0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 21/10/2018 03:12:26I 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?
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).
The questions could be: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.pdfSo, 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 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.
If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.
Quote 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?
Quote from: Kryptid on 20/10/2018 21:38:28If u go throo the process of crunching the numbers u will find that nLeT is simpler than SR-GR.Interesting! Can you show?
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 04:41:21But 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...........
But to some extent the authoritative source is me.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 22/10/2018 22:18:29Lets 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.
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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 19/10/2018 08:30:37LIGO 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.
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.
@mad aetheristCan 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?
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.
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.
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?
Compromised how?
Here is a link to the Roodenburg stuff.
Galileo was indeed silenced by the authority of the church, but his works was in fact scientifically denounced by the authority of geocentrism.
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
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?
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?
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).
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.
Then you might as well declare that all scientific ideas, aether included, as being compromised.
But you got Hannes Alfven turn in his grave:
Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.