[mad aetherist]

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).

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

No, Einstein proposed that the answer is double what everybody has measured, & was taken seriously.  Just joking -- it wasnt Einstein (he stole the idea). But Einstein did propose 1.7 arcsec which was double the 0.83 arcsec that everybody else reckoned, & of course he was proven correct (albeit he postulated the wrong reasons).  But why are u so allergic to mcc/2, because what everybody has measured doesnt come any closer than mcc/10.  My mcc/2 is closer to mcc than it is to the measure of mcc/10.  And the measure of mcc/10 is the largest measure, all of the others were a smaller fraction of mcc.

Aether was firstly detected by Michelson & Morley in 1887.

That's not what they said they found.

They found 6 kmps which Munera has shown (correcting their averaging) was 8 kmps which Cahill has shown (using a better calibration) was 200 kmps. Michelson was looking for 30 kmps for Earth orbiting throo a fixed aether & declared that a fixed aether didnt exist, which is correct.  But u know all of that as well as i do.

[Bored chemist]

The measured values are always near MC^2
Any other value is pretty much ruled out by experiment.

Why are you trying to ignore reality?

[Bored chemist]

  But u know all of that as well as i do.

I also know that more recent measurements have shown that we are not traveling through any ether at more than a slow walk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments

[mad aetherist]

The measured values are always near MC^2. Any other value is pretty much ruled out by experiment. Why are you trying to ignore reality?

The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.

[mad aetherist]

  But u know all of that as well as i do.

I also know that more recent measurements have shown that we are not traveling through any ether at more than a slow walk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_optical_resonator_experiments

Modern MMX tests use vacuum, whereas an MMX needs gas (ie a dielectric).
Vacuum only gives 3rd order fringeshifts (for the aetherwind). This would be a slow walk i suppose.
A gas mode MMX gives 2nd order fringeshifts.
A twin-gas mode MMX (carbondisulphide & air) gives a 1st order fringeshift (Demjanov in 1970).

Unfortunately all of the modern tests using maser lasers etalons etc use vacuum.  In any case i am suspicious of any tests using lasers etc because lasers are a kind of MMX in themselves, so u have an MMX inside an MMX.

[Kryptid]

Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein.

I can give you four of them, all published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905:

- On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light: https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/references/Einstein1905b.pdf
- On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c1d/91a9f0a37e578ee9a6605b224ad554ec6e86.pdf
- On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
- Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

So u dont understand yes.

I knew you were a science denialist, but I never thought it went so deep that you believe that caloric and phlogiston are real things. You need to look into molecular motion and redox chemistry.

That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.

An experiment with unverified results is insufficient. Otherwise, science would accept homeopathy because there are people who report that it works.

Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.

Regardless of whether it is badly needed or not, it hasn't been done yet and as such you can't point to Podkletnov's work as proof of any physical effect.

Have a look at this thread.

So that article was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Which one?

Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.

He was talking about particular forms of MMX that measure fringeshifts. The experiment that I am thinking of did not.

That link didnt work for me.

My mistake. I made a typo: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf

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.

No, not at all. We do know what photons are (light quanta), but even if we didn't know what they were, how you can use that to argue that we therefore don't know that they exist? Humans didn't know what the stars were for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we could clearly see that they existed. What I find more bizarre about this is that you claim that photons are made of photaenos and that neutrinos are made of photons, so denying their existence would break your model.

Scientific conjecture is science.

That is a self-evident statement. Of course scientific conjecture is science, but not all conjecture is scientific conjecture. If you're going to argue that a piece of conjecture is automatically scientific because we might find a way to test it in the future, then that would mean that every piece of conjecture ever thought of is scientific. I guess fairies are scientific because we might find a way to test for their existence in the future, huh?

But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it?

And you think that automatically means that your idea is correct, how?

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.

If that was true, then scattering experiments would have detected multiple nuclei inside of atoms instead of just one.

Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.

And?

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

Pretty much since the beginning. Physicists sure do use them to great effect.

[Bored chemist]

The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.

And the better experiments disagree with your memory.

Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.

Yet nobody noticed- which tells us that they can't be important.

[mad aetherist]

Ok after u give me a link to one peer-reviewed article by Einstein.

I can give you four of them, all published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905:
- On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light: https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/references/Einstein1905b.pdf
- On the Motion of Small Particles Suspended in a Stationary Liquid, as Required by the Molecular Kinetic Theory of Heat: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c1d/91a9f0a37e578ee9a6605b224ad554ec6e86.pdf
- On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
- Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.

So u dont understand yes.

I knew you were a science denialist, but I never thought it went so deep that you believe that caloric and phlogiston are real things. You need to look into molecular motion and redox chemistry.
The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.

That depends on what u call insufficient & what u call evidence & what u call demonstrate & what u call existence.

An experiment with unverified results is insufficient. Otherwise, science would accept homeopathy because there are people who report that it works.
I agree. The more verification the better.

Such ticking tests are badly needed & would be so easy. A Nobel is waiting.

Regardless of whether it is badly needed or not, it hasn't been done yet and as such you can't point to Podkletnov's work as proof of any physical effect.
Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof. Praps not good proof.  And DePalma found the same.  Isnt that a verification?

Have a look at this thread.

So that article was published in a peer-reviewed journal? Which one?
Here below is that posting with that link to Gasser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories. 
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf         he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.

So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc? 
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cahill explains that vacuum mode MMXs dont work.

He was talking about particular forms of MMX that measure fringeshifts. The experiment that I am thinking of did not.
I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.

That link didnt work for me.

My mistake. I made a typo: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.06574.pdf
Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort.  Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.

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 champagne. (mad aetherist) What is a photon?  (kryptid) We dont know.

No, not at all. We do know what photons are (light quanta), but even if we didn't know what they were, how you can use that to argue that we therefore don't know that they exist? Humans didn't know what the stars were for hundreds of thousands of years, yet we could clearly see that they existed. What I find more bizarre about this is that you claim that photons are made of photaenos and that neutrinos are made of photons, so denying their existence would break your model.
Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.

Scientific conjecture is science.

That is a self-evident statement. Of course scientific conjecture is science, but not all conjecture is scientific conjecture. If you're going to argue that a piece of conjecture is automatically scientific because we might find a way to test it in the future, then that would mean that every piece of conjecture ever thought of is scientific. I guess fairies are scientific because we might find a way to test for their existence in the future, huh?
Fairies are fairy-conjecture. Anyhow fairies are different.  We all know very well what fairies look like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist.  Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.

But re the concept of atoms, when was that shown to be correct, i must have missed it?

And you think that automatically means that your idea is correct, how?
No, it means that my idea might be correct.

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.

If that was true, then scattering experiments would have detected multiple nuclei inside of atoms instead of just one.
All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.

Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.

And? Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.

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

Pretty much since the beginning. Physicists sure do use them to great effect.
A model model or a math model explain little or nothing.  They are just math, that gives a good looking number.  The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.

[mad aetherist]

The mcc/10 comes from atomic fission explosion tests, but i havent kept a record of links, just going on memory.

And the better experiments disagree with your memory.

In my opinion Uranium fission is a good way to test for E=mcc.

Yes. But if my photaenos are true then every experiment involving light or radiation or electricity involves photaenos.

Yet nobody noticed- which tells us that they can't be important.

I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice.  They just keep muttering
photons is em waves & em radiation is photons
day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.

[Kryptid]

I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.

Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It is, however, irrelevant as discoveries regarding his predictions have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you say the same for photaenos or centrifuging aether?

The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.

That was not why I brought up caloric and phlogiston. It was to illustrate that your argument was ridiculous because you said, "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." and that argument can also be used to "prove" that caloric and phlogiston exist. Both were invented to explain what was known, and both turned out to be wrong. So that whole "what we now know is the proof of my reality" is fallacious reasoning.

Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof.

Unverified claims are not proof of anything.

Praps not good proof.

What is "good" proof? You either have proof or your don't. Science doesn't even use proof, it uses evidence. A handful of unreplicated experiments are not strong evidence. Otherwise, we would have to say that the Phillip experiment is strong evidence of ghosts and/or psychokinesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_experiment

Isnt that a verification?

Not any more than isolated claims of homeopathy working is verification that homeopathy works.

I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories. 
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf         he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.

So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc? 
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?

I don't see any mention of peer-review in there.

I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.

And in the optical cavity experiment, the lack of an atmosphere isn't going to prevent it from working because it doesn't work by the same mechanism as the fringeshift one. What it searched for was a change in frequency that was dependent on the orientation and speed of the detector. Since the frequency of a wave is its speed divided by its wavelength, a change in speed must result in a change in frequency. How is a vacuum going to have any adverse effect on that?

Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort.  Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.

That's a bad analogy. We can generate photons at will, measure their energy, and see what kind of particle reactions generate them or consume them, and see that they carry momentum. We know a ton more about photons than your Igor knows about the "photohog".

Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.

If it's a galaxy then it's a galaxy. Galaxies exist. You don't have to know what a galaxy is in order to detect it.

We all know very well what fairies look

Do you? How?

like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist.

So you think fairies should be upgraded to a scientific concept?

Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.

We don't have to know what photons look like with our physical eye in order to know what kind of properties they would need to have in order to account for the behavior of light.

No, it means that my idea might be correct.

Any idea in the world that has yet to be tested "might" be correct.

All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.

They are based on well-documented physical laws (Coulomb's law and Newton's laws in particular for scattering experiments). But if you believe it's on such shaky ground, why not elaborate on which step(s) of the scattering experiment you think is/are dubious?

Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.

Such as?

A model model or a math model explain little or nothing.  They are just math, that gives a good looking number.

Models have been very good at explaining physical phenomena. The VSEPR model is very good at predicting molecular geometry. The nuclear shell model, liquid drop model and interacting boson model have collectively been very good at explaining and predicting the properties of atomic nuclei. The Casimir effect was predicted in advance using quantum mechanical principles. Only later was it found that the Casimir effect was real and it was confirmed to be of the predicted strength to high accuracy.

The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.

Except that reality on the most fundamental level is unknowable to us directly, so we have to use models and equations as a way of representing it. You can't see inside of the Earth or the Sun or atoms, so we have to devise models as the best way to understand them. The better a model is at making predictions consistent with future discoveries, the more likely it is that the model is a good representation of reality.

[mad aetherist]

I asked for peer reviewed articles. No article in that journal was ever peer reviewed. They had that policy for good reasons (which u wouldnt understand). I am amazed that u didnt know that.

Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It is, however, irrelevant as discoveries regarding his predictions have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you say the same for photaenos or centrifuging aether?
Then if articles re photaenos & centrifuging aether are in time published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be a parallel history. However Einstein in 1905 didnt have to deal with a stupid Von Kryptid.

The question was whether caloric & phlogiston had a history, not whether they were sensible by modern standards.

That was not why I brought up caloric and phlogiston. It was to illustrate that your argument was ridiculous because you said, "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." and that argument can also be used to "prove" that caloric and phlogiston exist. Both were invented to explain what was known, and both turned out to be wrong. So that whole "what we now know is the proof of my reality" is fallacious reasoning.  No u have missed the point.

Yes Podkletnov said that ticking was affected. Thats physical. In which case it is proof.

Unverified claims are not proof of anything.
There is proof & there is proof. DePalma verified an effect on ticking.

Praps not good proof.

What is "good" proof? You either have proof or your don't. Science doesn't even use proof, it uses evidence. A handful of unreplicated experiments are not strong evidence. Otherwise, we would have to say that the Phillip experiment is strong evidence of ghosts and/or psychokinesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_experiment
If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.

Isnt that a verification?

Not any more than isolated claims of homeopathy working is verification that homeopathy works.
Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?

I have mentioned photaenos in about 8 threads in New Theories. 
And captcass mentioned (see reply #9 below) that the speed of magnetic radiation (ie photaenos) is exactly c (ie the standard Einsteinian theory). In his paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1804.0109v8.pdf         he says that blackholes cannot have a magnetic field. I told him that........
Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
And indeed yesterday i saw a paper by Wolfgang Gasser re a 2016 experiment that said that electric fields or Coulomb waves or something from sparks tween spheres travel at much more than c, eg 1.4c (at 9.35 m) & 5.0c (at 2.6 m). http://www.pandualism.com/c/coulomb_experiment.pdf
Gasser mentions 3 other experiments by others that give luminal & superluminal results.

So i wish to look into this. I have copied what i said re photaenos in 8 earlier threads (see #1 to #8 below).
What do u think re the speed of electric & magnetic & em fields etc? 
Do they travel at 1.00c (luminal) or x.xxc (superluminal) or are they instantaneous?

I don't see any mention of peer-review in there.  Did u read the article?  What do u think?

I know that. But it amounts to the same thing. They all involve a comparison of wavelengths.

And in the optical cavity experiment, the lack of an atmosphere isn't going to prevent it from working because it doesn't work by the same mechanism as the fringeshift one. What it searched for was a change in frequency that was dependent on the orientation and speed of the detector. Since the frequency of a wave is its speed divided by its wavelength, a change in speed must result in a change in frequency. How is a vacuum going to have any adverse effect on that?
I will get back to u on that?

Yes i had a look, its exactly as i thort.  Its little different to Igor in the jungle. He hears strange noises & sets up a net. In the morning he finds that the net has a hole. He writes a paper saying that he has proof of a strange animal going throo his net probly at a very fast speed & he will call it a photohog. He plans to make a finer net to help measure the size more accurately, but doesnt yet know how to measure its length.

That's a bad analogy. We can generate photons at will, measure their energy, and see what kind of particle reactions generate them or consume them, and see that they carry momentum. We know a ton more about photons than your Igor knows about the "photohog".
U guys havnt got a clue what a photon is.

Yes, but what if that star turns out to be a galaxy.

If it's a galaxy then it's a galaxy. Galaxies exist. You don't have to know what a galaxy is in order to detect it.
So u dont have to know what a photon is in order to detect it. If it looks like a photon then its a photon.

We all know very well what fairies look

Do you? How?
They are small skinny nice looking young fairy-like boys & girls with colorful fairy clothing & two or four delicate fairy-like dragonfly wings in cartoons or with butterfly wings in books & they can hover like fairies & they help children who are in danger & they have a small voice with an american accent.

like but we might argue about what sort of test could prove they exist.

So you think fairies should be upgraded to a scientific concept? They deserve the same status as SR & GR.

Whereas we dont know what photons look like, but that doesnt seem to stop us knowing exactly what sort of test we should use to prove that they exist.

We don't have to know what photons look like with our physical eye in order to know what kind of properties they would need to have in order to account for the behavior of light.
Ok, then why were u so worried about what fairies looked like?

No, it means that my idea might be correct.

Any idea in the world that has yet to be tested "might" be correct.
My centrifuging idea accords with 2 old tests. Whereas SR & GR didnt accord with any old test.

All modern atomic etc experiments are a pile of IFs on top of IFs, reaching to the Moon & back.

They are based on well-documented physical laws (Coulomb's law and Newton's laws in particular for scattering experiments). But if you believe it's on such shaky ground, why not elaborate on which step(s) of the scattering experiment you think is/are dubious?
I havnt got time to look into scattering just now, i will later.

Photaenos will reveal themselves in some way.

Such as?   Slowing bending refracting diffracting scattering.  But mainly in em radiation, where photaenos are the major player, the only player. Here em radiation can travel at up to 5c, whereas we know that light can only travel at up to 2c, so em radiation is photaenos.

A model model or a math model explain little or nothing.  They are just math, that gives a good looking number.

Models have been very good at explaining physical phenomena. The VSEPR model is very good at predicting molecular geometry. The nuclear shell model, liquid drop model and interacting boson model have collectively been very good at explaining and predicting the properties of atomic nuclei. The Casimir effect was predicted in advance using quantum mechanical principles. Only later was it found that the Casimir effect was real and it was confirmed to be of the predicted strength to high accuracy.
I repeat, no model can explain reality. Reality is a mechanical thing. So sometimes is a model, but it aint a real mechanics. Reality aint some math that describes how numbers change.

The only explanation is reality, but reality is unlikely to give a good number, u still need a math model.

Except that reality on the most fundamental level is unknowable to us directly, so we have to use models and equations as a way of representing it. You can't see inside of the Earth or the Sun or atoms, so we have to devise models as the best way to understand them. The better a model is at making predictions consistent with future discoveries, the more likely it is that the model is a good representation of reality.
Agreed. Models are good, i like mechanical models & math models, they give u numbers.  Reality is good too, in a different way, & knowing the real mechanics might allow better use the model.  But this is all hypothetical, dont ask for examples (i aint got any). Anyhow even if reality at fundamental levels is unknowable why not have a bit of conjecture anyhow (cant hurt).

[Kryptid]

Then if articles re photaenos & centrifuging aether are in time published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be a parallel history.

Saying that an idea might be accepted by science in the future isn't evidence that it is correct.

However Einstein in 1905 didnt have to deal with a stupid Von Kryptid.

And that's the ad hominem fallacy.

No u have missed the point.

And that would be what?

There is proof & there is proof.

What is that even supposed to mean?

DePalma verified an effect on ticking.

I'd be wary of any claims made by Bruce DePalma, given that he has also claimed to have produced machines that violate conservation of energy. You said in the past that you are skeptical of everything, but that is far from being true in practice. You bend over backwards trying to undermine high-accuracy, well-documented experimental evidence for many different scientific discoveries (even if you have to invoke conspiracies and fallacies in order to do it) and yet you latch onto unverified, fringe claims that don't have anywhere near the same level of supporting experimental evidence that conventional science does.

You think that claims made by a few people about having discovered some kind of "ticking" anomaly counts as good evidence (or in your words, even proof), yet when multiple teams of scientists report the discovery of gravitational waves multiple times over using different detectors hundreds and thousands of miles apart, you don't count that as good evidence. You are very choosy about what you apply your skepticism to.

If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.

And yet the evidence for the Podkletnov's effect is not particularly strong. I don't think it's been refuted, but it hasn't been verified by the larger scientific community either by well-controlled tests.

Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do it. Even if an effect was observed, how would you go about establishing that the aether had anything to do with it?

Did u read the article?  What do u think?

I think extraordinary claims like that need to be verified before being accepted.

U guys havnt got a clue what a photon is.

It's a quantum of light energy: the smallest "piece" of light that you can have.

So u dont have to know what a photon is in order to detect it. If it looks like a photon then its a photon.

Strictly speaking, no, we don't have to know what it is. Other particles have been detected before we knew what they were as well. The determination of the nature of a particle can come after its discovery.

They are small skinny nice looking young fairy-like boys & girls with colorful fairy clothing & two or four delicate fairy-like dragonfly wings in cartoons or with butterfly wings in books & they can hover like fairies & they help children who are in danger & they have a small voice with an american accent.

Technically, the appearance of fairies varies from one culture to the next.

They deserve the same status as SR & GR.

So despite the fact that we might be able to come up with a way to detect fairies in the future, you still think they shouldn't be considered scientific? In that case, your aethons and praethons shouldn't be considered scientific either, since, just like fairies, we only "might" come up with a way to detect them in the future.

Ok, then why were u so worried about what fairies looked like?

Fairies have ill-defined properties that vary from one culture to the next. Photons must have a strict set of properties that line up with experimental results.

Whereas SR & GR didnt accord with any old test.

The majority of physicists (the ones who have actually done the experiments) would obviously strongly dispute that.

Slowing bending refracting diffracting scattering.

How is that any different from existing models of light?

I havnt got time to look into scattering just now, i will later.

So you basically just admitted to dismissing the results of scattering experiments without even knowing the specifics behind them.

Here em radiation can travel at up to 5c, whereas we know that light can only travel at up to 2c, so em radiation is photaenos.

Since when were there any verified instances of superluminal radiation?

I repeat, no model can explain reality. Reality is a mechanical thing. So sometimes is a model, but it aint a real mechanics. Reality aint some math that describes how numbers change.

I don't think anyone expects a model to reflect reality completely, but it's a terrible idea to write off any and all models because of that.

Anyhow even if reality at fundamental levels is unknowable why not have a bit of conjecture anyhow (cant hurt).

It doesn't hurt, no. But unless it's testable, that conjecture isn't scientific.

[Kryptid]

You know what? Scratch all of that. I don't know why I ever get involved in long-winded debates when I never have the patience to finish them. This is an uphill battle and I'm not dealing with it anymore.

[mad aetherist]

DePalma verified an effect on ticking.

I'd be wary of any claims made by Bruce DePalma, given that he has also claimed to have produced machines that violate conservation of energy. You said in the past that you are skeptical of everything, but that is far from being true in practice. You bend over backwards trying to undermine high-accuracy, well-documented experimental evidence for many different scientific discoveries (even if you have to invoke conspiracies and fallacies in order to do it) and yet you latch onto unverified, fringe claims that don't have anywhere near the same level of supporting experimental evidence that conventional science does.

You think that claims made by a few people about having discovered some kind of "ticking" anomaly counts as good evidence (or in your words, even proof), yet when multiple teams of scientists report the discovery of gravitational waves multiple times over using different detectors hundreds and thousands of miles apart, you don't count that as good evidence. You are very choosy about what you apply your skepticism too.

If u stop using the word proof i will. Evidence is definitely a better word. Hencely there is good evidence strong evidence replicated evidence etc.

And yet the evidence for the Podkletnov's effect is not particularly strong. I don't think it's been refuted, but it hasn't been verified by the larger scientific community either by well-controlled tests.

Exactly, so why not do the centrifuging tests of ticking?

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't do it. Even if an effect was observed, how would you go about establishing that the aether had anything to do with it?

I did a search & found a number of threads re DePalma & re Podkletnov, & i sort of copied & consolidated the best bits into two main existing threads.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75539.msg560753#msg560753
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75151.msg556848#msg556848

[mad aetherist]

You know what? Scratch all of that. I don't know why I ever get involved in long-winded debates when I never have the patience to finish them. This is an uphill battle and I'm not dealing with it anymore.

I feel the same, however i did learn a few things from u & others, & it made me tighten up my thinking & wordage in a few areas.  Thanx.

And i have or will add to my DePalma & my Podkletnov threads.
In fact i found a third set of experiments re the centrifuging of aether affecting ticking, it was a study carried out by Alan Calverd & involved the clocks on plane instrument panels being chronically affected by the gyros located on the same panels, i dont know how many planes were involved.  I hope Alan writes a paper, there might be a Nobel in there for him if he manages to get it into one of the major journals.

I will follow up on Gasser & his em radiation going at 5c too.

[mad aetherist]

I recall that Einstein's excuse involved the concept that a clock had a memory of its history of acceleration.

Could not find anything on what you had mentioned.
Nonetheless, it is a fact that the universe has a memory of its history for any past event, which is recorded in the time dilated image that could be perceived on different timeline. Berserk as it may be, it is a fact that this is possible.
Let just say, an advance civilization located 65 million year away from Earth, with its super capability telescope, people there can observe what wiped out the dinosaurs here.
I have no idea on how a clock could have a memory of its history of acceleration; information from radioactive decay is insufficient to record complex variations of historical acceleration. Update me if you find the link.

I havnt forgotten, i am still looking for Einstein's silly excuse. Today i am looking throo Gasser's stuff re twins paradox etc.  Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies (Time Dilation, Twin Paradox) -- By Wolfgang G. Gasser
http://www.pandualism.com/d/SR_refutation.html  Twins starts at #39.  And also......
http://www.pandualism.com/d/twin_paradox_einstein.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~nrc25/red/specrel.pdf
http://www.pandualism.com/index.html

[mad aetherist]

By Reality Check in #52:
Show that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox is wrong. Start with citing his paper that you should have read.[The following analysis is wrong. See #109]
The article Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, 1918 is quite revealing and shows that poor Einstein really had to struggle with the many serious objections against Relativity. The Critic of the dialog at least somehow represents also Einstein's own "reservations about the theory" and insecurity. For instance (first paragraph):
"We have no wish to dwell on whether this neglect [to deal with objections] was due to arrogance, or a sense of weakness, or laziness ­­– maybe it was a particularly effective mixture of these afflictions of the soul".

Interestingly, Einstein also uses his Critic to criticize other critics (second paragraph):
"I am not so full with the status of my guild so as to make me act as a superior being with superhuman insight and certainty (…). On the contrary, I talk as a human being, since I am aware that it is not rare for criticism to originate from lack of own thoughts."

I've compiled a short text with the essence of Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox, Essence of Einstein's Resolution of the Twin Paradox, using only extracts from his original (translated) text.  Here I deal with the last paragraph of this compilation. At first, I quote Einstein, and then, I show the implications for my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox in #43 and #56.

Einstein: "According to both descriptions the clock U2 is running a certain amount behind clock U1 at the end of the observed process."

Implication: When both clocks meet again, travelling T-clock is behind R-clock, because only 2.0001 year have passed in T-clock whereas 200.01 year have passed in R-clock.

Einstein: "When relating to the coordinate system K' the behavior explains itself as follows: During the partial processes 2 and 4 [inertial motion] the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the [in K'] resting clock U2."

Implication: With respect to T-clock, R-clock runs indeed slower according to Lorentz-factor 100 during inertial motion of both forward and return trip of the journey. This results in 0.020001 year in R-clock versus 2.0001 year in T-clock.

Einstein: "However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3."

Process 3: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again."

Implication: During direction reversal, R-clock runs faster by 199.99 year. In this way, the time delay of 2.0001 - 0.020001 = 1.98 year of T-clock with respect to R-clock during inertial motion is transformed for the whole journey into a time delay of 200.01 - 2.0001 = 198.01 year of R-clock with respect to T-clock (implying a two-time change by factor 100).

I'm genuinely flabbergasted by Einstein's continuation:
"According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher [weaker] the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher [weaker] gravitational potential than U1."

I had to read this several times on different days before noticing and becoming (almost) certain that already this statement stems from confusion and wishful thinking. Einstein must have confused "higher gravitational potential" with "stronger gravitational potential" or "[in K'] resting clock U2" with "clock at rest U1". If clock U1 is accelerated by a gravitational field, then U1 is located at a lower (stronger) gravitational field potential. And this makes clock U1 running slower, and not faster as it would be necessary to resolve the paradox.

"The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Even if instead of gravitational time dilation we had its opposite, gravitational time contraction, this statement still would be untenable, and Einstein should have written:

Under the premise that Relativity Theory is consistent, a calculation must show that this speeding ahead of clock U1 constitutes on a logarithmic scale exactly twice as much as the clock's lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.

I know from personal experience that all too willingly one accepts the result of a superficial calculation or reasoning, if it agrees with one's expectation, for whatever reason.

In any case, even if I do not agree with every detail of On Einstein's resolution of the twin clock paradox, C. S. Unnikrishnan, 2005, I have to subscribe to Unnikrishnan's conclusion:

"It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general setting."

[Bored chemist]

I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice.  They just keep muttering
photons is em waves & em radiation is photons
day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.

"I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. "
If you consider how many prize winning scientists there are, and that you are not one of them, it's fair to say that you are the "nobody" here.

" No one has been able to stop them."
It would be perfectly simple to stop them.
You simply have to provide an experimental result which shows that they are wrong.
Thus far, all the evidence supports them so why wouldn't they keep saying it?

[mad aetherist]

I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice.  They just keep muttering photons is em waves & em radiation is photons day after day, & year after year. No one has been able to stop them. Sad.

"I would say that a bunch of nobodies didnt notice. " If you consider how many prize winning scientists there are, and that you are not one of them, it's fair to say that you are the "nobody" here. " No one has been able to stop them." It would be perfectly simple to stop them. You simply have to provide an experimental result which shows that they are wrong. Thus far, all the evidence supports them so why wouldn't they keep saying it?

The Gasser-X (which has its own thread) shows that charge radiation from a spark travels at up  to 5c in the near field. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75611.msg561849#msg561849

I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings.  I think zero. My photaenos have no worthy competition.

[mad aetherist]