[mad aetherist]

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?

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

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 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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

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.

[Kryptid]

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".

[mad aetherist]

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".

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, i will accept any evidence for anything, evidence is evidence.

[Paradigmer]

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 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, 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. 

[Paradigmer]

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.

[alancalverd]

"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.

[mad aetherist]

"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.

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.

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

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.

[Paradigmer]

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, 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. 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.

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. 

[mad aetherist]

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, 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.

[Paradigmer]

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".

[Paradigmer]

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

- The UVS inductive resolution on the structure of atom

[mad aetherist]

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".

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...........
"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).

[Paradigmer]

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".

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.

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.

(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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist]

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?

Yes u need  to watch out for fake evidence.
Re the source for the 1.75000 arcsec i thort i had provided some info to allow googling of that, i will fix.