0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 17/10/2018 13:17:40I 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?
I have to say that there is not the slightest chance of me believing any of SR & GR. They are so silly.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 03:16:25I 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.
especially when Einsteinians fake & fudge
In the meantime Einsteinians will keep on finding new fake particles
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:08:23especially when Einsteinians fake & fudgeQuote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:08:23In the meantime Einsteinians will keep on finding new fake particlesSo not only do you have a double standard, but you are also a conspiracy theorist.
Yes for sure a conspiracy, worldwide. Luckily the modern era of communication will fix that. It might take time, Einsteinians have the upper hand.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:53:57Yes 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".
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.
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.
"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.Religion is exactly the opposite: the uncritical accrual of untestable hypotheses (gods, angels,levels of spiritual existence...) with no demonstrable predictive value.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 04:08:23The 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.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 07:57:33Einstein'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, could work for its pragmatic theory of truth. This of course is not the actuality.Please let me clarify:In an experiment at CERN, 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.
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).
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 13:38:40Yes, 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".
Quote from: Paradigmer on 18/10/2018 14:15:00Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 13:38:40Yes, 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".Thanx for that link, i will read it & the others when i have time. A quick look showed a couple of problems. (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..........."
(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).
Yes, i will accept any evidence for anything, evidence is evidence.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 18/10/2018 05:26:36Yes, 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?