[mad aetherist (OP)]

Prof Pierre-Marie Robitaille -- re P Herouni's antenna & the  Death of the Big Bang.

[Bored chemist]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

[mad aetherist (OP)]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille

Robitaille is one of my heroes.  I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun. His youtube sky scholar stuff is a must see.
This latest CMB finding from Armenia (ex Russia) confirms what he has been saying & confirms the stupidity of the silly BB.

[Bogie_smiles]

Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent, but reality needs to be internally consistent. A model is a model because the reality is not known, or because the reality is know but does not help the derivation of answers.
But are u talking about some sort of model proposed by Robitaille?

My heroes are Aetherists & Atheists & Greenies.

[Kryptid]

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,

Seriously?

[Bogie_smiles]

Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent, but reality needs to be internally consistent. A model is a model because the reality is not known, or because the reality is know but does not help the derivation of answers.
But are u talking about some sort of model proposed by Robitaille?

My heroes are Aetherists & Atheists & Greenies.

So a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, lol.

When I saw Kryptid's post, saying "Seriously", I hastily read what he quoted, thinking I had misstated that line about a model needs to be internally consistent. So I posted a retraction, and set out to go back and correct my post where I thought I had said it wrong. That is when I saw that you had responded to my post already and you were the one that said a good model does not have to be internally consistent.

So in response to your logic saying reality has to be consistent, but a model, not so much, because reality is not known, another favorite saying of mine is that there is known science, and there are "as yet" unknowns, but my particular model attempts to fill the gaps where there are unknowns, with reasonable and responsible speculations. That is what do

[mad aetherist (OP)]

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,

Seriously?

Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It  has to give better answers than the other models.  (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.

A model can be any silly looking thing u want.  If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole.  Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like.  Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.

[Bogie_smiles]

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,

Seriously?

Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It  has to give better answers than the other models.  (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.

A model can be any silly looking thing u want.  If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole.  Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like.  Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.

I have fun trying to make my model connect to known science in every way possible, limited by my layman level understanding of things, and then I find fun in speculation while the scientific community works at getting to a consensus on what I speculated about, and with scientific credentials behind them. I am doing more than speculate when I make the observation that you are having fun finding unaccredited sources to piece together something that you know the serious science enthusiasts will rebel at.

Tell me I'm right.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,

Seriously?

Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It  has to give better answers than the other models.  (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.
A model can be any silly looking thing u want.  If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole.  Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like.  Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.

I have fun trying to make my model connect to known science in every way possible, limited by my layman level understanding of things, and then I find fun in speculation while the scientific community works at getting to a consensus on what I speculated about, and with scientific credentials behind them. I am doing more than speculate when I make the observation that you are having fun finding unaccredited sources to piece together something that you know the serious science enthusiasts will rebel at. Tell me I'm right.

I wouldnt call Einsteinology serious science, it might be serious but it aint science. Me & other Aetherists are real science.  For sure its fun finding new stuff, learning, obviously never stuff from the mainstream journals.  Naturally there is lots of junk out there, but i think i can spot it ok.  The New Theories section allows me to point out errors in Einsteinology, albeit using layman wordage.   But i enjoy learning about the meaning of the Einsteinian canon & dogma, the history etc of the wars.

[Kryptid]

A model can be any silly looking thing u want. 

That won't make it a good model.

If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole.  Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like.  Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.

Or insert aethons, photaenos and praethons...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

A model can be any silly looking thing u want.

That won't make it a good model.

Yes there must be lots of possible models but naturally u adopt the best, the model that gives the best numbers.

If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole.  Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like.  Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.

Or insert aethons, photaenos and praethons...

No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real, not some kind of model -- they are the equivalent of electrons & protons (alltho electrons & protons might not exist, but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).

Einsteinology is a strange theory here, it is the only theory where the essence is that a certain thing (aether) doesnt exist.  How strange is that!  Alltho to be fair Einstein merely said that aether was superfluous (or whatever the German is)(zoopernienderischdt i think). 
SR & GR are merely mathland tricks that sometimes give a quick goodish number.  There was no need to outlaw aether.  Einsteinologist merely had to admit that aether was the reality, but posit that SR & GR are expeditious. I would be happy with that, not a bad idea.  But the current crop of idiots insist that SR & GR are reality. No, SR & GR dont even qualify to be called models.

[Kryptid]

Yes

This contradicts your earlier post where you said that a good model doesn't have to be internally consistent.

No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real

I underlined the key word there.

not some kind of model

You don't seem to know what a scientific model is then.

(alltho electrons & protons might not exist

Seriously?

but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).

Only if you assume that your untested hypothesis is correct.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes

This contradicts your earlier post where you said that a good model doesn't have to be internally consistent.
I think the yes was yes that a silly model might not be a good model.   

No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real

I underlined the key word there.
Yes u either posit something or u dont.

not some kind of model

You don't seem to know what a scientific model is then.
If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model.  It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick. 

(alltho electrons & protons might not exist

Seriously?
Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.

but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).

Only if you assume that your untested hypothesis is correct.
Aether is correct we know. I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt, but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.

[Kryptid]

Yes u either posit something or u dont.

Positing something isn't sufficient to make it real.

If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model.  It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick. 

It doesn't matter whether or not you think something is a model. To quote Britannica: "Scientific modeling, the generation of a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly." https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modeling

You by your own admission say that aethons and praethons might never be observed directly, so how is your hypothesis around them exempt from being called a model?

Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.

So? There are articles on Google about homeopathy and creationism, too.

Aether is correct we know.

Not if you ask the majority of people with the needed technology to test for its existence (cue impending "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).

I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt

If you don't think it would "hurt", then you don't know a whole lot about atomic and nuclear physics. You'd also have to chalk up all of the very precise measurements of the properties of protons and electrons down to a gigantic conspiracy (one much, much larger than the one needed for LIGO even).

but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.

Aether could exist in some form or another, but whether it is quantized into aethons is an open question.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes u either posit something or u dont.

Positing something isn't sufficient to make it real. Unless u posit u have nothing.

If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model.  It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick. 

It doesn't matter whether or not you think something is a model. To quote Britannica: "Scientific modeling, the generation of a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that is difficult to observe directly." https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-modeling You by your own admission say that aethons and praethons might never be observed directly, so how is your hypothesis around them exempt from being called a model?
Physical is real, conceptual is a model, mathematical is mathland. I am ok with that.
Aether has been observed because the aetherwind has been measured.  That aether is made of aethons might not be testable but how can u possibly say that that conjecture is not scientific.
A model is something solid & mechanical & physical that is not meant to be reality but allows a way of getting goodish numbers.  Reality might be ok & look perfectly good & convincing but might not help in getting good numbers.

Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.

So? There are articles on Google about homeopathy and creationism, too. 
Yes, & homeopathy in general is a lie & creationism is a faith story. Any intelligent person can soon see that.

Aether is correct we know.

Not if you ask the majority of people with the needed technology to test for its existence (cue impending "conspiracy" and "mafia" arguments...).
Here i ask myself why i am arguing with u about possible or future tests & testing when i cant get any sense out of u re the existence & results of perfectly good existing tests.

I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt

If you don't think it would "hurt", then you don't know a whole lot about atomic and nuclear physics. You'd also have to chalk up all of the very precise measurements of the properties of protons and electrons down to a gigantic conspiracy (one much, much larger than the one needed for LIGO even).
No i wouldnt say that there was a conspiracy re the existence of electrons & protons. I am fairly happy with the science. I have never heard of any censorship of contrary theories in that area, or of the falsification or fudging of data. I suppose that there is the usual amount of cherry picking & rose-colored glasses -- thats par for the course. There might be bad logic etc, thats all ok, as long as its honest. I myself dont believe in a nucleus with orbiting electrons.

but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.

Aether could exist in some form or another, but whether it is quantized into aethons is an open question.
Yes aether is a catchall term (hencely if something exists then aether exists).  Whether aether is made of discrete little things worthy of a name is interesting but redundant, the answer aint ever likely to help scientific progress, so arguing about whether aethons exist or are possible or can be tested is a waste of time.  But if aethons exist then praps an aethon is a quantized thing (if it is then it would be the quantization of the excitation of praether, which is made of praethons)(note that aethons are a process, praethons are a thing)(aethons can be annihilated, praethons cant), but i doubt that the quantization would be exactly of the kind found with say photons or electron spin etc.

[Kryptid]

Unless u posit u have nothing.

You need to do more than posit. You have to experiment.

Aether has been observed because the aetherwind has been measured.

Got any peer-reviewed publications to back that up? Last I heard, the Michelson-Morley experiments produced data that was inconclusive while significantly more sensitive, more recent experiments were unable to replicate the original findings.

That aether is made of aethons might not be testable but how can u possibly say that that conjecture is not scientific.

Because science, by definition, requires something to be testable.

Yes, & homeopathy in general is a lie & creationism is a faith story. Any intelligent person can soon see that.

So now you understand why saying "there are articles on Google about the likely truth of electrons" is a bad argument, right?

Here i ask myself why i am arguing with u about possible or future tests & testing when i cant get any sense out of u re the existence & results of perfectly good existing tests.

If experiments superior in quality and precision to the original Michelson-Morley experiments can't replicate the original results, I wouldn't call them "perfectly good existing tests."

No i wouldnt say that there was a conspiracy re the existence of electrons & protons.

Then all I can deduce is that you haven't looked very thoroughly into the science behind electrons and protons. Their masses and electric charges have been measured to very high precision. The internal structure of the proton has been investigated with scattering experiments and its charge radius has also been measured. We have technology that can detect single electrons and protons. You can't do these things with non-existent particles.

 

I myself dont believe in a nucleus with orbiting electrons.

To say that electrons "orbit" a nucleus isn't exactly correct anyway, but the structure of the atom is very well understood. We can measure the diameters of the electron cloud and the atomic nucleus (the nucleus is much, much smaller). We can measure the energy levels of individual electrons as well.

arguing about whether aethons exist or are possible or can be tested is a waste of time.

Only if you're interested in whether the idea is scientific or not.

[Bored chemist]

I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.

Then you are on the wrong web site.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.

Then you are on the wrong web site.

I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.

[Bored chemist]

I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.

Then you are on the wrong web site.

I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.

Well, for a start he thinks the Sun's a metallic liquid...