change my mind lots (ie after learning something). For example i have a couple of aetheric theories that can explain the 1.75 arcsec of bending of light near the Sun, but at present i am pursuing an alternative explanation based on Einstein being right re the slowing of light near mass (albeit for the wrong reasons, SR & GR are nonsense). And my thinking involves aether, of course.
Which changes nothing about what I said. You still have a double standard because you are closed-minded about relativity.
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:08:23
Yes & no. Its a matter of degree i think. I have put the equivalent of 8 hrs per day for 365 days into reading & thinking about aether & relativity. Thats probly more than what u might need for a University degree (ignoring non-physics subjects). I have read 1000's of articles, i have downloaded over 1000 of the better ones, i have printed over 100 of the best. I love learning. Forums like this are great, posters tend to give me one good new link per day. And i like to give others the benefit of my knowledge, especially when i see some sort of krapp written by Einsteinians (or said, on youtube). The krapp u see coming from non-scientists doesnt really worry me, i tend to ignore it (i have lots of other interests)(there aint enough time in a day)(even tho i am retired).I am skeptical re everything, & i change my mind lots (ie after learning something). For example i have a couple of aetheric theories that can explain the 1.75 arcsec of bending of light near the Sun, but at present i am pursuing an alternative explanation based on Einstein being right re the slowing of light near mass (albeit for the wrong reasons, SR & GR are nonsense). And my thinking involves aether, of course.Which changes nothing about what I said. You still have a double standard because you are closed-minded about relativity.
I might not be posting at all were it not for the science-mafia's censorship & war with aether. This underhanded & vicious & hurtful & damaging attacking of sensible scientists by nonsense science makes me angry (especially when Einsteinians are so wrong)(especially when Einsteinians fake & fudge & waste money)(especially when their krapp is fed to skoolkids)(in an attempt to perpetuate the cycle)(gettum when they're young).
Anyhow the Einsteinian dark age will soon end. It cannot withstand the increasing wt of precision experiments etc showing it to be wrong or not quite right. In the meantime they continue to resort to an almost endless menu of possible excuses to explain the obvious but in fact "naive" apparent problem.
The twins paradox is a good example. Einstein ended up saying that acceleration itself affects time. Even if it does, this cannot possibly explain away the paradox. Einsteinians simply point to it & say that it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain, it does explain -- untill skoolkids get bored -- & all the while it doesnt explain. This is a new tactic, borrowed from others. A bit like shouting, & talking over your opponent -- or making the whole place stink so that the proceedings become unattractive.
In the meantime Einsteinians will keep on finding new fake particles, & keep on getting Nobels, & keep on trumpeting almost weekly on TV of how they continually prove that Einstein was a genius.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/10/2018 04:40:20
especially when Einsteinians fake & fudge
In the meantime Einsteinians will keep on finding new fake particles
So not only do you have a double standard, but you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:53:57
Yes for sure a conspiracy, worldwide. Luckily the modern era of communication will fix that. It might take time, Einsteinians have the upper hand. In the meantime scientists (that know or doubt) know that there will be serious consequences if they stick their heads out. But the number of doubters (& believers in aether) must be growing, its probly much bigger than we think.especially when Einsteinians fake & fudgeIn the meantime Einsteinians will keep on finding new fake particles
So not only do you have a double standard, but you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/10/2018 05:00:41
Yes for sure a conspiracy, worldwide. Luckily the modern era of communication will fix that. It might take time, Einsteinians have the upper hand.
What's the point of anyone here debating you then? (1) You've already made up your mind that you cannot be convinced that relativity is correct, and (2) you can chalk up any evidence that you find to be inconvenient for your beliefs as part of the "conspiracy".
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 05:26:36
No, debating aint just to convince the other, i doubt that any Einsteinian has ever been convinced of aether, & vice versa -- but there must be lots of fellows on the fence that might be impressed.Yes for sure a conspiracy, worldwide. Luckily the modern era of communication will fix that. It might take time, Einsteinians have the upper hand.What's the point of anyone here debating you then? (1) You've already made up your mind that you cannot be convinced that relativity is correct, and (2) you can chalk up any evidence that you find to be inconvenient for your beliefs as part of the "conspiracy".
Yes, i will accept any evidence for anything, evidence is evidence.
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 06:40:54
There have been i think 4 different derivations of the fresnel drag equation, done 4 different ways, by different scientists, in different eras, & all of the equations look the same. Its more a case of how could u not come up with that equation for gamma.
Exactly! How could u not come up with that equation for gamma!
As a matter of fact, Galileo had also suspected there is a limit for light speed, and was the first person known to have scientifically tried to measure the speed of light. His lanterns experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#First_measurement_attempts) at then without the appropriate measuring instruments, he therefore could not conclude on the upper limit of light speed, and thus could not rule out the infinite speed of light. By factoring in the speed of light has limit to augment the Galilean transformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation), it would be able to more accurately describe astronomical phenomena coherently without any contradiction.
Galileo was vindicated for much of his works.
But Einstein is still not vindicated. It was the Einsteinian creatures of modern physics for whatsoever reasons, have had brought about the dark age of modern science with the adulterated version of ToR.
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 07:14:32
The twins paradox is a good example. Einstein ended up saying that acceleration itself affects time. Even if it does, this cannot possibly explain away the paradox.
Einstein had actually refuted the SR solution for the twin paradox example provided by the Einsteinians. He instead had provided a GR solution to the twin paradox problem that involves active transformation for causing the shorter proper time for the accelerated traveling twin, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist with his relativistic solution.
There is an issue with shorter proper time and shorter real time in the GR solution; it is matters that undergo active transformation when accelerating, not time. And I believe Einstein knew this.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2018 07:18:13
Religion is exactly the opposite: the uncritical accrual of untestable hypotheses (gods, angels,levels of spiritual existence...) with no demonstrable predictive value.
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 07:52:57
"Scientific belief" is an oxymoron. Science is the process of testing explanatory and predictive hypotheses. The essence of science is unbelief, and the overall process tends to reduce the number of hypotheses required to explain or predict observations.Yes i know that some of us steer clear of using the word belief, i myself am fussy with words, but i dont worry too much about saying i "believe" something.
Religion is exactly the opposite: the uncritical accrual of untestable hypotheses (gods, angels,levels of spiritual existence...) with no demonstrable predictive value.
Yes we accept the best looking hypothesis & postulates. Not forgetting that there are say 20 to 100 postulates for even the simplest experiments. Not forgetting that there are an infinite number of possible solutions that fit the results -- an infinite number of other solutions that are not solutions.
Yes every religion that i know of has a non-testable god.
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 07:57:33
Einstein's explanation using acceleration from GR doesnt work, even i can see that, i can show u if u want. But praps u agree -- your wordage is a bit ambiguous here.The twins paradox is a good example. Einstein ended up saying that acceleration itself affects time. Even if it does, this cannot possibly explain away the paradox.
Einstein had actually refuted the SR solution for the twin paradox example provided by the Einsteinians. He instead had provided a GR solution to the twin paradox problem that involves active transformation for causing the shorter proper time for the accelerated traveling twin, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist with his relativistic solution.
There is an issue with shorter proper time and shorter real time in the GR solution; it is matters that undergo active transformation when accelerating, not time. And I believe Einstein knew this.
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 09:06:27
Einstein's explanation using acceleration from GR doesnt work, even i can see that, i can show u if u want. But praps u agree -- your wordage is a bit ambiguous here.
There was ambiguity because two variations of ToR was insidioulsy involved for the relativistic solution. Nonetheless, the Einsteinian relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation), could work for its pragmatic theory of truth, such as for calculating the adjustment of an atomic clock of an orbiting satellite in different gravitational potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential). This of course is not the actuality.
Please let me clarify:
In an experiment at CERN (https://www.nature.com/articles/268301a0), muons of velocity 0.9994c were found to have a lifetime 29.33 times the laboratory lifetime in the CERN Muon Storage Ring.
The moun particles at 0.994c, can be technically said to be 29.33 times younger than the at rest moun particles in their passage of real time.
In this sense, the actuality is, matters can undergo physical transformation with centripetal acceleration at high velocity for rendering its higher gravitational potential; it is not time that has transformed.
The adulterated Einsteinian ToR that proposited time was dilated for the accelerated twin, does not refer to reality for its quantitative prediction. This therefore is bogus. And so any extrapolations from this Einsteinian ToR, would entail all sorts of myth.
p.s. Please forgive my earlier mistake. Should have specifically mentioned as the relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation, instead of plainly stated it as a GR solution. :-[
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 13:38:40
Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).Einstein's explanation using acceleration from GR doesnt work, even i can see that, i can show u if u want. But praps u agree -- your wordage is a bit ambiguous here.
There was ambiguity because two variations of ToR was insidioulsy involved for the relativistic solution. Nonetheless, the Einsteinian relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation), could work for its pragmatic theory of truth. This of course is not the actuality.
Please let me clarify:
In an experiment at CERN (https://www.nature.com/articles/268301a0), muons of velocity 0.9994c were found to have a lifetime 29.33 times the laboratory lifetime in the CERN Muon Storage Ring.
A moun particle at 0.994c, can be technically said to be 29.33 times younger than an at rest (non accelerating) moun particle in their passage of real time.
In this sense, the actuality is, matters can undergo physical transformation when accelerating; it is not time that has transformed.
The adulterated Einsteinian ToR that proposited time was dilated for the accelerated twin, does not refer to reality for its quantitative prediction. This therefore is bogus. And so any extrapolations from this Einsteinian ToR, would entail all sorts of myth.
p.s. Please forgive my earlier mistake. Should have specifically mentioned as the relativistic solution that invoked gravitational time dilation, instead of plainly stated it as a GR solution. :-[
In addition i suspect that much of modern Einsteinian particle physics is a part of a circular argument, using Einstein's gamma etc to find new particles & prove Einstein's gamma.
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 14:15:00
Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).
It is indeed ticking dilation at play.
You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS". (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20time%20dilation.htm)
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 14:38:02
In addition i suspect that much of modern Einsteinian particle physics is a part of a circular argument, using Einstein's gamma etc to find new particles & prove Einstein's gamma.
Much of the modern Einsteinian particle physics, is indeed part of a circular argument with the intrinsically flawed scientific method, stemmed off from the fallacious posits for time and space in modern physics.
You might also like to check out my works on:
- The UVS inductive resolution on unisonal evolution mechanism (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20unisonal%20evolution%20mechanism.htm)
- The UVS inductive resolution on the structure of atom
(http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm)
Post by: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 14:39:36
(http://[/url)Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems.Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).It is indeed ticking dilation at play. You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS". (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20time%20dilation.htm)
(1) I notice it refers to the MMX being null. No.
(2) It includes some wordage from wiki which as can be expected talks about time dilation instead of ticking dilation, wiki says...........
"In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field — such as in proximity to a planet — are found to be running slower.", "gravitational time dilation (as treated in general relativity) is not reciprocal: an observer at the top of a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree. Thus gravitational time dilation is agreed upon by all observers, independent of their altitude." - Excerpts from Wikipedia on time dilation.
"Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the higher the local distortion of spacetime due to gravity, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.", "Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks that traveled aboard the airplanes upon return were slightly fast with respect to clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect.". - Excerpts from Wikipedia on Gravitational time dilation.
(3) The ticking dilation with altitude is not necessarily due to gravitational potential.
(4) The Hafele Keating experiment did not confirm gravitational time dilation nor did it confirm gravitational ticking dilation, there was no dilation of any sort, the numbers were cherry picked & fudged, i can give u links.
(5) GPS time corrections are only partly gravitational at best, they are at least partly due to the aetherwind (ie the anisotropy of the speed of light), & are not accurately predicted by GR (contrary to Einsteinian claims).
Post by: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 15:18:45
(http://[/url)Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems.Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).It is indeed ticking dilation at play. You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS". (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20time%20dilation.htm)
(1) I notice it refers to the MMX being null. No.
The MMX did returned null result. However, neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist. It was a hatched job of the Einsteinians that have had obfuscated with the null hypothesis to claim that MMX had proven aether does not exist.
(2) It includes some wordage from wiki which as can be expected talks about time dilation instead of ticking dilation, wiki says..........."
Those two cited Wiki articles were used as the discussion headers for elaborating with its standard terminologies on the fallacious propositions of the Einsteinian time dilations.
(3) The ticking dilation with altitude is not necessarily due to gravitational potential.
IMO, it is due to centripetal acceleration that renders the equivalence of gravitational potential; geodesic motion (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406241/geodesic-equation-as-centripetal-acceleration).
(4) The Hafele Keating experiment did not confirm gravitational time dilation nor did it confirm gravitational ticking dilation, there was no dilation of any sort, the numbers were cherry picked & fudged, i can give u links.
Please provide the links. Tks.
(5) GPS time corrections are only partly gravitational at best, they are at least partly due to the aetherwind (ie the anisotropy of the speed of light), & are not accurately predicted by GR (contrary to Einsteinian claims).
Any link to "GPS time corrections are not accurately predicted by GR"? This is contrary to what I believe.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/10/2018 23:22:05
Yes, i will accept any evidence for anything, evidence is evidence.
Unless you deem that evidence to be made up by the scientists to support an Einsteinian conspiracy, that is.
Speaking of which, when are you going to give me the source for your claim that the VLBI measured the Sun's gravitational lensing to be 1.75000 arc-seconds?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/10/2018 00:09:30
Yes u need to watch out for fake evidence.Yes, i will accept any evidence for anything, evidence is evidence.Unless you deem that evidence to be made up by the scientists to support an Einsteinian conspiracy, that is.
Speaking of which, when are you going to give me the source for your claim that the VLBI measured the Sun's gravitational lensing to be 1.75000 arc-seconds?
Re the source for the 1.75000 arcsec i thort i had provided some info to allow googling of that, i will fix.
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/10/2018 00:11:45
Relativity and Clocks -- Carroll O Alley.(http://[/url)Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems.Yes, much of that muon etc stuff is over my head, however there is no such thing as time dilation it is ticking dilation, & that is sufficient to affect the ticking of a muon, hencely might affect lifetime etc -- i daresay that this kind of TD effect is common to every kind of relativity out there not just Einsteinian relativity (not forgetting that in SR & GR nothing is real)(i mean TD LC etc)(all is a clever math-trick).It is indeed ticking dilation at play. You might like to check this out: "Time dilation reviewed with UVS". (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20time%20dilation.htm)
(1) I notice it refers to the MMX being null. No.
The MMX did returned null result. However, neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproved the aether hypothesis; it merely had proven that the postulated static aether does not exist. It was a hatched job of the Einsteinians that have had obfuscated with the null hypothesis to claim that MMX had proven aether does not exist.(2) It includes some wordage from wiki which as can be expected talks about time dilation instead of ticking dilation, wiki says..........."
Those two cited Wiki articles were used as the discussion headers for elaborating with its standard terminologies on the fallacious propositions of the Einsteinian time dilations.(3) The ticking dilation with altitude is not necessarily due to gravitational potential.
IMO, it is due to centripetal acceleration that renders the gravitational potential; geodetic effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_effect).(4) The Hafele Keating experiment did not confirm gravitational time dilation nor did it confirm gravitational ticking dilation, there was no dilation of any sort, the numbers were cherry picked & fudged, i can give u links.
Please provide the links. Tks.(5) GPS time corrections are only partly gravitational at best, they are at least partly due to the aetherwind (ie the anisotropy of the speed of light), & are not accurately predicted by GR (contrary to Einsteinian claims).
Any link to "GPS time corrections are not accurately predicted by GR"? This is contrary to what I believe.
Mentions Hafele & Keating & 4 or 5 similar experiments. Plus a number of hill-valley experiments.
A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT -- Domina Eberle Spencer.
Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? -- A. G. Kelly PhD*
Critical Reflection on the Hafele and Keating Experiment -- Witold Nawrot
Successful search for ether drift in a modified michelson morley experiment using the GPS -- Stephan J G Gift.
The GPS and the constant velocity of light -- Paul Marmet.
Light transmission and the sagnac effect on the rotating earth -- Stephan J G Gift.
Another test of the light speed invariance postulate -- Stephan J G Gift.
Rebuttal of arguments published in "studies in history and philosophy of modern physics" claiming that special relativity is "symmetric, physical and consistent" -- J N Percival.
In search of an ether drift -- Ronald R Hatch.
Relativity and GPS -- Ronald R Hatch.
The global positioning system and the lorentz transformation -- Robert J Buenker.
Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity? -- Barry Springer.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/10/2018 05:34:15
Yes u need to watch out for fake evidence.
Such as?
Post by: mad aetherist on 19/10/2018 08:30:37
There are instances where aetherists have gotten access to data which was contrary to the published results. The main problem being lack of access (Shapiro's venus radar measurements is one such). Sometimes the published results when looked at with a critical eye reveal fudging or glossing. Off the top of my head some that i have read about are as follows.......Yes u need to watch out for fake evidence.Such as?
LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.
Post by: opportunity on 19/10/2018 09:44:50
Yousuf Godir asked the Naked Scientists:
Do we understand that some scientific phenomenon became a religion dogma for scientist, and hence rationality fades away? For example, Big Bang, gravitation, and heliocentric seem to me not holding their feet on the ground, yet scientist consider it immune. Do you think these theories have strong base?
What do you think?
I would say yes, on the condition the post is changed to "Can the "idea" of scientific beliefs be "related" with religious dogma".
Why?
Its a more exact use of words. It doesn't assume anything about today or yesterday, or tomorrow.
The point I am making here is that using the idea of "belief" with science, and thus a scientific tenet not completely fundamentally proven, an priori "guess" for instance, would have a nice back-up with the idea of "belief" itself, and thus religious dogma (and this is not to suggest a thorough a-prior scientific tenet could or should interfere with religious dogma, as the nature of religious dogma is to find the ultimate ideals of consciousness itself.....<another discussion>)
Post by: Kryptid on 20/10/2018 04:24:03
LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.
How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 04:41:21
I will have a go. Really each item deserves its own thread (but i wont). It will take time. I will start with Shapiro Delay. But anyhow i am going to have a nap first (too much wine).LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.
In most cases i will refer to others. But to some extent the authoritative source is me.
Which reminds me that u will not find any such review in mainstream magazines, in which case by definition they cannot be authoritative.
Which reminds me that u will not find any anti-Einstein article of any sort in a mainstream magazine. Certainly not if it is a sort of review. Sometimes u see one sneak throo, usually some sort of cutting edge stuff that no-one really understands, & then later when a bit of understanding starts to surface the mainstream-mafia get a rude shock & have to resort to a menu of fire retardants.
But i did see one anti article get throo, but it was many years ago, & couldnt happen today -- the article proved that neutrinos dont exist. It looked solid to me.
Post by: opportunity on 20/10/2018 04:48:54
We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 05:04:47
You guys and gals need to think outside the square. We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?Life & consciousness are the biggest mysteries in science. However i cannot believe in a god or any sort of supernatural thing. In fact i would prefer to be named Atheist Aetherist. So, consciousness, whatever it is, is certainly not above & beyond space & time. Consciousness is something that is natural & in our universe & in our dimension, & has a quantum material foundation (ie it aint sub-quantum).
But if i believed in God then at the same time i would hate the ***** not love him.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/10/2018 05:23:00
But to some extent the authoritative source is me.
I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that. My preference is for you to supply the original data from these studies and equipment and then explain why that data is incompatible with relativity or show where the data was faked or fudged.
By the way, please do take note that news articles are not an authoritative source. News articles are only as good as the person who writes them, and such an author who is not familiar with the material may misquote or misunderstand what was originally written.
the article proved that neutrinos dont exist. It looked solid to me.
I sure would like to see that, given that we've designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf
Post by: opportunity on 20/10/2018 05:46:26
As telling as my statement should be (and who responds to my posts anyway, right.,.,..too hard basket it seems) is science really needing to use advertising to get funding for the great questions of reality?
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 08:10:19
Ok i aint an authoritative source. But re believing me, surely u will look at the quality of what i say. After all, what i (will) say will be re what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades -- hencely what u are saying is that u will not believe anything i say, but surely u will read what i say (& then if impressed believe, or not).But to some extent the authoritative source is me.I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that. My preference is for you to supply the original data from these studies and equipment and then explain why that data is incompatible with relativity or show where the data was faked or fudged.
Re me needing much more solid evidence than that, i havent yet here given any evidence (solid or otherwise).
Yes i will give links to articles & some of them will refer to the raw data etc, & in some cases i will have some thorts of my own.
By the way, please do take note that news articles are not an authoritative source. News articles are only as good as the person who writes them, and such an author who is not familiar with the material may misquote or misunderstand what was originally written.Yes news articles are usually badly worded.
Here is a link to the article i had in mind. I would like an opinion from an expert in this field. I did see where an Einsteinian said that Buechner & Van de Graaf were using the wrong sort of reaction, their reaction would not give neutrinos -- was he correct.the article proved that neutrinos dont exist. It looked solid to me.I sure would like to see that, given that we've designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847.pdf
http://www.autodynamics.org/calorimetric-experiment/
That link article re using neutrinos for communication is impressive. I am open minded re the existence of neutrinos (or something else with the same name). A 170 tonne detector for a range of 1 km suggests the need for a gazzilion tonne detector at 1000 km.
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 08:20:11
I'm pretty sure God is not interested in being a politician ;)What questions?
As telling as my statement should be (and who responds to my posts anyway, right.,.,..too hard basket it seems) is science really needing to use advertising to get funding for the great questions of reality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/10/2018 08:28:48
No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances. My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.I think this youtube channel has some materials you might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT87-DzFFbPkAIk2PRZuz2A
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 08:40:27
Yes thanx for that link, i have watched some of David de Hilster's youtube stuff (Dissident Science). And lots & lots of other dissident videos, there is some interesting stuff out there.No i am a retired engineer, with very little science, & not much math. I like to have an intense interest for a few years & then move on to something new, & at present my main interest is aether (which requires that i try to understand the enemy (Einstein)).I am very impressed & awed with~by the intelligence of scientists, oldendays & modern, & wish that Einsteinism be quickly dumped so that science advances. My heroes are Cahill, Ranzan, Crothers, Demjanov, Michelson, Miller, Sagnac, Ives, Lorentz, Wallace, Builder, Dingle, Arp, VanFlandern, Allais, Esclangon, Munera, & about 20 others.I think this youtube channel has some materials you might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT87-DzFFbPkAIk2PRZuz2A
Post by: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 09:27:05
You guys and gals need to think outside the square.
We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?
Talking about thinking outside the square, try this metaphysical hypothesis:
"The genesis -The unisonal vortical motion of the universe (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20unisonal%20vortical%20motion%20of%20the%20universe.htm)"
Nonetheless, believing in God has its merits for the pragmatism it offers for the individuals as well as their society.
Post by: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59
LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.
How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.
Hello Kryptid, with all due respect, this kinda sounded like a hardcore member of the geocentrism cult during the geocentric era was asking: "How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such geocentric data was faked or fudged."
Having stated the above, it doesn't mean geocentrism is not pragmatic.
I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that.
Your opinion is making Galileo turn in his grave.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” - Galileo Galilei
Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.
'If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by "time". We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, ''I mean something like this: "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.' - Albert Einstein
Any relativist who believes that space and time are variants, therefore the phenomena of transformations in relative motion of uniform velocity are physically real in symmetrical situation, symmetrical length contraction in special relativity (SR) is physical, gravitational field physically distorts space and time, active transformations of time for time dilation effect in SR and gravitation time dilation in GR are scientifically proven, and one-way travel into the future in forward time travel is physically possible, he just needs to investigate the explanation by Einstein on time dilation effect in SR for clarification.
"In special relativity, the time dilation effect is reciprocal: as observed from the point of view of any two clocks which are in motion with respect to each other, it will be the other party's clock that is time dilated.", "In the special theory of relativity, a moving clock is found to be ticking slowly with respect to the observer's clock. If Sam and Abigail are on different trains in near-lightspeed relative motion, Sam measures (by all methods of measurement) clocks on Abigail's train to be running slowly and, similarly, Abigail measures clocks on Sam's train to be running slowly.", "Symmetric time dilation occurs with respect to temporal coordinate systems set up in this manner. It is an effect where another clock is being viewed as running slowly by an observer. Observers do not consider their own clock time to be time-dilated, but may find that it is observed to be time-dilated in another coordinate system.". Excerpts from Wikipedia on "Time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation)" and in a section at "Time dilation is symmetric between two inertial observers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_is_symmetric_between_two_inertial_observers)".
Watch a video clip on "Einstein Relativity theory declares aether necessary! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng)" for the declaration of aether made by Einstein on May 5th, 1920.
“... space without ether is unthinkable;” - Albert Einstein, on May 5th, 1920..
“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein
“Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live.” - Albert Einstein
It was none other than the author of "Theory of relativity" who had published the ToR papers since 1905 through 1915, which had thus began the era of modern physics, and Einstein by himself, not through another party, after 1919 with the world famous initial successful test of general relativity, was trying to tell the world in 1920 with his definitions to clarify what he meant by spacetime.
Is this source authoritative enough?
Post by: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 13:33:09
Relativity and Clocks -- Carroll O Alley.Mentions Hafele & Keating & 4 or 5 similar experiments. Plus a number of hill-valley experiments.
A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HAFELE-KEATING EXPERIMENT -- Domina Eberle Spencer.
Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything? -- A. G. Kelly PhD*
Critical Reflection on the Hafele and Keating Experiment -- Witold Nawrot
For the Hafele and Keating Experiment, in the reference frame that rotates with the Earth, the apparent higher velocity of clock C flying away to the west in a commercial aircraft from clock B, which when assumed to be stationary, would invalidate the Einsteinian ToR with the result of clock B ticking slower than clock C.
Nonetheless, the atomic clock B located on Earth, is actually not stationary in the reference frame of the Earth that doesn't rotate with the Earth. This means clock B actually has a vector velocity rendered by the rotation of the Earth in the reference frame. In this reference frame, the vector velocity of clock A is highest in the commercial aircraft flying east, and clock C in the commercial aircraft flying west, therefore has the slowest vector velocity in the reference frame; clock B actually has higher velocity than clock C in the reference frame.
In this reference frame, the test result of the Hafele and Keating Experiment, actually asserted the Einsteinian ToR; faster vector velocity renders slower ticking clock.
Time is actually dilated or not is another issue.
*My apology for using the term "vector velocity", was just trying to make a distinction.
Succesful search for ether drift in a modified michelson morley experiment using the GPS -- Stephan J G Gift.
The GPS and the constant velocity of light -- Paul Marmet.
Light transmission and the sagnac effect on the rotating earth -- Stephan J G Gift.
Another test of the light speed invariance postulate -- Stephan J G Gift.
Am already convinced on sagnac effect that confirms the existence of the ether.
This post by TR Livesey (https://www.quora.com/Is-GPS-possible-without-assuming-special-relativity?no_redirect=1) elaborated the past difficulties for the solutions with aether base theory, which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Einstein did not denounced aether, he was merely using ToR to provide pragmatic solutions that are less complex and more accurate.
Rebuttal of arguments published in "studies in history and philosophy of modern physics" claiming that special relativity is "symmetric, physical and consistent" -- J N Percival.
Am already convinced on the TD and LC of special relativity despite are symmetrical and consistent, they are merely apparent effects, and definitely not physical at all.
In search of an ether drift -- Ronald R Hatch.
Relativity and GPS -- Ronald R Hatch.
The global positioning system and the lorentz transformation -- Robert J Buenker.
Does the GPS system rely upon Einstein's relativity? -- Barry Springer.
Despite astounded, am not too surprised the calibration of atomic clocks in GPS satellites doesn't depend on Einsteinian ToR. Given the countless perturbations by celestial objects affecting the eccentricity of the satellite orbits, deviations caused by the Solar System reference frame, Milky Way reference frame, as well as cosmic reference frame, atmospheric conditions, etc, I think it is pragmatically difficult to use ToR to accurately calibrate the atomic clocks in the satellites under the circumstances. Thanks to you, I now know the synchronizations of the atomic clocks are not to the merit of ToR, but the impracticability does not conclusively invalidate ToR.
Much could be discussed with the linked provided, but I just touch on a few salient points for now.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/10/2018 21:38:28
Ok i aint an authoritative source. But re believing me, surely u will look at the quality of what i say.
The quality of which in turn will depend on the strength of your sources.
Quote
After all, what i (will) say will be re what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades -- hencely what u are saying is that u will not believe anything i say, but surely u will read what i say (& then if impressed believe, or not).
That depends on whether what you say is backed up by the data.
Quote
Re me needing much more solid evidence than that, i havent yet here given any evidence (solid or otherwise).
Yes i will give links to articles & some of them will refer to the raw data etc, & in some cases i will have some thorts of my own.
I will be waiting.
Here is a link to the article i had in mind. I would like an opinion from an expert in this field. I did see where an Einsteinian said that Buechner & Van de Graaf were using the wrong sort of reaction, their reaction would not give neutrinos -- was he correct.
http://www.autodynamics.org/calorimetric-experiment/
This is a new phenomenon to me. It seems to me that this experiment didn't detect any unaccounted for energy losses, neutrino-related or otherwise. If the temperature in the apparatus did not drop like expected if energy was being carried away by an unknown mechanism, then that suggests no energy was being lost in the first place. So it seems like they did something wrong and were not reproducing the phenomenon they sought to test. Besides, the lack of neutrinos in this particular experiment doesn't mean neutrinos don't exist. They've been detected in plenty of other experiments.
A 170 tonne detector for a range of 1 km suggests the need for a gazzilion tonne detector at 1000 km.
Perhaps that would be true if the neutrinos were being emitted spherically, in which case the minimum sensitivity of the detector would need increase with the square of the distance from the source. For a beam of neutrinos, however, such is not the case. A perfect beam would not diverge at all and so could be detected at any distance. Any real beam would diverge somewhat, and therefore there would need to be some increase in sensitivity at larger distances, (but nowhere near that reflecting the inverse square law).
@Paradigmer
I believe you misunderstand me. When I say an authoritative source, what I'm asking for are data from experiments that have been through the peer review process. It's not a matter of "some scientist said so, therefore it must be correct". Obviously, the words of a scientist are hollow if there is nothing to back it up. The reason that it needs to be an authoritative source that has been peer-reviewed is because there is a need for the information to be reliable and trustworthy. If the data has been reviewed by other scientists that are experts in their field, it is much more likely to be reliable than if it is from a lone venture experiment that has not been reviewed at all. A lone experimenter may not have the needed precision or may have made some fundamental errors. This is why replication of experimental results are important, to rule out mistakes like this.
As far as aether goes, it doesn't matter much to me whether Einstein believed in it or not. My arguments aren't against the aether, it's against the claim that the data supporting relativity is being faked by some conspirators in high places.
Post by: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 22:44:24
Am already convinced on sagnac effect that confirms the existence of the ether.Unfortunately Einsteinians claim (probly correctly) that the SagnacX results can be explained by both the aether theory & by the SR-GR theory. However the largest SagnacX ever done can be shown to support the nLeT theory whilst not supporting SR-GR. That SagnacX was the MGX, sometimes called the MGPX (Michelson Gale Pearson), done in 1925 i think. I might start a thread on the MGX -- where i will explain my theory.
This post by TR Livesey (https://www.quora.com/Is-GPS-possible-without-assuming-special-relativity?no_redirect=1) elaborated the past difficulties for the solutions with aether base theory, which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Einstein did not denounced aether, he was merely using ToR to provide pragmatic solutions that are less complex and more accurate.I have pasted Livesey's wordage below. He says that Einstein is simpler & more accurate than Lorentz (ie LeT). The truth is the opposite. Livesey mentions aether, but he doesnt mention aetherwind -- aether is the old Lorentz (LeT) -- aetherwind is the new Lorentz (ie neo-Lorentzian relativity)(i will call this nLeT).
In nLeT u use gamma to calculated a satellite's apparent ticking compared to its absolute (true) ticking, using the aetherwind (v) (where v includes the background aetherwind plus the satellites velocity)
However i suspect that nLeT is deficient, i think that it might need to include the slowing of light near mass (predicted by Einstein). Hencely SR & GR are wrong, mainly because they dont allow for the aetherwind. But, nLeT is wrong too, because it doesnt allow for GR.
GR includes time dilation (time) & length contraction (space) -- i am not sure which of these or how much of these should be included in nLeT. I think none should be included. What i mean is that nLeT should include the slowing of light -- the TD & LC in the GR are not the slowing of light, they derive from the slowing of light -- nLeT needs the slowing of light (it doesnt need another dose of TD or LC)(see?).
From Quora..........TR Livesey, Scientist and Activist
Answered May 15 2016 · Author has 1.6k answers and 1.2m answer views
GPS does not prove relativity. GPS does corrections in clock measurements based on both special (SR) and general (GR) relativity without which the system would very quickly accumulate errors and be useless. Comment. No. GPS does not need SR or GR or nLeT synching. However it makes things easier if the satellites have clocks that are approximately in synch with the ground. The ground has to in any case make lots of hourly small corrections. If the clocks are nearly in in synch then the corrections need only be very small, but if the clocks are not nearly in synch then the corrections will need to be big -- both scenarios will work ok, & both scenarios would need the same number & frequency of corrections.
And, GPS doesnt use SR or GR or nLeT -- they know from years of experience what sort of synch correction does the trick, & they do it.
That may encourage considerable confidence in relativity, but it does not prove it.
The corrections used are actually very simple. The GPS system requires very high accuracy in clock signals from the orbiting GPS satellites. According to GR, clocks near a gravitational object tick slower than clocks further away, so before launch, the clocks on the GPS satellite are set to run slightly slower. Problem solved. The corrections needed for SR need to account for the magnitude and orientation of the satellite movement relative to the ground unit, so these have to be done in the ground unit. These calculations basically involve plugging instantaneous position and velocity information of the satellite that come down in the data frame from the satellite into a polynomial. Very easy. You can read for yourself pp 88-89 in ICD-GPS-200, Revision C, Initial Release. INTERFACE CONTROL DOCUMENT
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icw...
Now let me say something about LET (Lorentz Aeather Theory). First, LET does not lead to GR, so corrections needed for gravitational effects would be missing, and the whole system would not work.
Comment. I have a suspicion that nLeT does indeed need some sort of allowance for slowing of light near mass.
But more importantly, LET is hard. LET is based on a presumed interaction or drag between the electric field of charged particles and the aether that actually distort (compress) the electron (and things composed of them) in the direction of motion. This is a very difficult thing to model, but to a low order of magnitude comes out to the term now known as the Lorentz factor. Comment. I dont know of any modelling of any sort, other than the original FitzGerald Lorentz Voigt Larmor Poincare model.
At the time, the electron was the only known subatomic particle. A more complete LET would have to account for other subatomic particles, as well as whole atoms, which would make it astonishingly more complicated.
Comment. No. It would not need to be astonishingly more complicated. At present the Lorentz model is very simple, & it is likely that it does not need any extra terms to cater for elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc). A model is as complicated as u want. In the end it will be wrong anyhow, as all models are, no model is reality, if it were reality then it wouldnt be a model.
For example, there is the neutron, which under LET would suffer no 'relativistic' effects since it has no electric field to interact with the aether. Comment. No. Every particle has an electric field. The neutron might have a zero nett field, but that doesnt mean that it has no field. The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. However if Livesey is correct that the neutron doesnt accord with the Lorentz gamma then this might mean that gamma is not accurate -- that s ok, we dont really know how accurate gamma is -- for sure it aint 100% accurate.
One of the great distinguishing features of SR is its simplicity compared to the theories it competed with. SR is a completely kinematic theory: how we observe things in motion, given two simple postulates - all motion is relative and the speed of light is independent of any relative motion of its source. It does not need to address the properties of matter, or the aether, or the interaction thereof. Comment. SR & GR are wrong -- in the modern hi-precision world we are starting to see errors.
It is hard for a modern reader to appreciate Einstein's original 1905 paper on SR. He lays out the two postulates, notes interesting consequences such as time dilation and length contraction, and then solves a series of apparently random problems. A reader of 1905, however, would recognize the problems Einstein chose to solve as being interesting and difficult ones. And Einstein's provides exact solutions which are comparatively simple, compared to other contemporary theories such as LET which give much more complex and often only approximate solutions. Comment. Rubbish.
Because SR derives the same Loretz factor from its two postulates, for some time Einstein's theory was considered somehow a generalization of Loretz's, despite the fact that as early as 1908 Einstein pointed out Loretz gives a different prediction for the transverse Doppler effect. Eventually, LET fell by the wayside because it was far more cumbersome than SR, and as new subatomic particles and the structure of the atom were discovered, there was no need to revisit LET to account for these things since SR already offered complete solutions that didn't need to account for these things. Comment. Rubbish.
Anyone who claims LET offers simpler explanations than SR does not understand LET Comment. Rubbish. If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/10/2018 23:39:34
You guys and gals need to think outside the square.Please define "consciousness".
We are limited as sentient beings with what we can perceive. If you assume consciousness is above and beyond space and time itself, why not believe in God?
Post by: mad aetherist on 21/10/2018 07:25:51
Here are a few -- i havnt checked these there might be multiple links -- youtube links at end (if them youtube links dont work then just go into youtube & search for IVOR CATT)(there are about 5 good videos).I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).Is there a link to the articles?
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_1.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/07091.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/08101.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2698.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/981.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
Post by: LB7 on 21/10/2018 09:26:32
Are physicist more dangerous than crazy people of god ?
Today it is possible to destroy a country like France or UK in one night with 30 people and without weapons: just burn the HV voltage transformers in the substations. Even, France or UK could survive without electricity for months, the time to build another HV transformers (few factories and it is not a standard piece except RecX transformers in USA), the nuclear plants can't survive more than a week without any external power, there are not autonomous to cooling themselves. In the pools in nuclear plants there are hundreds of times the radiations compared to the core or even nuclear bombs.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42795.pdf
So, if tomorrow terrorists, the people who believe in god, destroy HV transformers in Europe, the northern continent will have at least 1 or maybe 2 Sv each year, the last conclusions from Greenpeace are worst. The entire life on Earth could be affect durably, in bad terms. So, are there scientists responsible of that ? Even physicists could argue they don't choose anything about politics, you know politics are unable to build a doghouse so imagine to build a nuclear plant.
NB: for me there is only one science: physics
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/10/2018 09:44:20
The questions could be:The last power plant I looked at could run on diesel.
Are physicist more dangerous than crazy people of god ?
Today it is possible to destroy a country like France or UK in one night with 30 people and without weapons: just burn the HV voltage transformers in the substations. Even, France or UK could survive without electricity for months, the time to build another HV transformers (few factories and it is not a standard piece except RecX transformers in USA), the nuclear plants can't survive more than a week without any external power, there are not autonomous to cooling themselves. In the pools in nuclear plants there are hundreds of times the radiations compared to the core or even nuclear bombs.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42795.pdf
So, if tomorrow terrorists, the people who believe in god, destroy HV transformers in Europe, the northern continent will have at least 1 or maybe 2 Sv each year, the last conclusions from Greenpeace are worst. The entire life on Earth could be affect durably, in bad terms. So, are there scientists responsible of that ? Even physicists could argue they don't choose anything about politics, you know politics are unable to build a doghouse so imagine to build a nuclear plant.
The paper you cited makes no mention of this fuel.
How do you spell "scaremongering"?
Post by: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 04:14:28
The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction.
I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons.
Have tell me how you come to this proposition?
If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.
Interesting! Can you show?
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 05:42:44
Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction.I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons.Have tell me how you come to this proposition?
A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.
On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?
The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.
Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.
(1) In aether theory u firstly calculate the aetherwind Vawo blowing throo observer O, & (2) stick Vawo into the equation for Lorentz gamma to give u the gamma (gamma(O)) that applies to the ticking rate for O's clock. (3) If u divide the apparent ticking rate of clock O by gamma(O) then that would give u the absolute ticking rate for clock O in the absolute reference frame (where the aetherwind Vaw is zero kmps), but there is no need to do (3), just saying.If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.Interesting! Can you show?
In (1) u (a) use the known background aetherwind on Earth Vbgaw, which is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis, Right Ascension 4.5 hr. And (b) u correct for Earth's spin (Vspin say 0.4 kmps) at your latitude (spin correction changes during 24 hrs)(due to the 20 deg), & (c) u correct for Earth's orbit (Vorbit say 30 kmps)(this correction changes during 24 hrs & during 365 days) .
(4) And u already know the apparent ticking rate of clock O.
Then to calculate the expected ticking rate of your clock (or an identical clock) for when it will be sitting in a satellite u calculate (1) for the satellite, ie its expected aetherwind (Vaws), & (2) stick Vaws into gamma to give gamma(S) for the satellite clock.
(5) The ratio of gamma(O) to gamma(S) is the ratio of the ticking rates.
(6) The main problem being that the aetherwind will be changing for both O & S during every second of the day & year.
In SR-GR u simply (1) calculate the relative velocity tween O & S & (2) stick that into Einstein's equation for gamma (this equation looks identical to Lorentz's, but it aint) to give gamma(O-S), which is the ratio of the ticking rates (no need for step (5)). However u will still need to continuously correct for the changing relative velocities of O & S similarly to (6).
So, SR-GR looks simpler than the aether theory model. But wait. SR-GR give bad numbers. Einsteinians have to resort to a menu of fudges to try to explain. Here they invoke a faux-Sagnac correction. So, u now have to go throo steps (7 8 9) or something, to work out a bogus faux-Sagnac correction. I aint gonna bother. Good luck with that.
One slight possible problem. I suspect that light does indeed slow near mass (in which case Einstein was right), altho i suspect that the slowing is probly a half of what Einstein said (in which case Einstein was half right)(due to a lucky guess of sorts)(but i think deserves credit anyhow)(if slowing is found to be true).
Anyhow i dont know what an aetheric calculation might look like -- i dont think that it will be much like the GR correction for space (radial length contraction) nor time (ticking dilation) -- i think that if ever it raises its ugly head the model & its equations will look nothing like gamma.
And i haven't included any such slowing correction in the above SR-GR calcs (but i did use gamma once)(praps i should have used it twice).
Post by: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 05:54:59
I believe you misunderstand me. When I say an authoritative source, what I'm asking for are data from experiments that have been through the peer review process. It's not a matter of "some scientist said so, therefore it must be correct". Obviously, the words of a scientist are hollow if there is nothing to back it up. The reason that it needs to be an authoritative source that has been peer-reviewed is because there is a need for the information to be reliable and trustworthy. If the data has been reviewed by other scientists that are experts in their field, it is much more likely to be reliable than if it is from a lone venture experiment that has not been reviewed at all. A lone experimenter may not have the needed precision or may have made some fundamental errors. This is why replication of experimental results are important, to rule out mistakes like this.
Appreciate you take the effort to clarify, and I understand where you are coming from.
The replication of experimental results is of course important to rule out mistakes.
My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised.
Am stating this with my conviction on “Critiques of the scientific method” (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity).
As far as aether goes, it doesn't matter much to me whether Einstein believed in it or not.
Your this opinion is making Richard Fenyman turn in his grave:
“And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.” - Richard Fenyman on cargo cult science
The postulation for aether, is the crux of the contention by the scientists of those venture experiments; this must not be simply brushed away with the appeal to authority.
The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.
I believe you do not understand its implications when you said it doesn’t matter to you much whether Einstein believed in it or not.
Einstein was not quite in peace on this.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925
It would falsify the Minkowski spacetime.
My arguments aren't against the aether, it's against the claim that the data supporting relativity is being faked by some conspirators in high places.
IMO, the contention was on the ways relativity were being spuriously supported to denounce aether, which renders all sorts of physical paradoxes and the myths they entailed, therefore much to the unrest of the so called dissidents. It was not entirely on the data that supports relativity.
Nonetheless, keep up with your work on the designed systems that use neutrinos as a communication medium. After all, I agree pragmatism is an important criterion for scientific endeavors and progress. All the best.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/10/2018 19:03:04
My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised.
Compromised how?
The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.
The situation is not at all comparable. The scientific establishment as we know it today did not exist in Galileo's time. The church silenced Galileo for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Moreover, Galileo was not "put away for good", as the scientific establishment currently recognizes his work.
I believe you do not understand its implications when you said it doesn’t matter to you much whether Einstein believed in it or not.
It doesn't matter much to me because a belief is not evidence.
@mad aetherist
When are you going to post that fake evidence you were talking about?
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 22:12:29
Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.No, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 22:18:29
Lets go back to 1905.But to some extent the authoritative source is me.I don't think so. I'm not going to believe one random guy on the Internet over what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades now. You're going to need much more solid evidence than that. My preference is for you to supply the original data from these studies and equipment and then explain why that data is incompatible with relativity or show where the data was faked or fudged...........
We see one random guy. Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/10/2018 22:26:11
Lets go back to 1905.
We see one random guy. Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.
You're right. Until the data of the relevant experiments were in and reviewed, we would have been right to be skeptical of Einstein's claims. I believe that many scientists were, in fact.
Post by: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 23:00:32
Not quite. There was major disagreement untill about 1932 i think it was when Miller's MMX was done & this showed an aetherwind, south to north, after which the major disagreement continued. Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.Lets go back to 1905.You're right. Until the data of the relevant experiments were in and reviewed, we would have been right to be skeptical of Einstein's claims. I believe that many scientists were, in fact.
We see one random guy. Contradicting what professional scientists have been publishing for many decades. With no solid evidence, in fact with evidence contrary to what the random guy said (ie the MMX wasnt null).
And with no peer review. Alby has not had any article of his peer reviewed before publishing ever. Not one. Nix. Zilch. Zero.
Hey everybody, look at that blackhole over there.
Re being skeptical i am skeptical about everything all the time. Everyone should be likewise.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/10/2018 23:31:27
Not quite. There was major disagreement untill about 1932 i think it was when Miller's MMX was done & this showed an aetherwind, south to north, after which the major disagreement continued. Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.
Einstein died disbelieving in SR and GR? Source please. Even if he did, it doesn't matter. As I've said before, beliefs are not evidence. Speaking of which, are you finally going to give me a source for that fake evidence you claim to exist?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 03:02:58
SHAPIRO DELAY FUDGING.LIGO gravitational waves (harmonics of the calibration signals)..How about providing some authoritative source clearly showing that any such data was faked or fudged.
Hafele Keating -- raw data shows was cherry picked & fudged.
GPS -- trumpeted as confirming Einstein.
Hammar X -- sfarti makes fake comments saying it destroys aether (no it didnt).
Roberts -- hit job on Miller MMX.
Shankland -- hit job on Miller MMX.
BICEP2 -- CMB & gravity waves & bigbang rubbish.
COBE & WMAP stuff -- blackbody radiation too good to be true.
Shapiro Delay -- fudged.
Roodenburg reckons that Shapiro shouldnt be using Schwarzschild (so confirmation of a Schwarzschildian GR delay to 5 decimals smells fishy).
Roodenburg et al -- Emmy Noether the ignored scientist.
Introduction and relevance.
Emmy Noether (1882 – 1935) was a brilliant mathematician, creating one of the pillars of physics: defining reference frames within which energy and momentum conservation can be proven. However, she was at the wrong place at the wrong time. The best position she could obtain was that of an assistant to David Hilbert, a mathematician at the university of Göttingen.
In 1933, she fled to the USA, where she died two years later. In 1915, she was hired by professor Hilbert to the university of Gottingen, who stated that "I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as lecturer. After all, we are a university, not a bath house”. Hilbert did, as one of the very few male scientists, not ignore her. In 1918 Noether’s theorem was published, a year after Einstein published his theory of
General Relativity. Unfortunate timing, because her theorem would have helped Einstein with his theory. General Relativity is in some respects in conflict with Noether’s theorem. Although she signaled these inconsistencies to Einstein and despite his admiration for her work, he somehow did not take her comments to heart and ignored these comments in his work.
Emmy Noether remains the ignored scientist because her theorem is still not implemented in Einstein’s theory. Einstein’s theory is brilliant, but not perfect. For example, energy conservation requires the speed of light to be invariant to time in the wider reference frame, not just in the local reference frame. Because Einstein did not correct his theory for Noether’s theorem, a small error lingers in the Schwarzschild solution, which prohibits the Shapiro delay to be explained by the Schwarzschild solution. Amazingly, Noether’s theorem is not even mentioned in a major work of Relativity: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler’s “Gravitation”. Emmy Noether, the ignored scientist.
Implications: 1) Inability to use the Schwarzschild solution to describe the Shapiro delay, 2) Failing proper time in gravitation at high transversal speed (like at CERN), 3) Failing energy momentum conservation within a sphere, 4) Ability to compute escape speed from a sphere, 5) black holes without singularity. Let us now look further into Noether’s theorem, the resulting error in General Relativity, followed by the repair the Schwarzschild Solution for Noether’s theorem.
Asada reckons that Shapiro Delay is due to the propagation of light not the propagation of gravity.
The light cone effect on the shapiro time delay -- Asada.
A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft -- Bertotti et al -- 2003.
Bertotti shows Fig 3 showing the residuals for 18 days -- the residuals for each day each have a spread of about 0.0008 Hz, yet Bertotti takes the averages & claims an accuracy of +- 0.000023 Hz.
Radar testing of the relative velocity of light in space -- Bryan G Wallace -- 1969.
Wallace puts a case for c+v.
Farce of physics -- Bryan G Wallace. Chapter 6 is good. See also below.
The suppression of interesting facts in physics -- Rochus Boerner -- 2003.
Is the Speed of Light in Interplanetary Space a Constant?
The late physicist Bryan G. Wallace discovered in 1961 that radar distance measurements of the surface of the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. There were systematic variations in the radar data containing diurnal, lunar and synodic components. Attempting to get his results published in Physical Review Letters, he encountered great resistance from referees, and eventually settled for a lesser journal[48].
In a letter to Physics Today[49] Wallace summarizes his findings as follows:
"The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best [general relativity] fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense. "
Let's do a quick reality check here. If the speed of light in interplanetary space is non constant, how could NASA not have noticed in its robotic exploration of the solar system? Wallace makes the scandalous claim that NASA has noticed, and has been using equations with non-relativistic components to calculate signal transit times in the solar system all along:
"At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation."[50]
In a 1973 paper[51], Wallace describes how the Lincoln Lab introduced averaging to suppress the anomalous radar results and refused to release the raw data to him, stonewalling his investigation.
"The apparent improvement in the residuals for later years was due to the fact that the Lab interpolated the 1964 [Venus] data to 12:00 UT and the 1967 data to one observation a day from 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT. The observing time for the 1961 data ranged from 00:33 UT to 23:40 UT. The involved radar astronomers are publicly claiming nearly complete agreement between their recent radar analysis and general relativity, but my investigation reveals otherwise. At the Fourth Texas Symposium of Relativistic Astrophysics, I.I. Shapiro of the Lincoln Lab promised to send me any data I wanted. I read in an article published by the lab that they had data for the same observing dates covering a wide range of daily observing times from both the MIT and USSR radar stations. I wrote Shapiro requesting this data 2/13/69; his letters of 2/28/69 and 3/12/69 ignored my request. I made an issue of this in my letter to him of 3/20/69, and in his reply of 3/27/69 he stated, 'Unfortunately the data do not exist in the form in which you wanted them and hence, I cannot honor your request.'
Shapiro later sent me data that were completely worthless for making an objective test of the relative velocity of light in space. The data were from two MIT radar stations in Massachusetts. The separation between them was only 0.2' of longitude and 20.6" of latitude and the observations had been interpolated to 2:12 UT to 2:21 UT with only one observation per day. It seems obvious that the Lab eliminated the variations by interpolating the data for each day to the one observing time for that day that agreed with the general relativity prediction. One could use the same method to prove that a stopped clock keeps perfect time."
A subsequent letter submitted to Physics Today on July 9, 1984 was denied publication. Wallace reproduced this letter in the chapter Publication Politics of his online book The Farce of Physics[52]. In it, he wrote
"The speed of light is c+v
During a current literature search, I requested and received a reprint of a paper [T. D. Moyer, Celes. Mech., 23, 33(1981)] published by Theodore D. Moyer of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The paper reports the methods used to obtain accurate values of range observables for radio and radar signals in the solar system. The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE. [B. G. Wallace, Spectros. Lett., 2, 361(1969)] The additional terms in the (A6) equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and charged particles, as well as the general relativity effects of gravity and velocity time dilation.
The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein's sacred second postulate. Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS to bring true scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy."
Supporting evidence comes from Ronald Hatch who finds that the NASA equations for interplanetary navigation follow his MLET theory rather than special relativity:
"The experimental evidence is almost overwhelming in support of the MLET view. There is a large disjoint between the SRT theorists and the experimentalists. The SRT theorists continue to claim that the speed of light is automatically the velocity c and isotropic with respect to the moving observer or experiment. But the SRT experimentalists do what is necessary to explain and make sense of the measurements. The equations for tracking and navigating the interplanetary probes developed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory(JPL) for NASA clearly follow the MLET template."[27]
Mr. Wallace died on April 19, 1997, his findings ignored and thus neither confirmed nor refuted by the physics establishment. The question remains: Is the speed of light in interplanetary space subject to systematic variations in time?
It is therefore imperative that systematic, high precision speed of light experiments be performed in earth orbit and interplanetary space. No such experiments have been carried out yet - why test a theory that you already know is correct? - but majority opinion has been changing lately. Attempts to reconcile general relativity with quantum theory have been a notable failure, and physicists have come to suspect that a unified field theory must involve "small" violations of special and general relativity. Müller et al. state
"Special relativity (SR) underlies all accepted theories of nature at the fundamental level. Therefore, it has been and must be tested with ever increasing precision to provide a firm basis for its future application. Such tests are also motivated by the efforts to unify gravity with the other forces of nature, one of the outstanding open challenges in modern science. In fact, many currently discussed models of quantum gravity do violate the principles of SR."[36]
This has finally created a renewed interest in testing both relativity theories experimentally to high precision. German physicists are currently designing the OPTIS mission[53], a satellite carrying ultra-high precision experiments to test key assumptions and predictions of relativity; among them, the isotropy and constancy of the speed of light. As expected, the OPTIS mission objective is to confirm special and general relativity, or at most to find weak violations:
"New unifying theories (e.g. the String-Theory) predict small deviations from the Special and General Relativity. If such deviations could be found (e.g. an unisotropy of the speed of light) the way to a new understanding of the time and space structure of the universe would be open."[54]
The motivation to conduct such experiments in Earth orbit is solely due to technological considerations and has nothing to do with the dissident argument that space-based tests of special relativity might produce radically different results than ground-based ones. But if Miller and other relativity critics are right, OPTIS may find much more than small deviations. The mission is still in the planning stages and no launch date has been set, but results could be available between 2005 and 2007.
Relativistic deflection of light near the Sun using radio signals and visible light -- P Marmet and C Couture.
This pours cold water on Shapiro.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/10/2018 06:15:53
Can you actually show me links to the data? You know, the actual, original studies? If you're going to claim that the data is fudged, I'm going to need to be able to confirm that the data is what you and others claim it is and that it doesn't match relativity's predictions.
By the way, who is this Roodenburg you mention?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 07:36:29
@mad aetheristHere is a link to the Roodenburg stuff. I will get Shapiro's stuff later.
Can you actually show me links to the data? You know, the actual, original studies? If you're going to claim that the data is fudged, I'm going to need to be able to confirm that the data is what you and others claim it is and that it doesn't match relativity's predictions.
By the way, who is this Roodenburg you mention?
http://www.loop-doctor.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Emmy-Noether-the-ignored-scientist_v9.pdf
Noether’s theorem enhances Einstein’s Relativity
______________________________________________________________________________
More information?
Our three books (www.loop-doctor.nl) describe the repair of Einstein’s Relativity for Noether’s
theorem in full detail. We hope you get as many “aha” experiences as we did,
Rob Roodenburg (MSc. author)
Frans de Winter (MSc. coauthor)
Oscar van Duijn (MSc. coauthor)
Maarten Palthe (MSc. editor)
February, 2018
Post by: Paradigmer on 23/10/2018 11:34:08
Quote from: Paradigmer on Yesterday at 05:54:59The rebuttals to the experiments that demonstrated the existence of aether, are akin to those in the geocentric era after having officially denounced the spheroidal Earth hypothesis, put away Galileo for good, and then high-handedly asked the deprived supporters of the Galilean hypothesis for supporting authoritative source.QuoteThe situation is not at all comparable. The scientific establishment as we know it today did not exist in Galileo's time. The church silenced Galileo for religious reasons, not scientific ones. Moreover, Galileo was not "put away for good", as the scientific establishment currently recognizes his work.
Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism. Galileo was put away for good at then, and that was the insidious intention of the involved authorities. His works was revived in modern science is another thing. The scientific establishment that could exist two centuries later, may not be known today.
Quote from: Paradigmer on Yesterday at 05:54:59My take is, when authoritative sources are asserted with compromised peer-reviews, even they are for whatsoever good reasons, such as pragmatism, the necessity for the information to be reliable and trustworthy, is compromised.QuoteCompromised how?
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed. Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#cosmic_inflation)
This is a subtopic from "Critiques of the scientific method (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)", which could be worthy for a read.
p.s. Please forgive my audacity. As offensive as my propositions seem to be, I have no mean to be offensive in any way.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/10/2018 14:44:12
Here is a link to the Roodenburg stuff.
Who is Roodenburg? Is he a physicist?
Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism.
Of that I have no doubt. That tends to be the case with any new idea in science that proposes to revolutionize the way we fundamentally think about the Universe. Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me. It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.
The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.
Then you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.
Quote
Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space
Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review. Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.
Post by: Paradigmer on 23/10/2018 14:47:42
Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.QuoteNo, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?
That postulate doesn't make sense. Where was this from?
And i haven't included any such slowing correction in the above SR-GR calcs (but i did use gamma once)(praps i should have used it twice).
IMO, you should use time dilation
Even then, with all other countless known and unknow perturbations, such as those caused by the unsolved 3-body problem, retrograde motion of the Earth in the galactic reference frame, etc, unlike in the lab, it is very difficult to be very accurate for predicting the TD for the atomic clock for every instant. And this is even so for a single satellite revolution that deviates with its apsidal motion for every revolution.
For instant, the Earth's equatorial plane is inclined at about sixty degree to the spiral trajectory of the Sun in its complex helical path while revolving around the Milky Way. This mean half the time the Earth in its complex motion, is revolving in its relative retrograde motion in the Solar System reference frame with its obliquity of the ecliptic alone. Also, the 3-body problem even with its pragmatic solution, is too overwhelming to handle with the countless celestial objects that could spontaneously perturb conjunctionally at any point of the orbit of the satellite. With all else that complexly contribute to its final outcomes, it therefore is more pragmatic to synchronize the atomic clocks with the differencing method.
Post by: Paradigmer on 23/10/2018 15:01:08
Quote from: Paradigmer on Today at 11:34:08The scientific method is intrinsically flawed.QuoteThen you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.
I wouldn't say that.
But you got Hannes Alfven turn in his grave:
“We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect.” - Hannes Alfven, 1986.
Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/10/2018 15:16:41
But you got Hannes Alfven turn in his grave:
You sure do like the "turning in his grave" line.
Quote
Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.
Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/10/2018 15:21:03
Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of supporting observations
Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of contradictory observations
Scientific knowledge: the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been contradicted by observation
This places a fair amount of astronomy and cosmology, where we have plenty of observations and hypotheses, but very few tests of predictive hypotheses, in what Eddington called the "stamp collecting" phase of science. Nothing wrong with it, but it distinguishes pre-Darwinian ornithology, for instance, from physics.
Post by: Paradigmer on 23/10/2018 18:56:43
Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me.
In that kind of timeline, there was at least one that is prominent enough.
The heliocentrism by Aristarchus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) was rejected in favor of the incorrect geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy for more than a millennium.
It was later revived by the Copernican revolution 1,200 year later.
It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.
I know. And the unthinkable audacity that sort of implies "You guys out there are all idiots!" to the accomplished top brains of the top notch authority.
p.s. Will reply your other critical question later.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2018 19:25:46
Yes.
Let me know when you see the Pope wearing a T shirt that says "Will convert for evidence".
That's the comparison.
Post by: LB7 on 23/10/2018 19:51:55
Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of supporting observations
Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of contradictory observations
Scientific knowledge: the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been contradicted by observation
The problem is there: "observation". If you're not able to observe because too small or/and too fast and not enough intelligent to imagine you're blocked in front of a wall.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2018 19:54:00
The problem is there: "observation".In what way is that a problem?
BTW, before answering that, please consider that you are only able to make comments because you observe what's on this web page.
Post by: LB7 on 23/10/2018 20:02:27
In what way is that a problem?Because, you are a slave of the observations. And not all things can be observed because too fast and/or too small. You need something more powerful than observations. People observe and build, it is not idiot but it is copy/paste nothing else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2018 20:32:25
And not all things can be observedWhat's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?
(I freely admit; science doesn't generally deal with things which don't exist)
Post by: LB7 on 23/10/2018 21:15:33
What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?
I mean :
And not all things can be observed with the actual technology because too fast and/or too small. Things that can be observed by a superior technology but not by the actual human technology. The worst case: you need to observe to understand something to build the technology that will allow to observe the thing you want to observe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2018 21:26:55
What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/10/2018 21:28:05
And not all things can be observed with the actual technology because too fast and/or too small.Do you mean that bacteria didn't exist until someone invented the microscope?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 21:28:18
I karnt remember. It might be found in a listing of Einstein's wordages. It is the only way to try to overcome the twins paradox (apart from philosophical arguments). Clearly average acceleration doesnt work, so Einstein nominated that it is not the average accel, ie that a clock's future ticking was affected by its history. If u ever find the wordage then tell me.Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.That postulate doesn't make sense. Where was this from?QuoteNo, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 21:34:38
Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.QuoteSince the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/10/2018 22:27:59
Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.
Oh, so not any step in the actual scientific method at all then.
I must admit, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not something I have looked into often. Can you supply me with a link to the original studies and address the criticisms that have been filed against it (such as those non-null results you speak of being within the range of statistical error)? Also, why have much more sensitive experiments (such as this one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf) not reproduced the non-null MMX results you speak of?
Post by: mad aetherist on 23/10/2018 23:18:53
I had a look at that link -- Eisele et al used a vacuum chamber -- Cahill has explained that an MMX needs gas (vacuum gives zero fringeshift)(Demjanov 1970 likewise). What Eisele (Laboratory test of isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level) has shown is that the Lorentz gamma equation for LC is accurate to the 17th decimal. Eisele did his X in 2009, therefore he had no excuse for not being familiar with Cahill (2002), but Demjanov didnt publish in English till 2010 i think.Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.Oh, so not any step in the actual scientific method at all then. I must admit, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not something I have looked into often. Can you supply me with a link to the original studies and address the criticisms that have been filed against it (such as those non-null results you speak of being within the range of statistical error)? Also, why have much more sensitive experiments (such as this one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf) not reproduced the non-null MMX results you speak of?
I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's. He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX. Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.
I think there are only 2 Einsteinian criticisms.
Roberts's (2006?) hitjob on Miller's MMX says that the error bars would have to be drawn off the page (a lie).
Shankland's 1955 hitjon says the fringeshifts were caused by temperature (a lie).
Other criticisms are of a basically friendly kind (by aetherists). But if there are other Einsteinian criticisms then i would like to know (not including any vacuum junkies).
The scientific method should not include lieing & fudging & ignorance, but thems are the key factor for Einsteinism.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/10/2018 05:39:35
I had a look at that link -- Eisele et al used a vacuum chamber -- Cahill has explained that an MMX needs gas (vacuum gives zero fringeshift)(Demjanov 1970 likewise). What Eisele (Laboratory test of isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level) has shown is that the Lorentz gamma equation for LC is accurate to the 17th decimal. Eisele did his X in 2009, therefore he had no excuse for not being familiar with Cahill (2002), but Demjanov didnt publish in English till 2010 i think.
The experiment described in the link did not use fringe shift to search for Lorentz invariance violations. It used lasers in optical cavities to do the measurement instead, checking for specific changes in frequency between the two lasers over time.
Quote
I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's. He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX. Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.
How about we start with the prime example: the original 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Do you have that one on hand?
Quote
Roberts's (2006?) hitjob on Miller's MMX says that the error bars would have to be drawn off the page (a lie).
Shankland's 1955 hitjon says the fringeshifts were caused by temperature (a lie).
Sources?
Quote
The scientific method should not include lieing & fudging & ignorance, but thems are the key factor for Einsteinism.
It doesn't and you have yet to show me a solid source that supports that claim.
Post by: Paradigmer on 24/10/2018 07:36:28
I karnt remember. It might be found in a listing of Einstein's wordages. It is the only way to try to overcome the twins paradox (apart from philosophical arguments). Clearly average acceleration doesnt work, so Einstein nominated that it is not the average accel, ie that a clock's future ticking was affected by its history. If u ever find the wordage then tell me.
I could not quite find it either.
If it is concerning the twin paradox, the closest I could find was the on the relavistic inertial frame of reference, which was proposed with velocity time dilation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_time_dilation). This is the fallacious Einsteinian SR that proposed the bogus gain of time by the satellite that orbits Earth in its inertial frame of reference. And it was conclusively falsified by the Hafele-Keating Experiment with the result of faster moving clocks that had flown westward.
After thought, if Einstein ever said something like that, he could be referring to the inertial time dilation experienced by the clock that was stationary mounted on Earth. It is a matter of fact that the clock in its inertial frame of reference, is rotating and revolving with the Earth around the Sun, it is actually moving at the velocity of ~30 km/s in the Solar System reference frame, ~232 km/s in the Milky Way reference frame, and ~552 km/s in the CMB reference frame. And the Hafele-Keating Experiment actually asserted this predication of inertial time dilation with the faster moving clocks that flown westward with slower relativistic velocity.
Despite Einstein used the Minkowski space time for his relativistic solution, he always maintained that it was the clock that was slowed in the time dilation effect. The Einsteinians were putting words into his mouth regardless of his clarifications.
Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.
Despite Poincare did advocated luminiferous aether, he later postulated the FitzGerald–Lorentz transformation that thus eliminated the existence of aether with pure mathematics. Is this not a hatch job of clever mathematical trick?
Post by: Paradigmer on 24/10/2018 08:47:20
For the time being, despite the obvious, I'll let it pass that you have not yet seen what that has to do with peer review. We shall see about that later.QuoteHave a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space
Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review.
Quote
Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.Nice try. In the cosmic inflation experiment, it is a matter of fact that time dilation was invoked to account for the proper time of the receding distant galaxies. And these were purportedly mentioned they were supported with the empirically observed positive second derivatives, and their associated cosmological red shifts.
You sure do like the "turning in his grave" line.Besides the “turning in his grave" line, here is another seriously funny pun:
ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.
It made me an ass by trying to tell the asses in denial on how they were obfuscated by their fallacious assumptions. And I hate being made an ass for the deliverance of the asses, which eventually would made me as the only odd ass left.
Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?This is an off-the-cuff respond to your questions, in a nutshell:
- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.
- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits.
- The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.
For fuller insights, I would suggest a careful reading on “Critiques of the scientific method (https://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)”. And please take your time.
Post by: myuncle on 24/10/2018 12:48:51
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/10/2018 19:36:33
The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating.No.
Post by: Colin2B on 25/10/2018 09:08:07
The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating. If you are confident of yourself, why do you need to create a separate section for new theories? No offence to this forum of course, I am just talking in general.I can only speak from the specific.
We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.
In philosophy it was the same window dressing, not with math, but with new words ......, to express something very simple.I totally agree, I’m a great believer in plain english.
- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.
- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits.
- The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.
However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.
If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.
Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.
Post by: Paradigmer on 25/10/2018 09:41:33
However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.
Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.
Absolutely agree. Pragmatism with the correct applications of maths is definitely an essential aspect of scientific works. However, doing bad science by misleading with maths, is insidiously bad to all.
I understand the knocking on maths can have negative impact to the curious lay person, on this I will exercise discreet as much as I could, as well as appropriately mention the caveats.
Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.
Post by: myuncle on 25/10/2018 13:58:17
I’m not sure whether this is an anti science thread or an anti bad-science thread. Examples of lack of critical thinking exists in all areas, not just science and I’m glad to see that schools are now teaching critical thinking skills.It's an anti bad-science thread. I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum. But disagreeing is essential for any debate.
Quote
I can only speak from the specific.
We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.
Yes, where to draw the line? That's all about it. Normally forum means you are willing to debate. For example, if I go in a politics forum it's because I am happy to debate with people who have different ideas from mine, I'm happy to discuss, even if I disagree with them, I am not wasting my time, I can teach and learn something. Why should I be afraid of different views, as long as they are polite, non offensive, there is nothing to worry about.
Another example. Let's say that you are into films, you like to talk about it in a forum. You will never find 100% of people agreeing with you, if you don't like Batman vs Superman, probably 99% of users will agree with you, but if some of them loved that film, and they disagree with your opinion, that's absolutely fine. They are into horrible films or they have horrible taste? That's fine, maybe it's a good occasion for them to learn something new about cinema. Another example, there is a poster who is an actor or an unknown director, and he posts clips about himself, maybe it's not that good, actually maybe you really dislike his clips, but what's the problem? As long as he's polite we can watch his/her clip. If the same person insists to promote his clips in a very polite but obsessive manner, in that case it's way too evident that he's using the forum not to discuss, but just to advertise himself, and this can be difficult to moderate, but if it goes to far, you can obviously ban this person.
Regarding science, it should be treated in the same way as any other topics. I would never use a forum to impose my view, a forum should be something totally different from snobbish elitist attitude, there is already peer review for that. And for educational purposes there is already wikipedia/university, isn't that enough? Or you can create two forum sections, one for educational purpose (a.k.a the world according to peer reviews mainstream science), and another section for the constructive debate and constructive critical thinking.
Do I think peer review can be a good thing? Yes. But is it infallible? No. So who is going to disagree with the peer reviews? Allow the web to disagree and debate politely about anything.
Another example, someone here posts a new theory about a particle shaped like a cauliflower, this theory unifies everything and bla bla bla. What's the problem? You disagree with him? As long as he/she's polite, non arrogant, non offensive, where is the problem? 99% of users will maybe disagree with him, and will laugh reading his theory, but where's the problem? You can disagree and have a laugh at the same time, why not? After all this cauliflower theory is not so different from a string theory, is not so different from a multiverse theory, so why are you feeling threatened by new theories? So, in the end where to draw the line? In this forum I don't see many trolls, and yet if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.
Post by: Colin2B on 26/10/2018 08:44:59
I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.
if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.
PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.
Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.
This one caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread:
Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
I was puzzled by the way this question is presented. If you look at the first document in the list, which I’ve separated out from the rest, the question presented is as shown in the screenshot of the video further down and asks where the current in the bottom wire comes from.
He shows a battery on the left and describes the voltage on the bottom line as 0v. This would probably make any layman go ‘Ooo, good point, no voltage, no current’, but as anyone who has worked with electricity knows, voltage is relative so we could easily describe the top line as 0v and the bottom line as showing a voltage and ask where does the current in the top line come from.
The answer is simple, they both come from the same place. If you connect a battery across a circuit you will provide a push of electrons at one end of the battery and a pull at the other end.
There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heavyside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift.
A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.
The whole ‘problem’ here is based on a misunderstanding.
It would appear that this is being passed around the internet as an example of a conspiracy of science mafia suppressing alternative views.
Catt is not being suppressed, it’s just that he makes wrong assumptions and draws incorrect conclusions from them, so he is ignored. Example of bad science.
Post by: Paradigmer on 26/10/2018 16:04:30
It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” - Albert Einstein
Many will pass off this Einstein's remark as hilarious. But seriously, this is not funny at all.
Post by: myuncle on 27/10/2018 16:14:56
We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.
Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.
PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.
On the cases of full-blown trolling I agree with you. But normally if you don't reply, it simply means you are ignoring the post. Normally a troll, in any other forum, will get tired of being ignored, he/she will give up sooner or later because of being ignored, and he's not interested anymore in posting. I wouldn't feel responsible about what a schoolchild reads or thinks. If a kid is destined to become a fascist, a terrorist, or a flat earther, certainly is not because of a forum, but because of many other reasons: friends, family, education etc. For example a website dedicated to a suicide debate it's not an incitement to suicide, you are not committing any crime, in fact debating about suicide doesn't increase at all the risk of any attempt.
Post by: Paradigmer on 28/10/2018 04:41:10
No. Every particle has an electric field. The neutron might have a zero nett field, but that doesnt mean that it has no field. The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction
Agree.
QuoteQuote from: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 04:14:28Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 22:44:24The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons. Have tell me how you come to this proposition?Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.
Thanks for the links. The UVS model agrees with the Miles Mathis analysis on the toroidal topology of the electron. And IMO, Miles Mathis proposition for the causality of the Lagrangian points, is the actuality of the empirical observations.
The UVS treatise also agrees with the insight of J G Williamson & M B van der Mark on elementary particles are confined-photons, and it could illustrate its causality with the UVS hypersphere topology for the structure of atomic nucleus (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm#subatomic_particles).
From the UVS perspective, photon is a property of aether corpuscle. This suggests the postulated confinement of the energized photons, is caused by the vortically merged hyperspheres of the undulating aether corpuscles. The differential energetic process vortically forms the different flavors of quark.
In the UVS worldview, all physical existences are vortically made of light.
Post by: Paradigmer on 28/10/2018 05:11:59
There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).
I was invited by a Nobel Laureate to join the Researchgate Forum (https://www.researchgate.net/signup.SignUp.html). With given impression, I believe this forum might allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. But really speaking, IDK.
Despite they allow participants who are independent researchers, I was denied entrance for not having an institutional email account.
If you at least have a student email account, they might let you in. Good luck.
Previously there was a Natural Philosophy Alliance forum, they allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. You have to pay an annual fee to join, however, it went defunct sometime ago.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 08:57:58
Science takes what it does very seriously, like they are surgeons operating on the belief system of people. Its serious stuff. Science will only accept people of their own learning, like Medicine, otherwise you're a quack. And if you do come up with a discovery, you may have to prove you didn't steal it from a real scientist, or that you're not an alien infiltrating the planet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/10/2018 09:12:47
There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).
Actually, there is.
This forum for example, doesn't have a problem with mainstream science in the "speculation" section.
Plenty of fruitloopery includes bits of real science, and then goes off on invalid tangents.
However no sensible discussion forum will allow the fruit-loops to interrupt real science, and they are also segregated to ensure that people don't mistake made up stuff for real science.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 09:27:49
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 09:41:58
There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).
I was invited by a Nobel Laureate to join the Researchgate Forum (https://www.researchgate.net/signup.SignUp.html). With given impression, I believe this forum might allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. But really speaking, IDK.
Despite they allow participants who are independent researchers, I was denied entrance for not having an institutional email account.
If you at least have a student email account, they might let you in. Good luck.
Previously there was a Natural Philosophy Alliance forum, they allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. You have to pay an annual fee to join, however, it went defunct sometime ago.
You "can" get into Research Gate, but you need to set up a company and provide the email accounts of verifiable scientists who have accreditation. Setting up a company for that reason alone, I wouldn't do it. The research I've done in my own company, despite not being a learning institution, comparable to other companies, is in 6 figures. In other words, other companies, or should I say "learning institutions", have spent 6 figures or more in research that I have found better results in at a quarter of the price. To be honest, you have to "be" a company to exercise purchase orders for the type of research and associated hardware science is interested in, any research company would know that. But you're only wanting access to Research Gate to have your stuff known, right? You tube the results, that's what I'm thinking. Think outside the square. There's pats on the back on the path or there is hard core evidence at the finishing line.
I knew about a year ago I had to think outside the square in promoting my work. So, any results I have will be posted here:
That costs a bit of money as well, as an independent researcher, company, whatever....a good quality edited video of proof that is going to be scrutinised.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 11:20:00
Any ideas? Patents are a pretty price. It'd be nice to get feedback.
I'm asking myself if I knew this was going to happen, or if something else was possible? I knew this was going to happen, but that's how you get science......that crap process. If they're a church of the despicable kind, they need charity of the despicable kind. Who wouold throw money away like that? Its despicable.
(I hope I'm not "off topic")
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 11:37:22
Science will only accept people of their own learning,Corrective edit
Science will only accept people of their own acceptance of BS
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 11:43:17
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 11:45:25
Box, its not just science.....its weapons....space weapons....rockets, all that crap.
90% of hopes are stupid ideas, serious, they will simply not work.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 11:50:13
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 12:03:08
I think we will need a technology beyond the crap we've left in space already, that can deal with the crap we've left there, and can ideally not promote any more the crap we put there. I can't patent that, and I don't think anyone can patent that device....it would be too scary for governments scaring other governments with debris. But...do real scientists in the new ideas forum have another idea?Nothing but problematic dog poo of chaos....
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 12:19:47
–Johannes Kepler
We can rest assured with a new golden ratio theory in our history.....its not like aliens have landed.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 12:28:12
.its not like aliens have landed.
They'd probably eat them, experiment, poor things looking to rest, perhaps you need a magic lance to clean up the mess of mess , like a knight on horse, although it could be night on a rock of night of course.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 12:31:57
That's just stupid hope, right? Aren't we better than that? Are we really looking for alien life as a planet desperate for answers?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 12:43:30
Aliens....Destroying our destruction, to own destruction, without being a part of it....isn't that a good alien\?Maybe we're the aliens, illegal to this rock, came from outers pace, crashed and burned trying to find another race, you know like we trying to go to mars, Elon Must, sending cars, you know it be like fantasy but you're not right or right if I'll say I don't know you.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 13:07:10
If we're not doing rockets are we still those aliens?
Why talk about aliens?
Whats the attraction with aliens? Are they the "belief" we need?
One thing that I know is alien to "science" is the ability to think outside a very normal square.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 13:13:39
If we are those aliens, are we doing rockets?Rockets ! over rated fireworks
If we're not doing rockets are we still those aliens?
Why talk about aliens?
Whats the attraction with aliens? Are they the "belief" we need?
One thing that I know is alien to "science" is the ability to think outside a very normal square.
Aliens ! Without a doubt they exist beyond our capability of travel and we probably exist beyond the capability of their travel. Aliens does not necessarily mean they would be advanced, they could well be primitive, even maybe dinosaurs on their world. Infinite is just incomprehensible to mediocre minds.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 13:17:50
aged.jpg (17.35 kB . 574x277 - viewed 3307 times)Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 13:22:12
Its very difficult to explain, yet lets say you are "here", yet you exist only here with memories also of "here", no anticipation of the future whatsoever, like a complete mule of understanding. The past is your friend. You remember yourself in a similar environment you are in now. You are "overwhelmed" by reality without any need to think ahead, to be ahead. That's relativity in the past.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 13:23:32
Box, Einstein looking into the past as a concept of relativity. That's beginning to make sense.see pic add on
add: You can observe a born star of the future and you can observe stars from the past, you're observing past and future presently now
do you want me to prove this?
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 13:33:10
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 13:39:15
When we have memories, we usually choose one memory over the other, right? It's like something is set in stone. When have you remembered something that had another memory at the same time....like a choice of memory?Neurological binary selection process, i.e choice of answers from the memory. All answers could occupy a single point, but is this significant?
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 13:42:09
Tell me a memory you have that had a choice integrated into it...
I think of my own memories...do I remember choices I had? Or is that too awake? Back then, did I see myself in the future thinking as I think now?
Tell me a dream you've had where you made a choice.,..
When I remember my life, I don't see choices, I see one event to the next. Here, now, I see choices, yet my life moves forward with memories that can't be changed. Does anyone try to change their past?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2018 13:58:41
I see myself in the future thinking as I think now?Do I see my future ? Does my future look good to me ?
You can't choose the future, paths of life are random but there is predictability. I can predict my tomorrow and that tomorrow is going to be a bad day for me.
Post by: opportunity on 28/10/2018 14:04:25
But, I look back in my memories, I see events, I don't see choices I can make. Maybe because I can't change the past and my mind knows that and only offers the truth?
I remember watching this:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=local+hero+movie&view=detail&mid=D4958BF6E772DFE61E65D4958BF6E772DFE61E65&FORM=VIRE0&mmscn=tpvh&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dlocal%2bhero%2bmovie%26form%3dEDNTHT%26mkt%3den-au%26httpsmsn%3d1%26refig%3de0f4e74f36f54c72e06710f6f0d54a03%26sp%3d-1%26pq%3dlocal%2bhero%2bmovie%26sc%3d8-16%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3de0f4e74f36f54c72e06710f6f0d54a03
I had no choice but to enjoy it. Because at the time and maybe even now it still works.
I'm being very serious. Who has a memory that still offers a "choice"?
Is it safe to change what we decided in the past, like we already know the past can't be changed, right?
Is science the compass we're looking for? Could it be..a faith? Who's willing to develop science without changing its fundamental structure...yet still developing?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 29/10/2018 00:29:24
Science is a religious dogma, as if you oppose it there are large ammounts of people who will object. Take the case of the fellow who discovered cfcs kill the ozone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Sherwood_Rowland
He was hounded due to academic displeasure, just like any number of martyrs.
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 12:52:12
If one is really very religious, carrying the cross, still seeing how bad everything is without getting cycnical, playing along in the state as a free born citizen, I mean are there christians like that today? Is there a future carrying that cross....on that road.....right.......do we know we're making an effort, an effort that works?
Lets say I carried the cross of Einstein, an idea of relativity I don't agree with but carried it to start with. I carrying it. I always carrying it.....yet I start talking some other language that explains it better.....is that bad?
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 13:24:21
Science still wants to debunk him, right, like its a mission.....until science has it....
I don't think Christ was trying to be religious.....people with their need to explain him became religious.....so what's science there?
Was science inspired by Christ? Did Roman science get a kick out of Christ? Can we give an honest answer? How did Rome fall given all it knew with roman science?
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 13:35:16
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 13:42:33
Have we forgotten that?
BC AD.
Post by: opportunity on 30/10/2018 13:53:48
The deal was clearly something the planet could do without at the time yet people still capable of.
Science probably felt like they weren't ready.....missed out and had to keep searching, right?
Maybe the political situation looked bad....a Caesar who didn't want his media system changed.
Post by: opportunity on 02/11/2018 10:08:39
I mean is this truth:
Being transparent is a truth, I think Heidegger presented that philosophical case, but uncovering a can of worms, is that science?
When someone says they are always trying to tell the truth, but its not always possible owing to political demands, where does hope go|?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/i-always-try-to-tell-the-truth-trump-pushes-back-against-falsehoods-20181102-p50dih.html
Post by: opportunity on 02/11/2018 10:17:18
Post by: Colin2B on 02/11/2018 17:50:23
Colin, just wondering, were you implying my work as commercial as something that is frowned upon in this forum, and if so how do you make a crust? I'm merely looking for people to join my research work, or at least "converse" without being spooked. I can take down my website if it worries you as a financial making machine, yes? I don't mind, I really don't, I'd rather talk to people than not know how to design an informational website.Sorry for delay in responding. I think my comment was made about someone else’s site being ok because it is not commercial.
The specific sections of our Acceptable Usage Policy are:
“When you registered for this forum you agreed to abide by the forum acceptable usage policy. In that policy it states:”
“The site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures.”
Note: This includes links to business or commercial sites which would be seen as advertising that business.
This section is also relevant to folks who post links to thier sites:
“It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread. If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.”
This includes linking to previously published papers or material.
By all means raise specific issues, from your research, for discussion but general evangelising is not acceptable.”
As you can see, the intent of this forum is to encourage discussion of specific topics (including new theories) or various ideas, rather than just advertising their existence. So best to raise specific questions or topics around your theory.
Anything which suggests a commercial nature is specifically banned, also forum members shouldn’t be making posts which effectively say “hey, look at my site”
Post by: opportunity on 05/11/2018 10:49:46
I have to be honest, work like mine is best not promoted, not because its bad, yet because it suggests something physics has not anticipated...its confrontational...almost, without being, I hope. Besides, I'm not a spot-light person, far from it. I'm hoping my work will be considered "in the end", when everything else has been considered. This website though has its pearls.
Post by: opportunity on 05/11/2018 11:05:19
Lets just say someone comes along who is really good at putting data together in an abstract way....that person is not fitting the normal profile of a physicist.
I'm out of my own league when facing physicists, despite knowing physics, as my papers, equations, theories, and general scope show.
I'm an anomaly. My only hope in that great audience of work and development is to explain how I could do what I have done, and still do.
So, I don't know. I think at best I should focus on philosophy, logic, how the mind can rationalise time and space. Medicine is my background, and that's how I approached Medicine from day one in the late 80's, namely a holistic approach to understand how the human body not only interacts with its environment biologically, yet as sentient being with choice.
Post by: opportunity on 05/11/2018 11:22:58
I'm great at jigsaws and thinking outside the square.
There's no profession for that today in physics...…….so I do what I can.
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 13:45:49
What if I took a new idea in this new ideas section and thought, "yes, that could work".....could I tell anyone I made money from that?
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 14:08:33
Seriously.
That's nonsense.
Ok, lets do an audit of physicists in history who've had their stuff taken from them. These guys would have said to God, "why, God, allow these people to steal from me", right?
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 14:10:22
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 14:11:49
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 14:13:55
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 14:27:04
Isn't that the question?
It was only a few centuries ago science found itself beyond religious condemnation......but does that secure complete trust?
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 15:06:31
Who can doubt that......the hope, the belief, of life in the stars?
Anyone?
WE have no physical proof.....yet we still search with the style of belief for life out there.....right?
How did that happen?
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 15:11:47
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 15:15:39
Post by: opportunity on 08/11/2018 15:19:59
And we need help? We're like babies in a canoe when we look for life in the stars. Is that humanity?
So, when science aims to seek life in the stars, what is science doing|?
what God, what religious dogma, is being exercised?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/11/2018 16:51:44