WOW. I've been looking for this for 50 years.

Pretty strong evidence that Relativity is most likely bunk. This is not Crackpot. It is very sound logic supported by physical evidence of precise tests by qualifed enities. It seems MMI actually found evidence of an ether in 1921 but it went ignored since Relativity had taken over post failure of the MMX earlier to detect the ether.

But far more importantly in 1998 it was also detected in a well thought out and quality experiment.

Ether detected 1998
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/msg0013719.html


The book on De Witte Ether Detection (164 pages)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf


I have only finished the first 12 pages but WOW what a presentation. He has already provided the proper (in my view) explanations for my 3 Clock Paradox, the speed of light and "Apparent" time dilation vs actual time and discloses the errors of K&K be they willful fraud in support of Relativity or outright incompetence.


He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart. Good ridance.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

I can't recommend to strongly that you read all about the demise of the worst theory to every penetrate science. Relativity.

Originally posted by MacM
But far more importantly in 1998 it was also detected in a well thought out and quality experiment.
Did you read the note?
needless to say, there are many potential causes of
daily variations that need to be studied in interpreting an experiment
of this sort.There are many things which could have caused this besides 'ether'. And these problems were pointed out in the messages attached. The most likely is tidal effects.

He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart. Good ridance.
I fail to see any tearing. As soon as you start talking about a 'bubble of aether around earth' to try and explain MM theory, you cancel all the results aether would have. You are right back at relativity.

I can't recommend to strongly that you read all about the demise of the worst theory to every penetrate science. Relativity.
Nice to say that... but the theory you just linked to still relies on relativity to explain reality.

Persol,

I also read the disclaimer but that is just being prudent. You would do better to read the material rather than assume you know what it says.

And I almost hate to mention it here but I think it is appropriate under the circumstance. That is UniKEF is not devoid relavistic principles either but they are based on factors that have a physical underpinning and are not mere mathematical extrapolations.

Why am I not surprised that you were the first to respond and actually I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your response. It is more appropriate even if it isn't anchored in concrete as you would want others to accept.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

He makes assumption after assumption. I see no evidence to back him up. Also his three ship thought experiment is flawed because he uses a classical approcach and fails to explain WHY the speed of light would not be constant.


"The postulates of Special Relativity are assumptions, not laws. The MTLs are laws. We must give priority to laws that are proven, rather than to assumptions which are not proven."


That's a very bold statement; that everything in the universe acts to simple laws known to work at low speeds.

Originally posted by MacM
I also read the disclaimer but that is just being prudent.
It isn't just being prudent. There are many other reasons that this would happen. It falls in league with your gravity testing. There are just to many unaccounted for variable.

You would do better to read the material rather than assume you know what it says.
I read all the posts you linked to, the overview chapter, and the chapter on the experiment. This is far more then the 12 pages you have read. I have no need to assume, as the material is sitting right there.

And I almost hate to mention it here but I think it is appropriate under the circumstance. That is UniKEF is not devoid relavistic principles either but they are based on factors that have a physical underpinning and are not mere mathematical extrapolations.
Analogies do us no good. You can not tell me where a rocket will land by using an analogy. The math was developed for a reason. Your philiopshical discussions do not address this reason.

It is more appropriate even if it isn't anchored in concrete as you would want others to accept.
I have said OVER and OVER that relativity (and all of science) is not static. However, it is currently the BEST explanation we have. None of the anti-relativity people on this site have posted anything that provides the range of answers that relativity does. Most theories, including UniKEF, still require the math of relativity to actually get any results. They are just looking for new analogies which they feel are easier understood. Unfortunately, this over simplifies the view.

Originally posted by blackholesun
That's a very bold statement; that everything in the universe acts to simple laws known to work at low speeds. Especially seeing as how it'd been proven to be false.

Umm.. if there is an "Ether," why does light not slow down when it is directed into the wind? Hmm..

Um, uh, because he spells it with an 'a'... aether. Six letter theories starting with 'a' and ending with 'r' don't have to be consistant. Duh!

Persol,

Analogies do us no good. You can not tell me where a rocket will land by using an analogy. The math was developed for a reason. Your philiopshical discussions do not address this reason.


ANS: Nor do your ad hoc rejections address the most current findings and assumptions being made by those doing the research.

If I refer to such statements and they are somehow flawed, it means the source is flawed and not me. If I make assumptions (and I do but qualify them as such) and they are flawed then I have no objection to being told I am wrong.

But it is less than impressive when you attack me for what others, more qualified than you or I have said and expect me to supply corrections. Show your basis not your back side.


It is more appropriate even if it isn't anchored in concrete as you would want others to accept.

I have said OVER and OVER that relativity (and all of science) is not static. However, it is currently the BEST explanation we have. None of the anti-relativity people on this site have posted anything that provides the range of answers that relativity does. Most theories, including UniKEF, still require the math of relativity to actually get any results. They are just looking for new analogies which they feel are easier understood. Unfortunately, this over simplifies the view.

ANS: I do not think you will see anytime soon a sweeping theory that covers all bases. Even Relativity came in pieces years apart and it has been modified or extended from its original concept many time over the decades. Your demand that an idea answer all question simultaneously is either to far reaching or a deliberate tatic to defend the status quo.


Perhaps they tend to over simplify but isn't that another way of saying they are more likely correct due to Occum's Razor?

You need to do much more than spout ad hoc objections and distortion of what has been said. To gain any crediability you have to supply the corrected arguement. I nor many others here are willing, nor should we be, to simply assume things as you claim beause you claim they are.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
ANS: Nor do your ad hoc rejections address the most current findings and assumptions being made by those doing the research.
Well, seeing as how I pointed out problems, it would not be classified as 'ad hoc rejections'. Perhaps you should read and think about material before you bother posting it.

If I refer to such statements and they are somehow flawed, it means the source is flawed and not me.
You said "He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart", but I don't see anything that was a consistant point, let alone good. So yes, you are wrong.

But it is less than impressive when you attack me for what others, more qualified than you or I have said and expect me to supply corrections. Show your basis not your back side.
I did in my first post, but you ignored that part. I meantioned tidal influence, and requireing current theory anyway. It's all been gone into before, I'm not doing it again.

I do not think you will see anytime soon a sweeping theory that covers all basis.
I could live with consistent. This has yet to be done.

Perhaps they tend to over simplify but isn't that another way of saying they are more likely correct due to Occum's Razor?
Except Occum's Razor still demands the same level of competence.

You don't like relativity because you 'fell' it isn;t right. You have no actual basis to believe that. If you have no logical reason to believe it, then you shouldn't.

4DHyperCubix,


Umm.. if there is an "Ether," why does light not slow down when it is directed into the wind? Hmm..

ANS: Actually it might but if it does the affect would be so minor as to be undetectable.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
Actually it might but if it does the affect would be so minor as to be undetectable.
Which would contradict this experiment.

Persol,

ANS: Nor do your ad hoc rejections address the most current findings and assumptions being made by those doing the research.
Well, seeing as how I pointed out problems, it would not be classified as 'ad hoc rejections'. Perhaps you should read and think about material before you bother posting it.

If I refer to such statements and they are somehow flawed, it means the source is flawed and not me.
You said "He tears your favorite SR, GR concepts apart", but I don't see anything that was a consistant point, let alone good. So yes, you are wrong.

But it is less than impressive when you attack me for what others, more qualified than you or I have said and expect me to supply corrections. Show your basis not your back side.
I did in my first post, but you ignored that part. I meantioned tidal influence, and requireing current theory anyway. It's all been gone into before, I'm not doing it again.

I do not think you will see anytime soon a sweeping theory that covers all basis.
I could live with consistent. This has yet to be done.

Perhaps they tend to over simplify but isn't that another way of saying they are more likely correct due to Occum's Razor?
Except Occum's Razor still demands the same level of competence.

You don't like relativity because you 'fell' it isn;t right. You have no actual basis to believe that. If you have no logical reason to believe it, then you shouldn't.

ANS: Fortunately you make this easy. I don't need to address each of your responses. They all stem from the same ad hoc replies I have accused you of.

You claim not only I but these others are wrong but provide no evidence that that is the case.

He does tear up SR and GR. If he is correct or not seems will require a bit of time to prove. But your claim that he has blatant error and makes illogical assumptions is in itself an inadequate response to the material. His efforts are based on a sound understanding of not only SR and GR but their history and short comings.

His work is indeed most promising inspite of your unsupported hope that he is somehow wrong.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Possible Explainations
1) This could be a result of interaction with background radiation
2) Could be due to tidal forces
3) 12 hour shift aligned with season change

Problems
1) Radio/light waves do not experience this... which says this is not an ether.
2) Sidereal motion is distinguiable on earth WITHOUT looking at the sky. De Witt claims they don't, which is plain wrong. Related effects could affected this. Even MM took this into account.
3) The phase shift acheived is statistivally irrelevant because of the way he chose his points.
4) He hasn't released his data. We have no idea how he chooses his 'daily point'.

His argument about path momentum seems pretty solid, if it can be said that if a photon is able to have perpendicular path momentum, then it must also be able to have parallell path momentum. I'm not sure that this is true though. Does anybody care to comment?

Persol,

He makes very specific charges against SR & GR; plus H&K testing, Suppose you attempt to show he has mis-stated his objections to these enities rather than branch off on a wild goose hunt trying to find some reason he may be wrong. Just defend SR & GR against his specific charges and do it sucessfully then that would be all you would need to do.

Puts a bit of a different light on the issue I think. You see I'm not going to waste my time defending myself against BS. I'm going to stick to the issue here and that is the discovery of an ether and very good arguements against SR & GR, H&K.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

You see I'm not going to waste my time defending myself against BS.

Persol,

So I have to assume De Witte wins. I thought so. You have nothing that will stick to the wall against his work. We should all take note of this roll-over.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Sing while doing the "stir the pot dance"... Go Tesla, go De Witte, go Bearden, its your birthday...

I didn't sleep well enough to start debunking 164 pages of aether theory.

All I can say is: MacM, if you are happy with an aether theory, and if it explains physics as good as any other theory, then fine. Let's all be happy.

I personally prefer not to assume the complicating "universal frame of reference", which is the most unnatural thing to introduce considering the already built in relativity in classical Newtonian mechanics.

Bye!

Crisp

Still bull shitting on how relativity is wrong Mac.

Have you bothered learnng calculus in the 6 months since I heard from you last. Probably not. Stil trying to debunk relaitivity since it is the only theory your can even remotely grasp


Sad Sad Oll Man Mac

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Ignoring the plain truth
of reality will make you a
bitter old man.

Crisp,

I personally prefer not to assume the complicating "universal frame of reference", which is the most unnatural thing to introduce considering the already built in relativity in classical Newtonian mechanics.

I don't know about you, but I consider time dilation and length contraction far more "unnatural" than a universal frame of reference.

I'm still trying to grasp the physicality of length contraction and time dilation. :bugeye:

Hi Tom,

I don't know about you, but I consider time dilation and length contraction far more "unnatural" than a universal frame of reference.

Well, that depends how you look at it. Yes, it is unnatural if somebody just walks in your door and says "hey, this theory of special relativity predicts that lengths aren't really the same for everybody, and let me tell you something about time...". Now, if somebody walks in and tells you "the speed of light, in vacuum, seems to be constant for all observers, regardless of their state of motion" and he shows you some experimental data to back it up, then it doesn't seem that unnatural. The former is merely a consequence of the later.

And believe me, it is not something that makes a physicists life more easy, we all hoped that it would not be that difficult. It seems to turn out that it is. But we had that discussion about a trillion times already ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Ryans,

Still bull shitting on how relativity is wrong Mac.

See you still can't address issues. Lets try showing where his specific claims are invalid. Then you will have achieved something other than that you are the one bull shitting.

We await your proof that he screwed up. No general comments, specific proof please.

Have a nice day, I am.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Crisp,


And believe me, it is not something that makes a physicists life more easy, we all hoped that it would not be that difficult. It seems to turn out that it is. But we had that discussion about a trillion times already .


ANS:The general findings of Relativity are not the problem. The problem is the Relavitists that ignore the fact that it is based on Lorentz formulas which were developed to describe the actions of an ether and then were plagerized for Relatvitity and ignored the ether underlying principle.

Relativity provides action without cause and is hence being mathematically extrapolated without evidence or proof for all sorts of claims. As such Relativity doesn't even meet the conditions to be called a theory it is postulates only.

Einstein stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an ether doesn't exist, we have only proven we don't need one".

QUESTION? Why do Relativists resist ether so much. Is it to constraining on wild propositions and research funding?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
Crisp,





ANS:The general findings of Relativity are not the problem. The problem is the Relavitists that ignore the fact that it is based on Lorentz formulas which were developed to describe the actions of an ether and then were plagerized for Relatvitity and ignored the ether underlying principle.

Relativity provides action without cause and is hence being mathematically extrapolated without evidence or proof for all sorts of claims. As such Relativity doesn't even meet the conditions to be called a theory it is postulates only.

First of all the Lorentz formulas were created to explain why no one was FINDING an ether and why they weren't getting the results they expected WITH an ether. Second, he doesn't explain ANYTHING about muon half-lives, the results from particle accelerators, or the fact that atomic clocks on GPS satellites need resynchronized due to time dilation. He bases everything on the fact that ALL aspects of the universe for some reason have inertia. That's not true. Photons have no mass, only momentum.

Why do Relativists resist ether so much. Is it to constraining on wild propositions and research funding?
Becuase any serious research on it, by actual scientitsts, has shown that it is not needed. If you want to intorude ether, fine... but the rest of us don't see the need... so shut the hell up.

Persol,

Truth is the need. But of course Relavitists don't seem to care about truth. I should have realised your answer before you spoke.

So try some of your own off topic BS SHUT UP OR PUT UP. Dhow De Witte wrong or take a back seat. There are other that are looking for the truth and not looking to prop up the status quo.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

The goal of science is not to find some mystical truth. It is to provide predictions which can actually be used.

Persol,

That is an amazing admission. The purpose of science is not to discover the truth. Damn I thought it was. Sounds like you don't care if an ether is the truth yuo want to just lead science blindly down theoretical fun paths regardless of all the pitfalls that cretes. BAD SCIENCE - SORRY.

I thought I should post this response from a real physicist from another site discussing this same topic.

My question is why do we have this click of non-thinkers here that want to avoid scientific discussion and protect the failing theory of Relativity and openly reject truth in favor of personal attacks. Sad really sad.

************ A Modern Physicists View ***************

All I can say to the "ten jet" experiment is that the entire concept is flawed. In my opinion, the Hafele and Keating is a bad experiment that shouldn't be typically cited as support for relativity. The reason is that, as this article described, the Earth is constantly accelerating (due to its rotation), and so it is a constantly changing reference frame. So a point far from the North or South poles cannot be considered "at rest" because it is in constant acceleration (acceleration is what changes a reference frame and causes a difference in, say elapsed time observed). A person standing at the equator doesn't notice he is a changing reference frame because the acceleration is so minute and gravity blurs its detection away, but it makes for problems when considering special relativity. That's why special relativity is an idealized theory, general relativity is a much better theory that works in the actual world, not just in thought experiments.

Therefore the Hafele and Keating experiment is chiefly a support for general relativity and the time dilation in a gravitational field, and it can't have much to say about special relativity. In my understanding, an object may consider itself "at rest" only if it is not undergoing acceleration (or deceleration), or being acted upon by an influencial force (objects undergoing acceleration by a gravitational field may sometimes be considered "at rest" only because they have general relativity to point out the actual effects caused by the gravitation). All the talk of "old" and "new" SR I find to be unecessary, SR itself is OLD no matter what, thats why GR replaced it. So this book is absolutely right in saying that only observers at the Earth's poles can be considered "at rest" (but then again they are under some minute acceleration because they orbit the sun, and the whole solar system is rotating in the galaxy, ah! Luckily these effects are for the most part so small that they would have little effect on experiment. Or would they?). An aether drag theory would yield the same results as GR with thes considerations in mind, therefore, they are identical theories (unless the aether wind can be detected). I am still looking at this book, I havn't read what it has to say on detecting the aether but I await with anticipation.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

"That is an amazing admission. The purpose of science is not to discover the truth. Damn I thought it was. Sounds like you don't care if an ether is the truth yuo want to just lead science blindly down theoretical fun paths regardless of all the pitfalls that cretes. BAD SCIENCE - SORRY."

Unfortunately Persol is right. Truth is a question asked by philosophers, scientists try to find the model that fits reality the best way and that predicts a bunch of new stuff. Do you really think that there is one single physicist in the world who goes to work, sits down with his colleagues and wants to discuss whether there truelly is an aether or not ? It simply doesn't matter; the most elegant and simple explanation is without aether, and even if aether is there, it magically deceives us into not detecting it.

Anyway, this is going down the philosophy road again, and this discussion has already been done here on sciforums, but ask yourself: if you cannot see something, is it really there ? (= if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?).

Don't bother answering that question, you would have the 100.000.001'th opinion on it in the entire human history (I think this discussion began in Plato's time).

The truth is that there is no right answer. Everybody is right. Sounds a whole lot like the theory of relativity :p

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

You seem to be right but that is an unacceptable quality to call science. To not care or want to know the truth but to just make mathematical guesses and see if it works.

The fact is knowing what is true would expidite learning new truth faster and more efficiently than guessing. But there would go the research dollars - huh.

The truth will will out and when it does many of your toys will vanish.

So a Crackpot is anybody that expects science to be based on truth. - Hmmmm.

Seems it doesn't matter to you that the H&K data is likely in error and doesn't support Relativity. We can just pretend the truth hasn't been found and continue to play in your own little world of lies and double talk.

You can't really call what you do science it is anti-science, to reject truth in favor of mere postulates (guesses).

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
You seem to be right but that is an unacceptable quality to call science. To not care or want to know the truth but to just make mathematical guesses and see if it works.
Science is not based on guesses, but on observation and experimentation.

The fact is knowing what is true would expidite learning new truth faster and more efficiently than guessing. But there would go the research dollars - huh.
This makes no sense. Historically, the faster science discovers, the more money gets pumped in. It's when research is not showing progress that funding is cut.

The truth will will out and when it does many of your toys will vanish.
What makes you think your theory (or that of another crackpot) is the truth? If I had to choose between a theory based on experiments by scientists who understand experimental procedure, and a guess by crackpots based on what the feel is right... guess what I choose. The ideas you have previously posted contain many more 'guesses' then science and, in this case, uneducated guesses.

So a Crackpot is anybody that expects science to be based on truth.
A crackpot is someone who doesn't understand that the only 'truth' in science is that which we can directly on indirectly observe. Anything else poses no benefit, and is just a guess.

Seems it doesn't matter to you that the H&K data is likely in error and doesn't support Relativity.
Interesting redefinition of 'likely'.

You can't really call what you do science it is anti-science, to reject truth in favor of mere postulates (guesses).
And you know you have the turht how? You are starting to sound more and more like a religious zealot.

Persol,

What makes you think your theory (or that of another crackpot) is the truth?

I don't recall menitioning my theories. I thought the debate was about an ether theory and you were going to show us how it is wrong.

Why do you have so much trouble remaining on topic. The question is do you have any proof that De Witte is in error.

Of course.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
I don't recall menitioning my theories.
You have mentioned your theories over and over again. I include (another crackpot) due to this specific instance, where the comment still stands.

I thought the debate was about an ether theory and you were going to show us how it is wrong. Why do you have so much trouble remaining on topic. The question is do you have any proof that De Witte is in error.
I listed things he left out in his experiment, and causes he did account for. All you have to do is read. If you dispute my points then do so. Otherwise, this poor experiment is not worth a further look.

Persol,

I listed things he left out in his experiment, and causes he did account for. All you have to do is read. If you dispute my points then do so. Otherwise, this poor experiment is not worth a further look.

In typical Persol style you listed a bunch of BS pulled out of the air with no indiction they either have any bearing on the issue or that they show anything contrary to his findings.

Try posting real scientific evidence or analysis. since you can't I suspect you will withdraw of continue with your shotgun meaningless BS attacks.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

He didn't account for tidal forces.
He didn't account for ground temperature changes. (He said they are insignificant, which is false. Even a few degrees will change the length. Ground temp is not perfectly stable.)
He claims sidereal motion is could not effect this because it is underground... while this is also false.
He didn't release his data, only his extracted results.

These are all major problems. Any one of which could have screwed up the results.

Do you think he hasn't been published because they are afraid of how accurate he was... or could it possible be that there are just to many unaccounted for variables?

No error analysis.
Sidereal day varies over 10 minutes per day, but he 'graph' is less acurate than that.
He ignores that the one way speed of EM is unobservable.
The makers of the cesium clocks stated that DeWitte reported much larger error with his clocks then have EVER been reported. This was do in part to his syncronization with GPS.

No control group.
The cable was none none to be straight, but the amount of bend was unknown.
He admits that the noise level is too high to know if it is definitly a positive result.

He claims:
Th ether is a gas of particules at 2.7°K of mass 1.64.E(-40) kg.
Matter is made of hypersound-waves in this gas . Thus like a sound-wave doesn't carry along the air, the matter doesn't carry along ether which permeates everything at the velocity of about 360 km/s or more.
but doesn't explain how he knows this.


More infor can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=37CDF93C.A3E1BDFB%40lucent.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Ddewitte%2Bether%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26i e%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D37CDF93C.A3E1BDFB%2540lucent.com%26rnum %3D1

WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD
WARNING, CRACKPOT THREAD

What? I didn't hear you.

Persol,

Gee sounds like H&K data which has been shown to not really support their claims, kinda fudged a bit to squeeze out what they wanted to see.

The fact still is you are spouting a lot of hot air of "Maybe's". Show his conclusions are not the consequence of descovering ether.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Persol,

Finally you posted some actual information. Now that wasn't that hard was it?

Unfortunately I don't see any nubvers only statements, not to mention that the H&K clocks varied all over the map and no velocity affect was apparent.

You know take an average, throw out a high and a low, that sort of stuff and then say "Hey, the numbers aren't right but in the right direction, we must have proved time dilation.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

BlackHoleSun,

First of all the Lorentz formulas were created to explain why no one was FINDING an ether and why they weren't getting the results they expected WITH an ether. Second, he doesn't explain ANYTHING about muon half-lives, the results from particle accelerators, or the fact that atomic clocks on GPS satellites need resynchronized due to time dilation. He bases everything on the fact that ALL aspects of the universe for some reason have inertia. That's not true. Photons have no mass, only momentum.



ANS: Actually he does discuss these issues. You seem to have the opinion that he opposes time dilation. He doesn't, not do I.

It is simply that there can be a physical explanation for why it occurs. Relativity is based on ether formulas but since (as admitted by Einstein) the mathematics works without knowing about the physical cause, so "what", lets ignore it. Big mistake.

Here is the "what" and this is addressed to Persol and Canute that have openly stated they don't care about truth, that it has no signifigance.

They couldn't be further wrong.

Acknowledging an ether origin for relavistic principles and studying the Chiral Condensate may well lead to unlimited energy.

Tesla thought so and current research seems to suggest that he was right. Just imagine being able to traverse around the universe and not having to transport fuel for energy.

Imagine an earth that no longer consumes its resources and pollutes its enviornment. Imagine an earth where resources are no longer grounds for war.

I think truth is very importatnt here.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

"Relativity is based on ether formulas but since (as admitted by Einstein) the mathematics works without knowing about the physical cause, so "what", lets ignore it. Big mistake."

If you ever took your time to actually learn the theory, then you would know that this statement is false.

For the 100000 th time:
TIME DILATATION AND LENGTH CONTRACTION ARE NOT POSTULATES OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY BUT A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS POSTULATES.

The physical cause is hence well known; the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. And the fact that the formulas were first developed for aether (which I am not convinced of, but ok, I could be wrong) does not change a thing, it is not because Einstein ignores certain details. But to understand that you would have to study that theory, something you seem unwilling to do in the first place.

The goal of science is not to find some mystical truth. It is to provide predictions which can actually be used.

Ok, this guy is scaring me now...

How can science be anything but the ultimate quest for truth? I understand that philosophy and science are not the same thing, however, it is the job of the philosopher to pose the questions and the job of the scientist to solve them. How can a problem be solved if it is not yet percieved? The two work together.

I still dont know enough physics to be able to comment whether De Wittes work is accurate but it is still relevant. It is about thinking outside the square. If we don't look out the window once in a while how will we know which questions need to be asked? Just because a truth isn't currently required doesn't make it any less valid. Truth is self-justifying. It is a sad day when someone says the truth is not needed.

Hi Blaah!

"How can science be anything but the ultimate quest for truth?"

Because truth is not an objectively measureable or detectable entity. You cannot distinguish between one truth or another by an independent, repeatable experiment.

Ok, I am no good at expressing it, but I think you'd have to agree that truth is very subjective. Physics only is concerned with facts and how these facts can be modelled in a mathematical way in order to describe and predict the behaviour of nature. So in that sense there is something which you could call a truth, which is the experimental data, or the way nature behaves.

Now, these experimental data are just that: data. Creating a huge catalogue of all events in nature is not really a good way of studying it, so you need some kind of model that fits the data well, and is able to make new predictions which in turn can be experimentally tested. For the physicist, it does not matter if the postulates of the theory are "the truth", it just matters that they work. Many people seem to confuse the postulates of a theory with "the truth", but it should be pointed out over and over again that they are merely models, simplifications, of nature.
If you want to discuss the postulates of a theory, then there are two ways: either you come up with new experimental data that disproves (one of) those postulates, rendering the theory obsolete, or you can start talking and debating about the nature of the postulates. The former is science, the later is philosophy (of science).

I mean, all the discussions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics (as an example) are totally irrelevant for the quantum physicist. It does not matter if it is the Many Worlds or Copenhagen interpretation, a fact is that the theory works and describes nature very accurately, irregardless of whether the postulates are "the truth" or not.

I hope this more or less clarifies my point of view. This does not mean we don't care about the truth. It is quite challenging to enter in a debate about the interpretation of special relativity or quantum mechanics, but as so often nicely illustrated on the forums here, there is no end to such discussions, simply because the scientific method cannot rule out one "truth" from another simply by words.

Bye!

Crisp

I would have thought that if a scientific theory is not true then eventually counter-evidence to it will appear. Thus as scientific theories become more and more complete they must converge on the truth. (This assumes that there is only one truth of course).

Therefore science is not unconcerned with the truth. It is groping towards the truth by the pragmatic method of developing partial theories and seeing if they work. It means that scienctists think a lot of practical work still needs to be done before worrying about The Truth too much.

I don't agree, since I feel we have all the evidence we need. But I certainly don't think it's correct to say that science isn't concerned with the truth, except inasmuch as accepts the philosophical viewpoint that the 'noumenal' must remain forever beyond us.

"I would have thought that if a scientific theory is not true then eventually counter-evidence to it will appear. Thus as scientific theories become more and more complete they must converge on the truth. (This assumes that there is only one truth of course)."

Yes, a theory that is not "true" (I would rather say "correct") will eventually be overthrown by counter-evidence. In that sense, scientific theories converge towards the truth, which is an accurate description of nature. This is what I refered to as "facts" as being a form of truth.

You will notice however, that little scientific theories do any real claims about interpretation. I am thinking on the meaning of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, or (as I just read) whether spacetime really exists or really curves. This is something the theory or experiments cannot verify; they act as if it where thus or so, but there is no way to rule out one from another.

So if you consider "the truth" to be answers like questions to "does spacetime really curve", "what is energy" or "what does the wavefunction mean", then I think one should not study science but rather philosophy, where these issues are indeed addressed.

Bye!

Crisp

Physics is not so much a quest for <b>The Truth</b> as it is a quest for what is useful. A physical theory is useful if it helps explain and predict what we see when we make observations and do experiments.

If I throw a tennis ball near the Earth's surface, Newtonian gravity with the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration does a fantastic job of predicting what the flight path of the ball will look like: how fast it will go, where it will land, how high it will get to, and so on. If I only want to know about the flight of projectiles near the Earth's surface, constant gravitational acceleration and basic Newtonian laws are all I'll ever need. Is this "the truth"? A philosopher might care, but a practical "surface of the Earth" physicist doesn't need to know.

Now, suppose I start launching tennis balls as intercontinental ballistic missiles. Suddenly, I find that my equations don't work any more. So, I modify them by dropping the assumption of constant gravitational acceleration, replacing that with an inverse-square law of gravity. Now I have Newtonian physics with inverse-square gravity, which is marvellous at predicting the flight paths of ICBMs. Is this the truth? Do I care?

I get even more ambitious. I start launching tennis balls into high elliptical orbits of the Earth. After waiting several thousand years, I start to see puzzling variations in the orbits of my tennis balls - their orbits precess more than they should, using my Newtonian physics. So, it's back to the drawing board, and I eventually come to the conclusion that I need general relativity to properly predict the progress of the balls. Is general relativity the truth now? Probably not. After all, I've already had two previously useful theories overturned, so chances are this one isn't the final word either.

What can we get from this example? Here are the points to take away:

1. Physics is progressive. A new theory replaces an old one only when it can explain all the same things as the old one, only more accurately. Hopefully, it also explains some things the old one couldn't explain.
2. A theory is a <b>good</b> theory if it is useful. That is the only criterion which is really relevant, since we can never know whether any theory is "the truth". Newtonian theory is a good theory - even better than relativity for many purposes where the full apparatus of relativity adds unnecessary complications. But overall, relativity is a superior theory because it explains things Newtonian physics can't explain. It enables us to calculate things more accurately.
3. Very successful and general theories (such as Newtonian physics) are rarely replaced. Instead they tend to be <b>subsumed</b>. General relativity completely contains Newtonian mechanics as low speed, low energy, low gravity limits.
4. The Truth is an unattainable thing in experimental science. All we have, ultimately, are observations and explanatory theories. We can never know if any particular theory is "true", because we can never test a theory under all possible conditions. Nor can we make infinitely accurate or infinitely many observations. Therefore, we can never know that at some stage in the future we won't come across an observation or piece of data which is not explainable by our favorite current theory.

"The Truth" is a constantly shifting set of goal posts which is forever out of the reach of science. Since we can't get to the Truth (or know when we've arrived), the best we can do is to improve on the accuracy and explanatory power of our theories.

James,

As always, very well put. I think we have a common viewpoint on the issue of truth in science ;).



Now MacM,

Originally posted by MacM
But far more importantly in 1998 it was also detected in a well thought out and quality experiment.

Ether detected 1998
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/msg0013719.html

How about that, totally unwillingly I ran into a possible answer to this experiment. I think that De Witte has unwillingly used the Sagnac effect to measure the earth's rotation (or a mechanism very similary to the Sagnac effect). This is basically a proof that the earth's surface is not an inertial frame.

I refer to "Gravity, an introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", James B. Hartle, Addison-Wesley (2003) page 35. You can also <A HREF="http://www.google.be/search?q=sagnac+effect&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=">google</A> for the words to find more explanations, such as <A HREF="http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm">this nice explanation right here</A>.

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by Crisp
[b][So if you consider "the truth" to be answers like questions to "does spacetime really curve", "what is energy" or "what does the wavefunction mean", then I think one should not study science but rather philosophy, where these issues are indeed addressed.

Bye!

Crisp
I understand what you and James are saying. However I cannot believe that it is not the job of science to keep trying to answer these questions. To be pedantic - if 'does spacetime really curve?' is not a scientific question then why is 'spacetime curves' a scientific assertion.

However I take your general point.

"To be pedantic - if 'does spacetime really curve?' is not a scientific question then why is 'spacetime curves' a scientific assertion."

Well, that is the difference between working with a postulate and trying to ask questions about a postulate. If you postulate that "spacetime curves according to the Einstein equation" then you can develop an entire theory of general relativity ^(*) using mathematics, logic, theorems, proofs, all the horrible stuff ;). Start the mathematical machinery and out comes Newton's law of gravitation, the perihelion shift of mercury, ... which all matches experimental data. Out come new predictions that are testable, reproducable, ... To be short: once you accept the postulate, you can unleash the scientific method on it to derive results. The postulate is part of, even the very foundation, this scientific framework. That is why the postulate is called a scientific assertion.

If you ask why spacetime curves, then you are going deeper into the postulate and start asking questions that do not fall inside this scientific framework set up by the postulate. Hence, it falls outside the scope of the scientific method, i.e. it is not science.

Bye!

Crisp


^(*) I have this huge book on GR here on my desk, and I started to read it, but I am not familiar in great depth with the postulates of GR, so I am not sure of this is one of them. Nevertheless, the point still holds.

Originally posted by MacM
Finally you posted some actual information. Now that wasn't that hard was it?
Actually, it was a pain in the ass... as it is a very poor report and does not describe exactly what he did. He didn't even include his possible sources of error, which he obviously knew about because he posted about them on sci.physics.

Unfortunately I don't see any nubvers only statements
Looking at the actual statments, you should realize that no numbers are needed. There are enough other events which we KNOW happen (pathing, heat expansion, signal interference, errors in timing) that the rest is basically worthless. Given data, it may be possible to see if the result was obtained correctly... but no data has been given, only results. As you have accused me, he is only giving statements. I have no numbers to attack, because he has shown none. I have little hope that he treated his numbers correctly, seeing only the open ends he left in the experiment. This is the same debate we went thru with your gravity testing.

not to mention that the H&K clocks varied all over the map and no velocity affect was apparent
H&K had a less sccurate clock, so yes they did 'vary all over the map'. That being said, it is a fairly trival exercise to determine a 20min shift if it is there, buried in the 'static'. DeWitte used more accurate clocks, but somehow syncronized them wrong, as his accuracy was 50x worse then the spec.

You know take an average, throw out a high and a low, that sort of stuff and then say "Hey, the numbers aren't right but in the right direction, we must have proved time dilation.
Again, it is fairly trivial to figure out how accurate you result is when do these actions. Unlike the DeWitte experiment, that used no error analysis at all.

Acknowledging an ether origin for relavistic principles and studying the Chiral Condensate may well lead to unlimited energy.
First, you do not acknowledge an ether which simply complicates issues further... and which we can not detect. It is nice to say that relativic principles are due to an ether, but that doesn't DO anything. It's equivalent to saying that unicorns are responsible for it. In no way does it advance the theory if it is thae same theory anyhow.
Second, people are researching the chiral condensate... but not for the reasons you seem to think. They say, in many places, that it is not a source of unlimited energy... but a null source.

Tesla thought so and current research seems to suggest that he was right. Just imagine being able to traverse around the universe and not having to transport fuel for energy.
Good old buddy Tesla, who magically knows every crackpots now think. This comment is still pointless, and doesn't at all address the issue that ether doesn't provide an answer to anything. As soon as you have moving/flowing ether, you have to ask what its medium is.

Imagine an earth that no longer consumes its resources and pollutes its enviornment. Imagine an earth where resources are no longer grounds for war.
Imagine a sciforums without all the quacks. Imagine a sciforums where people don't post shit reports.

I think truth is very importatnt here.
And I think you do not realize you are supporting an idea just because 'you like it'. The truth is fine and dandy, but you can't simply claim that you know it... and then not back it up. It your months here you have not shown us a single reason to throw out relativity for a theory which is, at best, incomplete. The point is to provide things that are actually USEABLE... not the search for truth. Sure, truth may be found along the way... but you are kidding yourself if you think nobody will ever find a more complete truth. One day relativity will go the way of HS physics. It will be kept for ease of use, but a more complete theory will be available. Ether is not this theory.

Persol,

Good old buddy Tesla, who magically knows every crackpots now think. This comment is still pointless, and doesn't at all address the issue that ether doesn't provide an answer to anything. As soon as you have moving/flowing ether, you have to ask what its medium is.


It has already been made clear by you, Canute, Ryans and now James that truth and science in your view are incompatiable.

Let me just say that without truth there is no science, only guess work without any substance.

For what it is worth I too don't accept De Witte's paper but that is really beside the point I wanted to make. I have just made it.

This site seperates what you call science from truth and hence is clearly not science in any useflul way.

And you have the guts to call me Crackpot. Science based on lies or falsehoods, I AM IMPRESSED.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

"And you have the guts to call me Crackpot. Science based on lies or falsehoods, I AM IMPRESSED."

Man, get your grip together, this is not some Shakespearean play filled with death, betrayal and deception.. Nobody is saying that scientists are interested in lies or falsehoods, there is a slight difference with the philosophical truth some people try to look for in science.

You do realize that those lies that all physical theories are based on according to you give a nearly perfect description of reality in the cases where we can actually perform the calculations ? Or are you going to blame this on a divine coincidence ?

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,


You do realize that those lies that all physical theories are based on according to you give a nearly perfect description of reality in the cases where we can actually perform the calculations ? Or are you going to blame this on a divine coincidence ?

ANS:While I am not overly impressed with De Witte's writtings he made an excellent point which addresses your statement.

His is a rather long winded version so I'll try to paraphrase it here.

Two team of young students (having no scientific knowledge about the existance of air, etc) are given an assignment to develope a theory and mathematical formulas to explain the following:

A car is equipped with an anemometer on its roof. The students are in the middle of a large parking lot on a day when there is no wind.

The car drives past them several times at different speeds. The question they are assigned to explain is why does the anemometer turn at different rates as the car passes by.

Team "A" concludes that the rotation of the anemometer is a function of the relative speed of the car to them as observers and they write a formula that seems to support that view. Their formula is tested and their postulate regarding relative velocity is verified.

Team "B" takes another view. They develoope this theory that there is a medium which they can't see or feel that the car must be moving through and that the velocity of the car through this medium causes it to rotate. They write their formula and it too is verified.

So there are two ways to view the problem and each provides a workable explanation but there are a number of problems with one of the views.

1 - It is view "A" as "postulate" that the action is due to relative motion between the car and them as an observer. That is an affect without a cause.

2 - They find out on another day that their formula doesn't work because the wind happens to be blowing and it rotates even though the car isn't moving relative to them and the speeds don't compute the same at previously measured relative velocites.

3 - On another day when the wind isn't blowing they try their postulate again. this time instead of standing still and letting the car drive by they run first in the same direction as the car then they run in the opposite direction the car and "surprise" their relative velocity to the car didn't seem to affect the rotation rate.

4 - Team "B" notes that their "Theory" based on an action with a cause seems to work regardless of the conditions of the test.

5 - One view is based on a "postulate" where action is without a cause the other a "theory" where action has a cause. One is false, the other is truth.

That is why science and truth MUST be one and the same thing and to be science one MUST move beyond the postulate level.

At one time there is no absolute point of rest, then there is every observer is his own point of rest or the center of a spinning disk is a point of rest. This is the view of Team "A" above with a bunch of band-aids thrown in.

I would think that you would agree that Team "A" above has a flawed understanding of reality using a mere postulate and not a theory.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Very obvious flaw in your analogy. People have observed the medium of air, and can observe the lack of it. Anybody has yet to demonstrate the presence of ether.

If you do not know about air, the correct course of action is to assume there is none. If you finally do detect wind, then you have more information, and a reason to make a different assumption.

Otherwise, you are just guessing that a medium exists. If you have 2 guesses (medium/no medium) and both give the same results... then you use the simpler version of the two.

Why complicate the situation for an event which may or may not be there?

Plus, you are avoiding the basic question. If everything has a medium, in what medium is ether?

Crisp,


How about that, totally unwillingly I ran into a possible answer to this experiment. I think that De Witte has unwillingly used the Sagnac effect to measure the earth's rotation (or a mechanism very similary to the Sagnac effect). This is basically a proof that the earth's surface is not an inertial frame.

Yours is the first reasonable response. This is the type of response others should strive to emulate, not:


CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD

You see there are others reading this board and my views aside it is also important that responses be scientific, not childish.

Thanks.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

I have to disagree with that. This wasn't a closed loop. Supposedly it was also coaxial, not fiber.

Even so, you would (I think) get a constant phase difference, not an increasing one.

Persol,

While I don't accept your respoonse without reply, I did want to take this opportunity to say that it is at least an acceptable tone.

Thanks.


Very obvious flaw in your analogy. People have observed the midium of air, and can observe the lack of it. Anybody has yet to demonstrate the presence of ether.

ANS: Likewise nobody has demonstrated an ability to produce an affect without a cause. The mere act of being an observer is not a cause. Where is your cause? The answer to that is science at its best, anything short of that is not.


If you do not know about air, the correct course of action is to assume there is none. If you finally do detect wind, then you have more information, and a reason to make a different assumption.


ANS: Simular answer to the above. Based on that philosophy
one shouldn't accept nor use Relativity since you have never seen a cause. You don't have a correct answer without cause.


you are just guessing that a medium exists. If you have 2 guesses (medium/no medium) and both give the same results... then you use the simpler version of the two.

ANS: I would have hoped the simple analogy would have given you cause to think. Team "A" is dilussional and their views are based on unsupported postulates that is frought with pitfalls because it is not based on truth and it becomes much more complicated by adding "band-aid" solutions to its format to cover the descrepancies - i.e. "Velocity Addition Formula" and adjusments to Quasar observed proper velocity, etc.


Why complicate the situation for an event which may or may not be there?


ANS: I have not suggested that you assume an ether. I am suggesting you should not only be willing to accept one but interested to determine if there is in fact one. That is the scientific way.


Plus, you are avoiding the basic question. If everything has a medium, in what medium is ether?

ANS: I don't accept this as a realistic response. By what basis have you assumed an ether must also have a medium?

And all the crying about discussing the Chiral Condensate really is a surprise. It is illusive, it contains energy and definitely holds the potential of actually being the ether and its properties may well explain Relativity. Now you have a complete "Theory"not just a postulate. You would have the physical underpinings required to make Relativity understandable to anyone and it would infact simplify Relativity almost to a Newtonian level. Why would you resist that?

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
While I don't accept your respoonse without reply, I did want to take this opportunity to say that it is at least an acceptable tone.
Well that's nice, but I could care less how you like my tone.

Likewise nobody has demonstrated an ability to produce an affect without a cause. The mere act of being an observer is not a cause. Where is your cause? The answer to that is science at its best, anything short of that is not.
You can look for a cause, but you don't just randomly pick one and say 'this must be it'.

Simular answer to the above. Based on that philosophy
one shouldn't accept nor use Relativity since you have never seen a cause. You don't have a correct answer without cause.
The generation of life has never shown a cause, but we use biology. You don't use a theory because it 'has cause', but because it provides results.

I would have hoped the simple analogy would have given you cause to think. Team "A" is dilussional and their views are based on unsupported postulates...
Well no. If they do not have previous knowledge of air, then team B is using unsupported postulates.

that is frought with pitfalls because it is not based on truth
You keep saying that, but have yet to show any reason why it is the truth. You are just randomly picking again.

ANS: I have not suggested that you assume an ether. I am suggesting you should not only be willing to accept one but interested to determine if there is in fact one.
It would be interesting to try and determine one, but guess what... it was tried. It failed. Move on. Do you see any credible scientists still looking for the edge of the earth?

I don't accept this as a realistic response. By what basis have you assumed an ether must also have a medium?
By what basis do you assume space/light must have a medium. None.

And all the crying about discussing the Chiral Condensate really is a surprise.
The complaining is due to your misrepresenting it. Nothing more. The research itself is actually interesting. It's the crackpots who have latched onto it that are annoying.

Now you have a complete "Theory"not just a postulate. You would have the physical underpinings required to make Relativity understandable to anyone and it would infact simplify Relativity almost to a Newtonian level. Why would you resist that?
Because we do not know if this is the case. You are jumping the gun and saying that this is the holy graile, when it may be much less. Plus, it wouldn't simplify anything to Newtonian level. You would still need the same equations to do the work... and to be honest, if you can't do the math then what do you care about relativity for? It's like looking at the cover of a book and thinking you can argue with somebody who's read it about the content.

This will, more likely than not, clarify quantum physics... not relativity. That is why the people researching it are quantum physists.

Persol,

Originally posted by MacM
While I don't accept your respoonse without reply, I did want to take this opportunity to say that it is at least an acceptable tone.

Well that's nice, but I could care less how you like my tone.

ANS: Guess what and I care less about your opinion of me.
Since it appears to be a postulate without any underpinning.

Likewise nobody has demonstrated an ability to produce an affect without a cause. The mere act of being an observer is not a cause. Where is your cause? The answer to that is science at its best, anything short of that is not.

[quote][b]You can look for a cause, but you don't just randomly pick one and say 'this must be it'.

ANS: I haven't but it certainly has an edge over Relativity. So it is worth continuing the search.

[quote]Simular answer to the above. Based on that philosophy
one shouldn't accept nor use Relativity since you have never seen a cause. You don't have a correct answer without cause.

The generation of life has never shown a cause, but we use biology. You don't use a theory because it 'has cause', but because it provides results.

ANS: I think the chemistry of life is reasonably well indicated, obviously the details will never be known because the evidence has long passed. But continud reasearch will ultimately reproduce life but that won't indicate with any assurance that the same process occured naturally.


I would have hoped the simple analogy would have given you cause to think. Team "A" is dilussional and their views are based on unsupported postulates...

Well no. If they do not have previous knowledge of air, then team B is using unsupported postulates.

ANS: Wrong terminology. Unsupported "Theory" would be correct and I suspect they would look for more information about the existance of air. As it turns out the problem and their theory is infact th first step indicating the presence of air. Just as any test that actually shows the presence of an ether will surely be indirect as well.


That is frought with pitfalls because it is not based on truth.

You keep saying that, but have yet to show any reason why it is the truth. You are just randomly picking again.


ANS: Surely you mis-understood something here. Or are you suggesting Team "A" knows the truth?

ANS: I have not suggested that you assume an ether. I am suggesting you should not only be willing to accept one but interested to determine if there is in fact one.

It would be interesting to try and determine one, but guess what... it was tried. It failed. Move on. Do you see any credible scientists still looking for the edge of the earth?

ANS: Of course not they found acceptable truth that it ins't there. You certainly havn't shown an ether isn't there only that we have not yet found it, inspite of the fact that for Relativity to be a "Theory" it needs a cause and an ether is indicated as a possible cause. You need to be looking for a cuse be it an ether or some other mechanisim.


I don't accept this as a realistic response. By what basis have you assumed an ether must also have a medium?

By what basis do you assume space/light must have a medium. None.

ANS: A medium is clearly indicated, even Einstien thought so. Again "We have not proven an ether doesn't exist, we have only shown we don't need one". That is the math describes the function of an undiscovered ether. It doesn't replace it or the need for an ether.


And all the crying about discussing the Chiral Condensate really is a surprise.

The complaining is due to your misrepresenting it. Nothing more. The research itself is actually interesting. It's the crackpots who have latched onto it that are annoying.

ANS: And just what I have claimed about the ether that is inconsistant with what is known?


Now you have a complete "Theory"not just a postulate. You would have the physical underpinings required to make Relativity understandable to anyone and it would infact simplify Relativity almost to a Newtonian level. Why would you resist that?

Because we do not know if this is the case. You are jumping the gun and saying that this is the holy graile, when it may be much less. Plus, it wouldn't simplify anything to Newtonian level. You would still need the same equations to do the work... and to be honest, if you can't do the math then what do you care about relativity for? It's like looking at the cover of a book and thinking you can argue with somebody who's read it about the content.

ANS: I have never said it IS the holy graile. I did suggest it may tell us more than any other area of current research and I stand by that thought.


This will, more likely than not, clarify quantum physics... not relativity. That is why the people researching it are quantum physists.


ANS: This is the only thing you have said that has any real merit and that is a maybe.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

And just what I have claimed about the ether that is inconsistant with what is known?
Not about the ether, about the chiral condensate.

This is the only thing you have said that has any real merit and that is a maybe
It is no maybe... look at the names on the reports and the content of the math. It's quantum, not relativity.


Since you still seem confused about this, I will repeat:
A CAUSE IS NOT NEEDED.

Sure, it would be nice, but it doesn't change the math or the predictions. At best, it makes it more complicated. As has happened everytime in science when a new 'cause' is found. Note, that these causes are not do to someone randomly guessing at causes (as in ether), but by seeing the result of an experiment, and then theorizing. There are an infinite number of causes for anything that you can dream up. You can only make you guess likely once you have reason to choose something. There is no reason to choose ether.

Hi MacM,

The analogy with the wind is seriously flawed. The wind does not affect the way measurement apparati behave (i.e. length contraction and time dilatation). Furthermore, you still do not seem to realize that saying "aether exists" is as much as a postulate as the principle of relativity (which you haven chosen to attack today), because you ASSUME it, and that is all a postulate is. And it is a much heavier postulate than the principle of relativity, which merely tells you something about the existence of inertial frames, while aether already talks about some structure within spacetime.

That is what we mean we say "special relativity is a simple theory". It uses exactly the postulates (= 2 small, insignificant, very acceptable) one needs, nothing less, and especially nothing more, and it still is incredibly accurate. Finding a theory that is equally good should be thrown out by Occam on sight. Finding a theory that is better... well, that wouldn't be announced on this forum anyway.

"I have to disagree with that. This wasn't a closed loop. Supposedly it was also coaxial, not fiber. Even so, you would (I think) get a constant phase difference, not an increasing one."

I agree, it wasn't a directly closed loop and it wasn't the same material (but coaxial or fiber will not really make a difference; whether it is light or an electromagnetic field traveling). I suspect he did have to close his loop to put a detector near the start of his experiment. I see no way of properly synchronizing one detector and another one 5 km further without using light - which is ofcourse not allowed in this experiment. But as many crackpot experiments, they do not know how to report it and conveniently left things like an experimental setup out of the report.

Bye!

Crisp

What's this "Chiral Condensate"? I googled around but I didn't find much about it.

Originally posted by AndersHermansson
What's this "Chiral Condensate"? I googled around but I didn't find much about it.
Pay attention. It's a guessing game. Mac tells us it exists, and we have to guess what it is. If you guess wrong then you are deemed completely stupid. If you guess right, but do not agree it exists, you are deemed completely stupid. If you guess right and agree that it exists but think he has a misunderstanding of the the real nature of it then you are completely stupid. If you guess right and completely agree with Mac then (presumably) you achieve the first prize, this being that you don't get continually insulted by him as if you were an idiot.

As far as I know no one has achieved this unique state yet. Good luck.

MacM:

<i>Two team of young students (having no scientific knowledge about the existance of air, etc) are given an assignment to develope a theory and mathematical formulas to explain the following ...

Team "A" concludes that the rotation of the anemometer is a function of the relative speed of the car to them as observers and they write a formula that seems to support that view. Their formula is tested and their postulate regarding relative velocity is verified.

Team "B" takes another view. They develoope this theory that there is a medium which they can't see or feel that the car must be moving through and that the velocity of the car through this medium causes it to rotate. They write their formula and it too is verified.</i>

Both teams have theories based on postulates. The postulates are:

Team A: the rotation rate depends only on the relative velocity between the car and the observer.
Team B: the rotation rate depends only on the relative velocity between the car and the air.

Team B's theory is better than Team A's theory. That is an experimentally determined fact. But it doesn't alter the fact that Team B's theory is still based on a postulate.

"Team B's theory is better than Team A's theory."

You shouldn't have said that, now MacM will think you agree with an aether theory, while you are only trying to say that in this particular case the theory of a medium would be better ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

"I have to disagree with that. This wasn't a closed loop. Supposedly it was also coaxial, not fiber. Even so, you would (I think) get a constant phase difference, not an increasing one."

FYI: No complaint about the quote other than to point out it has been attributed to me and I didn't post it.


You shouldn't have said that, now MacM will think you agree with an aether theory, while you are only trying to say that in this particular case the theory of a medium would be better .


ANS: I would never do that:D . We seem to have a difference in definition.

"Postulate" a concept wich states no cause for action or reactions.

"Theory" a concept that states a cause for action or reactions.

Team "A" is a postulate

Team "B" is a Theory, albeit it may be un-proven, an assumption which may or may not be proven correct but that makes it testable. That's why it becomes a "Theory" vs being a "Postulate" which has no testable stated cause.

AndersHermansson,

I am surprised. If I type "Chiral Condensate" and search MSN I get 1,372 hits.

I found the following one interesting. It is correlating it to possible Dark Energy and gravity. That was one of the "Assumptions" I had made which James seems to feel was unwarranted on my part and I've been called Crackpot and accused of misrepresenting what Chiral Condensate is or may be.

I'm not going to discuss UniKEF here but only want to point out that it has viewed gravity and "Dark Energy" expansion as being one and the same thing. That is what they now refer to as "Dark Energy" would be the UniKEF field which also produces gravity and predicted the accelerating expansion.

So I may be a crackpot and not know anything, it seems my view is becoming accepted reality. Imagine that.:) BTW: These views and predictions were made 49 years ago.


Please note, while I have not found the units in this section yet , nor the original sites that I had quoted and have been chastized for, the graph scale on this site is generally equivelent to the one I had found which was stated as 2E138 ergs.cm^3. This graph seems to have numerical values 1,000 times smaller but then I can't read the units either.

http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/home/cosmology/dark_cssless.html

As an exercise out of couriousity try converting 2E138 ergs/cm^3 into mass via E=mc^2. Does that answer the question why they may have referred to it as a "Super Solid"? You see I didn't make that up, I merely referred to statements being made by the researchers and I will find that quote and I will post the link. So be ready to argue with somebodyelse not me.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

<i>"Postulate" a concept wich states no cause for action or reactions.
"Theory" a concept that states a cause for action or reactions.</i>

Team A: Cause = relative motion of car and observer.
Team B: Cause = relative motion of car and air.

Both are theories, according to your definition.

James R.,
If you are willing to claim being an observer is a cause, I would suppose so but there is no explanation of how being an observer could cause the reaction. On inspection it will be found that being an observer is invalid since any natural wind or movement of the observer causes the "Theory" to fail.

Being an observer is not a sound premis for "Theory".

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

"If you are willing to claim being an observer is a cause, I would suppose so but there is no explanation of how being an observer could cause the reaction. "

Ever heard of quantum mechanics ? Being an observer there has dramatic consequences for the system in consideration.

"Being an observer is not a sound premis for "Theory"."

I'm sorry, but judging by your replies you have absolutely no idea what the difference between "a theory" and "postulates" is. A physical theory is by definition (so to speak) built on a set of postulates, or assumptions if you like. In a decent mathematical theory, ALL assumptions are taken into account, including the possible effect of an observer, or even the very definition of what an observer in the theory can do or cannot do.

You can even put that a theory is totally equivalent to its postulates, simply because the results contained in the theory are in some way or another proven by mathematics, starting from the postulates (this is what scientists refer to as "proof by first principles", highly appreciated by the way). The exact nature of these postulates can differ quite a lot between theories, but a general rule of thumb is that if you want a sensible theory, you'll need sensible postulates. A sensible postulate seems to me "there exists something as an observer and he has four coordinates to his disposal, 3 spatial and one time". A less sensible postulate seems to me "there is an absolute frame of reference called aether, which deforms instruments to escape its detection". It has this metaphysical feeling to it, don't you agree ?

I do not see what there is more to say. It seems you want to make some extremely wierd distinction between good and bad postulates, arguing that the observer postulate of special relativity (more appropriately called the postulate or principle of relativity) is not good. Well, surprise surprise, the exact, identically same postulate is also used in Newtonian mechanics (though not as explicit in Newton's laws as in most textbooks on SR). So if you are arguing that the principle of relativity is a bad principle, then you are also throwing classical mechanics out of the window.

Sorry, but this seems like a final (desperate?) attempt to bring down relativity. We seem to have convinced you that in order to attack a theory, you need to attack its postulates. You have chosen the wrong postulate of the two that constitute SR; if you really want to make a case about SR, then attack the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant for all observers.

There, isn't that nice of me, I even put you in the right direction on how to tear down the theory that you (incorrectly) think I love so much. But first you might want to have a talk with Prosoothus, who (I think) also realized that tearing down SR involves tearing down that particular postulate. There have already been many discussions, well, this time it is my turn to present to you 164 pages of threads on this forum to read ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Good post. It is a shame that it just isn't right.:D

Actually, my comments would apply to anyhing based on shear jpostulates. It simply is an error to stop there (my opinion) but your post is well taken.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Ok, then... how exactly do you go beyond postulates without guessing?

Enlighten us.

Persol,

That is standard or at least at one time it was. You ask yourself WHAT and HOW is an action caused. You do make SWAG's (If you are unfamiliar with the term I'll explain it to you) and you test SWAGS until you find one that fits your requirement.

When you finish you may or may not be right but you will have a physical explanation that works until somethingelse is discovered.

In the current discussion assuming an observer is the WHAT fails to describe HOW the affect is caused and that is because an observer is a poor choice of describing WHAT is causing Relativity.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Ah, so you suggest making a random guess. Odd, you were yelling at relativity for that a couple days ago.

It is different if you have proof (and can make an educated guess), but in this case none exists.

Persol,

Ah, so you suggest making a random guess. Odd, you were yelling at relativity for that a couple days ago.

It is different if you have proof (and can make an educated guess), but in this case none exists.


ANS:So you don't know what a SWAG is.

I'll wait for you to ask.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

You really are a pompous ass. It's a silly guess, which should have been more then clear from my response.

You don't make random guesses into an attempt at a full fledge theory when you have no proof that your guess is right. Even more so, because your original guesses should be educated guesses, not just "let's try this".

Persol,

You really are a pompous ass. It's a silly guess, which should have been more then clear from my response.

You don't make random guesses into an attempt at a full fledge theory when you have no proof that your guess is right. Even more so, because your original guesses should be educated guesses, not just "let's try this".


ANS: Wrong again. The "S" in SWAG stands for "Scientific", not "Silly". While it is (and always has to be a guess of some sort, it is at least based on reasonable assumptions, not like assuming being an observer causes some reaction through time and distance.

Actually, it does mean Silly Wild Ass Guess... and is being used incredibly out of place here. We aren't choosing piping or anything.

But regardless, you are once again dragging the thread off topic with some innane shit.


The idea is simple. We know about observers and dimensions. We use those as our postulates. You'd rather use a universal frame of reference, which has never been seen/demonstrate (and which every attempt has failed).

Perhaps you should take a class on logic. A theory based on unproven postulates is worthless.

Persol,

Actually, it does mean Silly Wild Ass Guess...


Now I understand. You are one of these young wet behind the ears kids that went through the 60's educational courses.

SWAG is, and has been for more years than you are old, "Scientific Wild Ass Guess".

But the "Scientific" part is the most important part. You sir are dead in the water on this issue and it matters not what you have to say you have exposed your ignorance, your ego and failed thought processes all in one fatal swoop.

Your arguements are without merits and worthless. You have yet to resopnd to providing any logic what-so-ever to assuming the WHAT (an Observer) can yield HOW an affect is caused.

It is pure double talk BS - give it up.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM

Now I understand. You are one of these young wet behind the ears kids that went through the 60's educational courses.


whoa... you consider someone who went to school in the 60s a kid, wet behind the ears?

what do you think of someone who went to middle school in the 90s?

Lethe,

You missed my pun. I went through Nuke school in 1965.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Originally posted by MacM
Lethe,

You missed my pun.

so it would seem.

Crisp slaps himself in the head, totally not understanding how it ever could have come this far...

Just FYI: http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=SWAG

I have responded to your question about the cause. I said it was baseless. Theories are based on postulates. They may be a cause, but don't have to be. You will notice that newtonian mechanics is based on the postulates I listed, and don't have a cause. Your theory of UniKEF, and most ether theories are pased on postulates without a cause. They may try and be the cause, but the theory themselves do not have one... nor need one. Maybe an observer is acause, maybe not. I really don't care because either way it is a postulate.

You are still confused about what science is for. It to provide predictions. This does not require cause.

This is pointless. It is going nowhere and you are going further and further off topic.

Persol,

Your SWAG post is good. I would hope that you noticed that "Scientific" is listed first and in bold. Your choice of pushing secondary meaning as being a primary one reflects the weakness of your position.

We are off topic not because I choose to discuss issues off topic but because you seem to want to attack any comment I may make about any subject and if you think I will roll over and let you dictate what is truth on this board you are mistaken.

When you are right you are right but when you are wrong you are wrong and you sir are wrong.

If I submit something as an example doesn't mean that subject should become the issue but it does because you make it the issue. If you were left unchallenged others would get the view you were right.

Let me suggest you confine your attacks to actual error and stop this nonsense of trying to make everything I say somehow incorrect. Argueing about the meaning of SWAG is a perfect example. Even when you are wrong by your own post you seem to want to claim you are right.

To make my point, reference the differances on this MSB and others I post the following extract comment by a physicist that after "Discussing" the issues of "Time Dilation" (3 Clocks) indepth
came to this coclusion:

************* Extract Statement *************

I am glad you are being reasonable about this. I think we have resolved this paradox (maybe with semantic differences), and in the process we have given ouselves (myself included) clarification as to what is "real" and what is "perception.
************************************************"

What a differance in tone and attitude. Can anyone here explain that?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Yes, I can. You knew he was a respectable physicist and knew that his opinion was important to you. In speaking to him you therefore made every effort to avoid sounding unreasonable. You should try doing that here sometimes.

What led him to be glad you were being reasonable? He sounds relieved. Was it a long discussion?

Yeah, I always say "I'm glad to being reasonable" to people who haven't been a pain in the rear:rolleyes:

As for staying on topic, there is none left. I've addressed every point you've made, and you have made no counter point. The only point you seem to still think is a point is the stupid definition of an acronymn, and if you read most post you would see it applies equally to each definition.

If you have a better arguement make it. Otherwise this is going nowhere.

Canute,

Yes, I can. You knew he was a respectable physicist and knew that his opinion was important to you. In speaking to him you therefore made every effort to avoid sounding unreasonable. You should try doing that here sometimes.

What led him to be glad you were being reasonable? He sounds relieved. Was it a long discussion?

ANS: Your suggestion is incorrect. The simple fact is posts elsewhere aren't nearly as long as they are here because here "YOU" (meaning several persons) choose to go off point and never discuss the issue but post baseless BS attacks.

I could also post several other response in like kind. This is not an isolated case but a general case. This group in all seriousness has some sort of attitude problem.

Nor have I acquiessed anything to gain favor. We simply are able to openly discuss the issue; which is impossible here.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Mac, every time you make a point we answer it. Then you claim something failry stupid and refuse to believe us. You haven't been right once in any of your argument threads since you've been here. At this point nobody is really expecting you to have a damn clue what you are talking about.

Perhaps if you posted something, and actually showed some knowledge about it, you'd get a better response. Although I doubt the whole 'show some knowledge' part is going to happen... considering your track record and all.

I suggest since we treat you so badly, you go where you "can openly discuss the issue" without worrying about silly things like logic, science, and proof.

Posted by Mac

This group in all seriousness has some sort of attitude problem.

Yeah, we have a negative attitude towards the one in every 2 people on this forum who wants to prove Einstein wrong. The only reason this theory comes under attack so often on this forum is that it is the only modern theory that they aren't stupified by the mathematics. Why do you think I haven't come here much in the past couple of months, because I was sick of having these bullshit arguements with you Mac.

When I first came here you were argueing with canute about this bullshit then he left because all arguements he raised fell on deaf ears. Then it settled for a bit until you decided to recycle all the same old arguements that you raised with canute with me, then I left, tired of trying to get through to you (It took me longer than it should have to realise that you are here not to learn but to ram your bullshit theories down everyones throat, just like Jehovah's witness).

Now Persol has taken up the mantle, lowering his intellect to that pitiful level of yours, justifying his arguements to support his responses when you, as usual, fail to be accountable.

You are a borring old man Mac, who's intellectual flame should never have been alight.

Good point, I think it's time to stop fanning this flame.

Persol,

Mac, every time you make a point we answer it. Then you claim something failry stupid and refuse to believe us. You haven't been right once in any of your argument threads since you've been here. At this point nobody is really expecting you to have a damn clue what you are talking about.

Perhaps if you posted something, and actually showed some knowledge about it, you'd get a better response. Although I doubt the whole 'show some knowledge' part is going to happen... considering your track record and all.

I suggest since we treat you so badly, you go where you "can openly discuss the issue" without worrying about silly things like logic, science, and proof.


Calling a kettel black - wow.

The following is another extract from another site. Here they actually discuss issues and while text books aren't cast aside, they recognize that these texts one day will be cast aside and are therefore able to think beyond the text book answer and consider other interesting factors.

As you can tell (I would hope) the issue is time dilation. "L" is the physicist, not sure of the poster.




****************** Extract *****************

L,

Your conclusions agree with mine. I think it is clear that, whatever
one may conclude about the watches and beard lengths of B and
C relative to A, that B and C must have the same beard lengths
and display the same times on their watches. To conclude
otherwise would be to assert that there is an anisotropy in
space/time, i.e. that performing identical tasks in different
directions leads to different answers.

I am waiting to get Dank's view on this matter.

*************************************************


I am DanK on this site since Mac was taken. Waiting on my opinion. My, My what a differance.

Do any of you have any explanation for such radical differences of attitude? Does this sound like they were relieved that I was being reasonable. Hardly. Your efforts to discredit me do nothing but discredit this site. That is a shame.




Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Ryans,

Yeah, we have a negative attitude towards the one in every 2 people on this forum who wants to prove Einstein wrong. The only reason this theory comes under attack so often on this forum is that it is the only modern theory that they aren't stupified by the mathematics. Why do you think I haven't come here much in the past couple of months, because I was sick of having these bullshit arguements with you Mac.

When I first came here you were argueing with canute about this bullshit then he left because all arguements he raised fell on deaf ears. Then it settled for a bit until you decided to recycle all the same old arguements that you raised with canute with me, then I left, tired of trying to get through to you (It took me longer than it should have to realise that you are here not to learn but to ram your bullshit theories down everyones throat, just like Jehovah's witness).

Now Persol has taken up the mantle, lowering his intellect to that pitiful level of yours, justifying his arguements to support his responses when you, as usual, fail to be accountable.

You are a borring old man Mac, who's intellectual flame should never have been alight.


I suspect you still have a bad taste from your "Changing Pi loss".

I know you didn't admit the loss, but only because you refuse to admit it. It is clear to anyone with a 3rd grade education.

************** RELAVISTIC ROTATING DISK ************

The ruler changes exactly as much as the circumference and the ruler changes exactly the same amount as the radius and hence measurement doesn't change, hence calculated Pi doesn't change.
************************************************** *

Many of you seem to think you can say anything you choose and not be challenged. Well you are challenged because what you are saying is off topic, distorted and misleading BS.

I have asked for specific statements made by me that were in error and you have not responded except to cast more BS enuendo. I hope that doesn't go un-noticed by others.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

Persol,

Good point, I think it's time to stop fanning this flame.

ANS: Good plan but next time try to respond with valid comments these posts would be much shorter.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

MacM:

You didn't bother reading my comments on the rotating disc problem, did you? Or is it that you didn't understand it?

See Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory, Astronomy stream, this forum.

Judge for yourself, but you will have to read it it is similar to Newtonian gravity, but yes very different.

SR and GR are total concoctions IMO

:)

Yes. Very very useful concoctions indeed.

James R.,

You didn't bother reading my comments on the rotating disc problem, did you? Or is it that you didn't understand it?

ANS: Oh but I did and as I recall you (and others) kept harping about geometries. I was already aware about the different geometrical views. However unfortunately as usual these responses simply ignore my statement and do not respond to the question at hand.

They only preach the status quo relavistic arguement and it nor your statement acknowledge nor explain how if the disk dimension changes, and so does the ruler, by the same magnitude, therefore no change in measurement can occur, hence no change in calculated Pi occurs.

Take this example a disk at rest (not rotating) has a diameter of 1,000,000,000 inches times pi equals a circumferance of 3,141,592,654 inches. (261,799,400 feet).

Now we rotate the disk such that the edge has a velocity of 0.9c.

Relavistic contraction by SR says that the circumference is 43.5889894% of its original length or the circumference is now 1,369,388,000 inches (114,115,700 feet) around according to a bystander not on the rotating disk.

However the bystander also sees your ruler moving at 0.9c and as only 5.2300678732 inches long compared to its 12 inch rest length.

114,115,700 feet/(5.2300678732 inches/12 inches) = 3.141592654 or the ratio of the radius to the circumference has not changed. It still equals the standard at rest Pi, not some other value of some other geometry. No measurement has changed. No calculation of ratio has changed.

You can do as Ryan claimed. That is also change the radius by GR. It doesn't alter the result either because the ruler also changes by the exact same amount by GR.

The arguement of going to a different geometry is without any basis. Standard geometry still works fine.

I am once again going to show you the differances in this MSB's responses to that of others. The following is the conclusions of a string on (3) Clocks, which received negative comments here but once discussed without the personal attacks and concentrating on the issues came to a better resolution.

A simular problem exists in the responses here to the Changing Pi question. I will make you a "Priori Prediction". I can take this Pi question to this other board and get a favorable response and without all this baseless slander.

*********************** Extract ********************

Hmmm... yes it does boil down to semantics, as always, but this time the semantics do correspond to something definite. I think I get what you are saying DanK,

I agree with you. While it is reality for the one doing the observing, it is not reality for the observed, and the observing done by the former does not change the state of t