GLET vs GR

A paper by Ilja Schmelzer based on the "Condensed Matter Physics" by the renowned high energy particle physicists, V.A. Petrov.

http://get.ilja-schmelzer.net/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you ment openning this thread?
Do you want to discuss this article? In this case, please, let me ask you: Do you understand even one equation in this paper?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I feel no urgency to dignify your personal attacks. If you have some appropriate refutation of the work presented then you should address that issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM,
What you think about incompleteness of system of Euler equations and condition of continuity without fixation of the proper compressibility of Ether? How the author makes its basic system a closed one?

 

Funny you should speak of "proper compressibility of Ether?"

I wasn't aware that science had given Ether so many attributes and properties, especially since those of your persuasion want to deny the existance of an ether.

 

You act like ether was never considered at all...

 

So, you read Schmeltzer's theory even not noticing this inconsistency in it?
I was absolutely sure that for you it means nothing, as far as talk goes about Math higher than basic Algebra.

 

Like I have said Yuriy, you need to do more than attack me. You need to address the issues raised. The experiments which you seem to choose to not address which show your beloved Relativity is not what you claim it is.

The number of intelligent scientists, that also understand all the mathematics, etc that disagree with you, are not insignifigant and cannot be simply brushed aside since they have different opinions than yourself.

You ARE NOT the holder of the ultimate truth.

How is it you think you can claim an inconsistancy for properties and attributes of an Ehter which you claim does not exist. You are over-reaching your ability to respond intelligently.

 

And you act like the premature dismissal of an ether due to unexpected results of M&M closes the door on a more complex ether.

Just a shame that they didn't understand the ether in its fullest complexieity before they started their research. :bugeye:

Even the worst ether theories provide more acceptable results than SRT and GR.

The only reason Relativity prevails with greater utility today than some ether concept is that ether is not pursued and studied. They will ultimately replace SRT and GR.

Have the same usefulness but not have the nonsense baggage.

 

Yes they will Dan. Now here, take your meds and go back to bed... everything will be A. O. K.

 

To all readers:
1. I solemnly swear that I am not the holder of the ultimate truth.
2. I solemnly swear that I never claimed that Ether does not exist, so MacM one more time proves that he is a lair, saying “your persuasion want to deny the existance of an ether” and “Ehter which you claim does not exist”.
(Evidence of that one can find in my articles in “The Scientific Notes” #6 and #8 on my web site www.minescience.com)
I bit on idea that MacM does not understand a single page of Schmelzer’s article that he posted as a new thread.
So, in this thread we have one more attempt to imitate some “science-like” activity.

 

MacM,

Thye implications of Bell's inequality in your link can be narrowed in scope as it does have a possible dynamic implied by the following:

Here are three simple statements describing spin-1 particle transitions through Stern-Gerlach filters.

+S -> xT-> +S ---- [1]
+S -> xT+ B ->xT ---- [1/3]
+S -> +S+B ->+S ---- [1]

The symbols represent various "spin states", motion indicatiors is a more proper description, (I borrowed the word "spin" from another model), of the particles which I simplify by stating that the S and T states may be in any one of three states, +S ,+/-S aor -S and similalry for T. However, +S is not the same as +T. The "S" and "T" are merely designations for the Z-axis of the respective segments, and the +, +/- and - are merely the directions of motion of the partuicle observed along the S or T line, i(the Z direction) after entering the segment from a field free region. the [#] are the fraction of the input beam, surviving the transition through the T segment.

The 1st statement says: An S state particle is transformed into an xT state particle (polarized) when entering the T segment, (S segment is different from the T segment only by its (the T segment) rotation about the motion of travel of the particle along the Y-axis and then the xT state is transformed back into the S state.

The second says:A +S state particle is transformed into an xT state where the T segment has two of the possible 3 channels physically blocked, and the particle exits the T segment in the xT state.

The third is physically the same as the 2nd: An S state particle enters an S segment (returns to the segment of its original polarizing segment) that has two channels blocked and exits in the state S.

The numbers to the right of the statements are the fraction of the input beam that survive the transition through the segment. Also, the "x" in the T statement means "any of the three possible directions", where +(S) not equal to +(T), or The + of S is not the same as the + of T. T is rotated around the y-axis, remember?

Comparing 1 and 2 we see the difference in the final result is dependent only on the "wide open" versus "obstructed" arangement. As the "+S", for instance describes the particle as moving "up" in the postive Z-axis. By inspection we can say that the "+S" does not adequately describe those elements intrinsic to the +S state that guarantees the reformation of the +S state upon exit from the segment so I will add a simple reminder that these elements that are not observed are, 00[+S], to be arbitrary. So we also have to do the same for T, so I give T, or 00[+T] the same kind of elements, unobserved of course. So we then say that Y(+S) = Y(1 00[+S]) and Y(xT) = Y (x 00[xT]), where the "1" refers to + which we arbitrarily choose (with no loss of generality, trust me).

Logically we must, we have to assume that the elements guaranteeing the reformation of the original +S state are imposed on the xT state when the particle is polarized when entering the T segment, therefore the three statements look like (I assume the +T state in th T segment):,

Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) -> Y(_ 00[+S] _ _ ) -> Y(1 00[+S]) (1)

where I have added the extra term (3rd) to emphacise the fact that Mother Nature abhors "instantaneous activity" during transition processes when al the xT state undergoes alteration.

The second statement then is

Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) -> (B)Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 _ _ _ _) -> Y(1 00[+T]) -> Y(_ 00[+T]]) -> Y(1 00[+T]) (2)

and the third,

Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+S]) -> (B)Y(1 00[+S]) ->Y(_1 _ _ _ _ ) -> Y(1 00[+S)) -> Y(_ 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S]) (3)

and for clarity I put them together, adding the physical polarization (P)and depolarization, (P') operators,(the underscoe are temporary 'null' positions) :

Code:

([B]P[/B])Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) ->  ([B]P'[/B])Y(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) -> Y(_ 00[+S] _ _ ) -> Y(1 00[+S])      (1)

([B]P[/B])Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) -> ([B]B[/B])Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 _ _ _ _) -> ([B]P'[/B])Y(1 00[+T]) -> Y(_ 00[+T]]) ->Y(1 00[xT])     (2)

 ([B]P[/B])  Y(1 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S] 00[+S]) ->  ([B]B[/B])Y(1 00[+S]) ->Y(_1 _ _ _ _ ) -> ([B]P'[/B])Y(1 00[+S)) -> Y(_ 00[+S]) -> Y(1 00[+S])       (3)  

Where the (B) is the physical "blocking operator", and (P) and (P') the polarization and depolarization operators respectively, physical operators that is.

The 2nd and 3rd expressions are identical physically and they say: The state of the particle that enters a segment (polarized) that has two of the channels blocked is the eventual surviving state of the particle. The 1st and 2nd tell us that up to the instant the particle reaches the plane of the location of the obstructions (in the 2nd) the state of the transition states are identical, which means that the obstructions, which are observed , physical, local, must absolutely be a collision point for nonlocal elements of the +S state state and after perturbing the unobserved elements 00[+S] and the 00[+T], only the 00[+T] survives to reform with the "1" (of the +T state), while in the 1st transition the unperturbed 00[+S] is proved to be necessary and sufficient to reform the S state, which means the magnetic polarization vector of the unstable (hybrid) T state is physically reoriented to the original +S direction in the same sense that a perturbed magnetic compass needle returns to the direction of north by virtue of the force of he earth's magnetic field. (The nonlocal elements are the motion and orientation records of the particles.)

The only difference here is that the +S state is reformed in the absence of any forces.

There are two polarization events: entrance, polarization and exit, depolarization, both effetivley ignored by some standard models.

The 2nd and third expression tell of the incomapatibility of the perturbed 00[+S] reforming with the *xT" which is a momentarily unsupported xT state, or direction when the particle os inside the T segment. In the 3rd, only 00[+S] unobserved elements (two sets just like the 2nd) are available to reform with the momentarily unsupported *+S*direction vector, which isn't much here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As an aside observation, the above is not a quantum mechanical structure, is it? The 'randomly oriented , rigidlty attached ' magentic polarization vector was summarily discarded on the 1920s, and also assumed is that the various particle states are generated in the "heat of the tungsten filament" from which they boil off, instead of assuming the particle itself generating its own states dynamically. This process is seen in a time history as

... 100 010 001 100 010 001 100 010 001 100 010 001 ...

whre the states are not generated "randomly", and the observed state (the "1' ) is the once virgin unpolarized state (+, or +/- or -), the default polarized state when effectivley entering the Stern-Gerlach segment. Simply assume the virgin state to be an undistorted spherical magnetic configuration until distorted by the SG field/gradient in the SG segment.

All of this resolves to a few simple statements:

1. The spin-1 particle exhibits "inertial platform" attributes, not unlike a gyroscopic inertial guidance device, where the original magnetic polarization vector is restored, necessarily by a force not external to the particle but by forces "nonlocally internal" to the particle (a necessary revison to Newton's law of motion) and
2. in the case of the 2nd and 3rd transitions the physical host particle is , relatively speaking, solar system distances away from the obstructions as it crosses through the plane of the obstructions (real distance being a millimeter or two), and
3. In the 1st 'wide open' arrangement the unobserved elements are not sufficient by themselves to quarantee the reformation of the +S state, they are absolutely necessary for the reformation of the original +S state (in all cases actually)
4. Action at a distance has been proved, unambiguously, and
5. Bell's requirement for the inclusion of nonlocal forces in constructing the model of the particle state, as a minimum condition for "completeness" has been satisfied.

[post=712174]See the post here regarding the QM James R challenge to Geistkiesel[/post].

A self-serving graphics rich, math poor description is here.

All of this is more Aristotelian than anything.

Geistkiesel

 

persol, don't you ever use any physics terminology in your posts? Wht is it with your insults? Is this supposed to persuade readers of your intrinsic superiorty. You haven't said anything.

 

geistkiesel,
are you addressing your posts with spin-polarization events to ... MacM?
You are too naive, my friend. Give him a brake: he does not understand any of your calculations and challenging thoughts. Give him something from elementary Algebra (but without stuff like chain fractions, complex numbers, etc.).

 

The eyes of beholders are peculiar entities aren't they Yuriy? I read the articles and other materials MacM has posted on the subject and he seems to have a very deep and cogent undertanding of what he says.

Do you have any comments on, or are you familiar with macM's 'radar measurement re Venus thesis', for instance?

I agree 100% with your statement #1, but I, on the other hand will never utter as completely inclusive a disclaimer as broad as that statement. I will always retain a "little" bit of self-confident sense of 'knowing', at the expense of the inevitable accusation of exhibiting 'personal immodesty', which I can safely inform you is not a painful condition to be in, if you get my drift.

Why do you so persistently and consistently present yourself so emotionally intense as the defender of SR anyway? Haven't you ever tried an 'objective' approach, mentallt I mean? It really isn't that difficult of an exercise. Do want to grow old and so robotically closed minded as Persol, for instance?

Geistkiesel

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dear geistkiesel,
I always was amazed seeing how clever you can turn up the facts and … cock-and-bull stories.
This thread was initiated by posting one article of Schelzer without any comments; no others were cited by MacM. And namely about this article I was discussing with him. In these conditions, if you read this article, how you can say: “I read the articles and other materials MacM has posted on the subject and he seems to have a very deep and cogent undertanding of what he says.”? MacM does not understand a single page of Schmelzer’s article…. Do you have any prove that I indeed am “so emotionally intense”?
This is the approach, which you call “an objective one”?
(And, please, recall: this thread is not about validity of SRT)

 

Read what I said: "I read the articles and other materials MacM has posted . . .", and you havebn't offerred any specific scientific point of contention or agreemnt. Remember, I said I was just an observer, a messenger. If I am looking at a wall and I see the wall painted black and you see it painted red, there is no need to argue is there? All you have to respond with is "I see a red wall". I mean If I see it black, that is what I see. I get the feeling at times that you want to tell me, and others, that " . . .no, no, you don't see a black wall . . ". Remember, I did not respond to anything you said about, or to me, or anything I would take offensively. I may be painting this "an inch thick", but I just wanted to make a point, OK? And you are correct, we aren't talking about relativity theory, absolutely not talking about relativity theory. Chill Yuriy, chill.

Geistkiesel

 

Your technical reply seems most helpful. :bugeye:

 

Your opinion is clearly not worth wasting time reading. If you state here as a selfproclaimed supporter of Relativity that you oppose those Relativists that argue Einstein proved ether doesn't exist, then I at least congratulate you on that small bit of reasoning. But you clearly have a long way to go.

Your opinion about what I understand or do not understand is just that your opinion and it happens to fall short of even cursory reality.

Now for the forth time - Try defending you physical views, it you can, and forget your assinine personal attacks. You are making it clear to others that you lack competance to actually do so.

 

Now that was a mouth full. :bugeye:

OK.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On this there can be no arguement. We fully agree.