[Kryptid]

But LIGO employed a good artist to draw their chirps. 

The artist only produced an "illustrative" version of the signal. They did not invent the original signal that was actually detected. I will agree that LIGO is at fault for not being clear about this from the beginning, but that is a long way off from being evidence of a conspiracy.

[mad aetherist]

But LIGO employed a good artist to draw their chirps.

The artist only produced an "illustrative" version of the signal. They did not invent the original signal that was actually detected. I will agree that LIGO is at fault for not being clear about this from the beginning, but that is a long way off from being evidence of a conspiracy.

Yes.  But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.

[Bored chemist]

The Germans were correct. One German was wrong.

At the time, Germany didn't think so. (As I said, they kept trying to build a bomb that was only possible if he was right).

So, how come, in spite of all the political pressure to say "Einstein was wrong", did German scientists keep on using his theory?

[Bored chemist]

Yes.  But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.

No
Because there were plenty of ballsy German scientists in 1939 to 45.

[evan_au]

I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration

A clock does have a memory - the time now is 1 second more than it was 1 second ago (in the frame of reference of that clock).

If you subject a clock to varying acceleration, various gravitational fields and various velocities, then these changes will have an impact on the speed at which this clock runs (from the viewpoint of an external observer).

So the clock integrates the cumulative effect of all these effects over the operational lifetime of the clock.

So a clock does have a history of it's acceleration (and velocity, and depth in gravitational fields).

[mad aetherist]

The Germans were correct. One German was wrong.

At the time, Germany didn't think so. (As I said, they kept trying to build a bomb that was only possible if he was right). So, how come, in spite of all the political pressure to say "Einstein was wrong", did German scientists keep on using his theory?

(1) They didnt try to build an A bomb. (2) It wasnt his theory. (3) He wasnt right. In other words he didnt say that E=mcc. (4) He wasnt right. No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that. (5) No one ever used that theory.
And Einstein is the guy who said that fission would never be used for power generation.

[mad aetherist]

I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration

A clock does have a memory - the time now is 1 second more than it was 1 second ago (in the frame of reference of that clock).If you subject a clock to varying acceleration, various gravitational fields and various velocities, then these changes will have an impact on the speed at which this clock runs (from the viewpoint of an external observer). So the clock integrates the cumulative effect of all these effects over the operational lifetime of the clock. So a clock does have a history of it's acceleration (and velocity, and depth in gravitational fields).

Yes --  but Einstein said that a clock remembers its acceleration history & that that history affects its ticking at a later time.

[mad aetherist]

Yes.  But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.

No  Because there were plenty of ballsy German scientists in 1939 to 45.

No i meant a scientist in the inner circle at LIGO.  Alltho it wouldnt surprise me if they had a 100 yr old Nazi on their team.

[Bored chemist]

Are you deliberately ignoring the point because you can't address it?

[Kryptid]

Yes.  But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.

What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like you are nudging slightly towards begging the question again. One has to assume that there is a conspiracy in the first place in order to propose that someone could come forth and reveal it.

No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that.

Actually, it's been tested to an accuracy of four-tenths of one part in one million. But knowing you, you'll probably claim that the results of that measurement were hoaxed: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2 http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2 https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a

[mad aetherist]

Yes.  But all it takes is a scientist with balls or cancer & its all over rover.

What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like you are nudging slightly towards begging the question again. One has to assume that there is a conspiracy in the first place in order to propose that someone could come forth and reveal it.

Yes.

No one has shown that E=mcc. In fact they have never got within 90 % of that.

Actually, it's been tested to an accuracy of four-tenths of one part in one million. But knowing you, you'll probably claim that the results of that measurement were hoaxed: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2005/12/einstein-was-right-again-experiments-confirm-e-mc2 http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2 https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a

I see that they have to measure the mass of rotating ions to 1 part in 100 billion to get an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million in their E=mcc tests.  And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that.....  . If their measurement was ok to 1 part in 50 billion then that might support that  E=mcc/2 (which is closer to the truth).

Its like this, if u annihilate.....
(a) Atoms --  u get electrons & protons & neutrons (with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(b) Protons & Neutrons -- u get elementary particles (electron quark etc)(with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(c) Elementary particles (confined photons) --  u get free photons (& no other energy).
(d) Free Photons --  u will get a Nobel, because u will be the first.
(e) Aethons – u get Praethons (Aether is an excitation of Praether)(Aethons are a sub-quantum process not a thing).
(f) Praethons – this cant be done, Praethons are the fundamental essence (& are sub-quantum)(& are things).

Therefore the complete annihilation of ordinary mass in (c)  gives zero energy, unless u count photons as having energy (photonic energy), in which case u might say gives zero kinetic energy.
There is no complete annihilation of all mass, because free photons have mass, & (d) says that free photons cant be annihilated.  Ranzan prefers to say that free photons have mass equivalence, but my criteria for having mass is that if it annihilates aether then it has mass (& free photons do annihilate aether), but for sure free photons do not have ordinary mass, ie the same kind of mass possessed by elementary particles.  Free photons are not ordinary particles, only ordinary particles can have kinetic energy (ke=mvv/2).  Free photons dont move at c they propagate at c. 
There is no mass or energy in the sub-quantum world of Aether & Praether.

Einstein never said that  E=mcc.  He said that the absorption-emmission of a photon changes the mass of the absorber-emmitter,  in accordance with  delta E = delta m cc.  U will find papers about this argument, which is still ongoing.

[Kryptid]

And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that.....

Given that the value of the speed of light, the mass of the neutron and the masses of the sulfur and silicon isotopes have been measured to high accuracy, that's not a problem.

Its like this, if u annihilate.....
(a) Atoms --  u get electrons & protons & neutrons (with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(b) Protons & Neutrons -- u get elementary particles (electron quark etc)(with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(c) Elementary particles (confined photons) --  u get free photons (& no other energy).
(d) Free Photons --  u will get a Nobel, because u will be the first.
(e) Aethons – u get Praethons (Aether is an excitation of Praether)(Aethons are a sub-quantum process not a thing).
(f) Praethons – this cant be done, Praethons are the fundamental essence (& are sub-quantum)(& are things).

Therefore the complete annihilation of ordinary mass in (c)  gives zero energy, unless u count photons as having energy (photonic energy), in which case u might say gives zero kinetic energy.
There is no complete annihilation of all mass, because free photons have mass, & (d) says that free photons cant be annihilated.  Ranzan prefers to say that free photons have mass equivalence, but my criteria for having mass is that if it annihilates aether then it has mass (& free photons do annihilate aether), but for sure free photons do not have ordinary mass, ie the same kind of mass possessed by elementary particles.  Free photons are not ordinary particles, only ordinary particles can have kinetic energy (ke=mvv/2).  Free photons dont move at c they propagate at c. 
There is no mass or energy in the sub-quantum world of Aether & Praether.

Your untested hypothesis is not a refutation of anything. Get back to us when aethons and praethons have been detected.

[mad aetherist]

And as is usual their equations have umpteen IFs, if the speed of light is.... if this.... if that.....

Given that the value of the speed of light, the mass of the neutron and the masses of the sulfur and silicon isotopes have been measured to high accuracy, that's not a problem.

Its like this, if u annihilate.....
(a) Atoms --  u get electrons & protons & neutrons (with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(b) Protons & Neutrons -- u get elementary particles (electron quark etc)(with kinetic energy) & praps free photons.
(c) Elementary particles (confined photons) --  u get free photons (& no other energy).
(d) Free Photons --  u will get a Nobel, because u will be the first.
(e) Aethons – u get Praethons (Aether is an excitation of Praether)(Aethons are a sub-quantum process not a thing).
(f) Praethons – this cant be done, Praethons are the fundamental essence (& are sub-quantum)(& are things).

Therefore the complete annihilation of ordinary mass in (c)  gives zero energy, unless u count photons as having energy (photonic energy), in which case u might say gives zero kinetic energy.
There is no complete annihilation of all mass, because free photons have mass, & (d) says that free photons cant be annihilated.  Ranzan prefers to say that free photons have mass equivalence, but my criteria for having mass is that if it annihilates aether then it has mass (& free photons do annihilate aether), but for sure free photons do not have ordinary mass, ie the same kind of mass possessed by elementary particles.  Free photons are not ordinary particles, only ordinary particles can have kinetic energy (ke=mvv/2).  Free photons dont move at c they propagate at c. 
There is no mass or energy in the sub-quantum world of Aether & Praether.

Your untested hypothesis is not a refutation of anything. Get back to us when aethons and praethons have been detected.

Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887. U can google. And say 30 times using say 10 different techniques since. The best being i think Demjanov's twin media MMX in 1970.
That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested.  And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.

How is your search for the fabric of spacetime going? The weft is time dilation & the weave is length contraction, dyed with the color of the constant speed of light.  U would soon recognize it if u saw it. But it must have some holes & tears by now, all of that bending & unbending.

[Kryptid]

Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887. U can google. And say 30 times using say 10 different techniques since. The best being i think Demjanov's twin media MMX in 1970.

I wasn't talking about the standard aether model, I was talking about your model where photons contain photaenos, aether "centrifuges" and all of that other stuff you post about.

That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested.  And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.

If they aren't testable then the idea isn't scientific.

How is your search for the fabric of spacetime going? It must have a hole or tear in it by now, all of that bending & unbending. But it makes sense that the fabric is itself made of something, Rayon mightbe, Nylon, Teflon, Cotton. A Woolen blend.

Are you using the equivocation fallacy now?

[mad aetherist]

Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887. U can google. And say 30 times using say 10 different techniques since. The best being i think Demjanov's twin media MMX in 1970.

I wasn't talking about the standard aether model, I was talking about your model where photons contain photaenos, aether "centrifuges" and all of that other stuff you post about.
Ok fair enuff. But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.  My reality was invented to describe & explain what we now know, therefore what we now know is the proof of my reality. Our current knowledge is the proof. 
Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.
Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.  All of that is an excellent start. I have shown the way, its up to others to do more tests & get Nobels.

That aether consists of aethons will probly never be tested.  And likewise that there is a fundamental essence call Praether made of Praethons.

If they aren't testable then the idea isn't scientific.
No there are say four categories of untestable. (1) Where we dont know of any current test, & cant think of any possible test. (2) Where we dont know of any current  test, but can think of a possible future test. (3) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we cant think of any possible way of making it sensitive enuff.  (4) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we can think of a possible way of making it sensitive enuff.
It seems to me that a long time ago Madus Aethus posited that all things were made of indivisible atoms much too small to be seen, & some guys called Kryptidus & Poppus effectively put him down by saying that that theory was not testable & therefore not scientific.  Well well well.
So because of the censoring of the concept of atoms, it took 2000 years before atoms were shown to exist.  And along came Krytid who tried to hold science back for another 2000 years.

How is your search for the fabric of spacetime going? It must have a hole or tear in it by now, all of that bending & unbending. But it makes sense that the fabric is itself made of something, Rayon mightbe, Nylon, Teflon, Cotton. A Woolen blend.

Are you using the equivocation fallacy now?
No certainly knot. But nowadays Einstein would not get away with that. The EEU has strict guidelines on the labeling of fabric.

[Kryptid]

But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.

Unsupported claim.

My reality was invented to describe & explain what we now know, therefore what we now know is the proof of my reality. Our current knowledge is the proof.

By that reasoning, since caloric and phlogiston were invented to describe and explain what was known at the time about heat and combustion, what they knew about heat and combustion was proof of their existence.

Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.

(1) Last I heard, that result had not been consistently replicated by those attempting to duplicate the research. Whether or not that was even a real phenomenon has yet to be conclusively determined.
(2) Even if it is a real phenomenon, no experiments have been done that demonstrate aether has anything to do with it.

Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.

Caloric and phlogiston helped explain heat and combustion respectively, but both turned out to be non-existent. You need an experiment that can detect your photaenos (or, at the very least, some kind of test that can indirectly and unambiguously reveal their existence against competing explanatory ideas). Since such a thing has yet to be done, your photaenos remain at the hypothesis level (or just the "conjecture" level, since you said earlier that it might not even be possible to detect them).

No there are say four categories of untestable. (1) Where we dont know of any current test, & cant think of any possible test. (2) Where we dont know of any current  test, but can think of a possible future test. (3) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we cant think of any possible way of making it sensitive enuff.  (4) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we can think of a possible way of making it sensitive enuff.

Then I will amend my earlier statement slightly: it won't be scientific unless a way to test it is discovered. So, as of now, it isn't scientific.

It seems to me that a long time ago Madus Aethus posited that all things were made of indivisible atoms much too small to be seen, & some guys called Kryptidus & Poppus effectively put him down by saying that that theory was not testable & therefore not scientific.  Well well well.
So because of the censoring of the concept of atoms, it took 2000 years before atoms were shown to exist.  And along came Krytid who tried to hold science back for another 2000 years.

False analogy. Explaining to you why an untestable idea is not scientific is not censorship.

[mad aetherist]

But that aint a model, it is reality, albeit a very bare bones reality, needs lots more flesh.

Unsupported claim. No i supported it.

My reality was invented to describe & explain what we now know, therefore what we now know is the proof of my reality. Our current knowledge is the proof.

By that reasoning, since caloric and phlogiston were invented to describe and explain what was known at the time about heat and combustion, what they knew about heat and combustion was proof of their existence. Yes.

Re centrifuging of aether, Podkletnov measured changes in ticking near the axis of a hi-speed spinning disc.

(1) Last I heard, that result had not been consistently replicated by those attempting to duplicate the research. Whether or not that was even a real phenomenon has yet to be conclusively determined. (2) Even if it is a real phenomenon, no experiments have been done that demonstrate aether has anything to do with it.
I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do.

Re photaenos, we know that we have bending & refraction & diffraction & slowing of light, & photaenos help to explain.

Caloric and phlogiston helped explain heat and combustion respectively, but both turned out to be non-existent. You need an experiment that can detect your photaenos (or, at the very least, some kind of test that can indirectly and unambiguously reveal their existence against competing explanatory ideas). Since such a thing has yet to be done, your photaenos remain at the hypothesis level (or just the "conjecture" level, since you said earlier that it might not even be possible to detect them).
I doubt that i said that it might not be possible to detect photaenos. I am happy for photaenos to turn out to be non-existent. What competing explanatory ideas? There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation, & my photaenos can accommodate that.  I am happy with hypothesis & conjecture. At present it has to compete with photons are em waves & em radiation is photons.

No there are say four categories of untestable. (1) Where we dont know of any current test, & cant think of any possible test. (2) Where we dont know of any current  test, but can think of a possible future test. (3) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we cant think of any possible way of making it sensitive enuff.  (4) Where we have a current test but it is not sensitive enuff, & we can think of a possible way of making it sensitive enuff.

Then I will amend my earlier statement slightly: it won't be scientific unless a way to test it is discovered. So, as of now, it isn't scientific.
I forget what we are talking about. But aether is proven ok. Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).  Photaenos are a problem, there might be a special test of some sort to test some sort of prediction. Tell u what, how about after u come up with a test that proves the existence of photons & then i will have a good go at a special test for photaenos.

It seems to me that a long time ago Madus Aethus posited that all things were made of indivisible atoms much too small to be seen, & some guys called Kryptidus & Poppus effectively put him down by saying that that theory was not testable & therefore not scientific.  Well well well.
So because of the censoring of the concept of atoms, it took 2000 years before atoms were shown to exist.  And along came Krytid who tried to hold science back for another 2000 years.

False analogy. Explaining to you why an untestable idea is not scientific is not censorship.
And i explained to u that a very good scientific idea can be untestable at the time, but it nonetheless is scientific, & true, & later tested to be true.
Praps if i place my photaenos inside some sort of thort-X involving twin lightning flashes or involving a ray crossing a spacious chest then that u would make u happy.

[Kryptid]

No i supported it.

Then give me a link to peer-reviewed articles where aethons, praethons, photaenos and aether centrifuging were experimentally detected.

Yes.

So you don't understand thermodynamics either, then...

I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do.

Then there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of what you call centrifuging aether.

I doubt that i said that it might not be possible to detect photaenos.

Perhaps. I probably mixed that up with when you said aethons and praethons were probably undetectable.

What competing explanatory ideas?

Quantum mechanics and relativity.

There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation

According to what peer-reviewed studies?

But aether is proven ok.

Not according to the majority of the scientists with the tools and expertise necessary to test for its existence (cue "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).

Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).

How could he have possibly proven centrifuging of aether when we don't even have proof that his results are a real effect? On top of that, who ever proved that the effect that he reported necessarily had anything at all to do with the aether?

Tell u what, how about after u come up with a test that proves the existence of photons & then i will have a good go at a special test for photaenos.

I don't need to. Others already have: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf4

And i explained to u that a very good scientific idea can be untestable at the time, but it nonetheless is scientific, & true, & later tested to be true.

It isn't science until a way to test it is figured out. Until then, it's conjecture. Also, just because the concept of atoms ultimately turned out to be correct doesn't mean that your idea is also correct.

Praps if i place my photaenos inside some sort of thort-X involving twin lightning flashes or involving a ray crossing a spacious chest then that u would make u happy.

A thought experiment would be insufficient. An actual, physical experiment would be needed.

[Bored chemist]

f their measurement was ok to 1 part in 50 billion then that might support that  E=mcc/2 (which is closer to the truth).

Come off it.
You can't propose that the right answer is half of what everybody has measured, and expect to be taken seriously.

Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887.

That's not what they said they found...

[mad aetherist]

No i supported it.

Then give me a link to peer-reviewed articles where aethons, praethons, photaenos and aether centrifuging were experimentally detected.
Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein.

Yes.

So you don't understand thermodynamics either, then... So u dont understand yes.

I dont know of any ticking experiments of that kind apart from Podkletnov & also by DePalma. These experiments would be fairly easy to do.

Then there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of what you call centrifuging aether.
That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.

What competing explanatory ideas?

Quantum mechanics and relativity.
Since when could anyone call quantum mechanics an explanatory idea. Likewise relativity.

There have been measurements of a speed of 5c for radiation

According to what peer-reviewed studies? Have a look at this thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75611.0

But aether is proven ok.

Not according to the majority of the scientists with the tools and expertise necessary to test for its existence (cue "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).  Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.

Centrifuging of aether is proven by Podkletnov but we need better & more tests (Podkletnov doesnt ever mention aether).

How could he have possibly proven centrifuging of aether when we don't even have proof that his results are a real effect? On top of that, who ever proved that the effect that he reported necessarily had anything at all to do with the aether?
Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.

Tell u what, how about after u come up with a test that proves the existence of photons & then i will have a good go at a special test for photaenos.

I don't need to. Others already have: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf4
That link didnt work for me. But it probly goes a little like this. (kryptid) Hey everyone great news we have used a new test & have proven that a photon exists to 3 decimal places better than the last test & we are confident of getting a Nobel. (Halc) Hooray, hooray, hooray. (Colin 2B) I will get the champaigne. (mad aetherist) What is a photon?  (kryptid) We dont know.

And i explained to u that a very good scientific idea can be untestable at the time, but it nonetheless is scientific, & true, & later tested to be true.

It isn't science until a way to test it is figured out. Until then, it's conjecture. Also, just because the concept of atoms ultimately turned out to be correct doesn't mean that your idea is also correct.
Scientific conjecture is science. But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it?  Fancy that, a nucleus with lots of electrons whizzing round & round it.  Me myself i dont believe in a nuclear atom.  Neither does Miles Mathis. He (& i) reckons that an atom is kind of molecular, made up of lots of alpha particles.

Praps if i place my photaenos inside some sort of thort-X involving twin lightning flashes or involving a ray crossing a spacious chest then that u would make u happy.

A thought experiment would be insufficient. An actual, physical experiment would be needed.
Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.