0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I agree Pete........... It's amusing how people come to our forum quoting outdated material to support their ideas when current experiments has proven such things to be incorrect. These men were giants in their day but knowledge has moved beyond their place in history today. We should always honor these great men of science but also remember that just because, "so and so said" or "such and such was written" don't mean that they were 100% right about everything. Facts will change as new knowledge is gathered and if we don't stay current with the latest science, we might find ourselves in error as well.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 10/02/2015 01:24:55In the second place that's a very old paper written in a time when quantum mechanics was young. 5 Feb 2015 is an old paper?'Physical vacuum is a special superfluid medium'http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06763January , 2015 is an old paper?'Pilot-wave hydrodynamicsJohn W.M. BushDepartment of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology'http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89790
In the second place that's a very old paper written in a time when quantum mechanics was young.
I'm talking about the original paper which you're basing it on. I'm not convinced that the papers you quote say what you think they're saying. People who don't have a good grasp of physics often resort to quote mining which means that they look for papers which have words they want and appear to use them to support what they claim. I don't think those papers claim what you claim they do. Have you actually read them in full? Did you understand them 100%.
I'll read them this week some time and contact the authors to see if they mean what you claim they do.
You are going to read the articles before commenting on them further?
There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
You can't be serious!!!! That's not the way physics works. You can't use that as proof because you postulated it to explain it. The only evidence that counts are observations made when you used the theory to predict something never before observed. You have a lot to learn about the philosophy of science. And I can't see spending more time with you. There's no point to it. People such as yourself don't come here to learn. They have a pet theory that they want to paste on the forum so that others can admire them for it. It's like a religion in that nothing you can say will make them see that they're wrong regardless of how many holes are in their theory they simply do not have the background in physics to understand the explanations of their mistakes.
Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?Why don't you read the articles.
You're doing it yet again. First off you never answer my question as to why you ask me questions after I say I won't answer anymore questions. That's an odd thing to do. It's like trolling. Then there's the fact that you never answered my question about the problem with that theory in that it implies electrons in atoms should radiate and yet we don't observe that.
What do you have to say for yourself?
Quote from: liquidspacetimeProvide links.Links to what?