Aether model of QM.

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

We've provided evidence throughout this discussion, yet you utterly refuse to accept anything based on science.

You choose to remain ignorant - therefore, there's no point in explaining it to you, for the umpteenth time.

Re-read the relevant posts - I will not keep on repeating myself for your amusement.

You provided nothing.

That's untrue - you've been provided with evidence: you simply ignore it.

Yet again, as has already been explained to you, he wasn't referring to the "aether" - he was referring to ...

Yes he did. This is what Pulsar said.

,,I agree with you that the general theory of relativity is closer to the ether hypothesis than the special theory. This new ether theory, however, would not violate the principle of relativity, because the state of this gμν = ether would not be that of rigid body in an independent state of motion, but every state of motion would be a function of position determined by material processes."

This is obviously the same thing as I said. Einsteins metric of teh spacetime has brought back the aether. At first, he removed it in STR, thus leaving the vacuum nothing more than empty space. But now, he knew that there is a thing as different kind of forces in teh vacuum. Thus the vacuum is NOT empty space. In other word, it has properties. Thus, after realizing that, he reintroduced the aether in GTR.

Here are the relevant quotes:

we will not be able to do without the ether in theoretical physics, i.e., a
continuum which is equipped with physical properties; for the general theory, whose
basic points of view physicists surely will always maintain, excludes direct distant
action. But every contiguous action theory presumes continuous fields, and therefore
also the existence of an ,,ether."

He clearly states, that we do need the aether.

,,We may still use the word ether, but only to express the physical properties of
space. The word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At the moment, it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. Its
story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory."

Again, saying that he changed the definition of the aether and incorporated it in GTR.

,,Physical space and ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are
physical states of space."[

Once more. SPACE = AETHER. It has properties. Vacuum is NOT empty space.

As we can see, at that time, Einstein considered the gravitational and elektrrognetic fields as states of space i.e. of the new ether.

And this is the quote from the person who wrote the article. He also agrees with me. Gravitational, and electromagnetic fields are what exists in vacuum space. Thus vacuum is not empty space. Thus aether exists in GTR. The only difference, as I pointed out many times before, is that it has no absolute reference frame attributed to it. Thus, this is what Einstein did. He tool the aether, removed from it the attribute of absolute reference frame, and incorporated it in GTR.

No one has suggested - least of all scientists - that there's any such thing as "empty space".

It's filled with forces, radiation, and various chemical compounds.

You continue to attempt to shift the goalposts - first you say that there's a actual aether with definite properties, then you change your position to using the term as a synonym for the metric tensor of GR.

Science has not accepted Einstein's altered use of the term - there is no aether.

Prove that radar and all the other modern methods are less accurate than someone looking up at the sky with only their eyesight to measure the heavens.

That's not my job. I'm not in favor of any of those methods. I'm just pointing out that the modern ones incorporate more assumptions than simple trigonometry.

Here's what you said:

Sending radar waves into space and waiting for them to bounce back from the Moon requires more assumption than simple trigonometry. That's a fact.

You made an assertion - it behoves you to prove it

As I said, you suffer from "selective reading disorder".

It's there - right in front of you on the screen!!

Re-read it - as slowly as you need.

And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.

Read what?

The sentence which states the value and the sentence which hints from where I got it.

And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.

Any "scientist" who made that claim isn't a real scientist.

Neither is Einstein.

Then you can't use him to prove your assertion that the aether exists.

Nothing to do with it.

Relativity is a fact - as you well know, since you use it to make your arguments against the claim that the train was moving. ("Relative to what?")

I'm using it to show you that your method can't tell apart what is really moving.

In everyday life it does. Your retreat into philosophical musing about "What is reality?" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Keep avoiding the questions, you don't score points doing so.

And youd o when claiming that my sources are written by pseudo-scientists?

Marmet lost his chair - what better evidence is there for someone who is considered to be on the "fringe" of Science - and who's considered to have fallen off the edge of the scientific world into "pseudo-science"?

Wrong - Einstein managed to do it back in the early 20th century without the benefit of computers to do the calculations for him.

I don't accept works from pseudo-scientists. Next.

From the "sources" you've been quoting up to now, you do. Unless it's only when they agree with your opinions.

Oh, so now you remember reading my explanation - after alleging above that I didn't give one, but said that AndromedasWake would??

Okay, now answer my points.

The answer I gave, in general, is the explanation - you're going to make another attempt at trying to use this as evidence of "the aether"...

Go ahead - let's hear what "evidence" you have for the "aether"....

And whatever manages to slip past the peer-review process will always be discovered.

A statement of faith.

No - analysis using statistical methods to detect them, along with advances in Science which contradict said papers will reveal such erroneous results.

So, you do believe in relativity after all!

No I do not. I'm asking you because your model does not work unless you say relative to what something is moving.

The station - as any two-year-old could tell you, if you weren't so intent on being sophist.

Any normal person knows what is meant when someone says "the train is moving" in everyday parlance.

You have a pedantic need to bring reference-frames into the discussion.

No. YOU are the one who has this need. Because the sentence: ~The trin is moving" is meaningless in the context of relativity. It has got to be relative to something else. So I'm asking you, what is it moving relative to?

As a two-year-old would tell you; "the station".

Okay, let's try it this way. If there was only 1 object in the universe, the train, how do you know the train is moving? It's moving because?

It can't - it needs tracks to do so.

(Now you know what it's like when someone insists on being literalistic and pedantic.)

There's nothing wrong with relativity - just your fixation on absolute/relative reference frames.

Because that's what we are talking about.

In the everyday world relativity doesn't count - people on a train "know" that it's the train that's moving, not the station, the world, the solar system or the universe.

Are you suggesting that it's alright to use a maritime compass to navigate in space?

I certainly wouldn't use it.

Then you accept that there are "horses for courses"?

Changing the subject? And - really?

I take it then that you concede the point that the one is more likely to be wrong than the many?

No. When did I say that?

So you're saying that the one is more likely to be right - all else being equal?

They won't - because their orbits will be on a proportional scale to the Sun (1000 miles above the Earth) and Venus (300 miles above the Earht).

You don't know about the other planets, since Rowbotham never measured them.

I'm asking you - where would they be?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Strictly speaking, in a relatvistic framework, all observers, whether on the train or the station, can claim to be at rest, as long as neither of them is actually accelerating. In this case, of course, the train is accelerating, so has no claim to being at rest. Once moving at constant velocity, though, the principle of relativity kicks in, and the positions are indistinguishable.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Where did I say absolute? Where did I say not moving?

You have some severe misconceptions about relativity.

You didn't but you implied it. Saying: ~ a car is moving" implies absolute motion.

No. Relativity does not say you can't detect force. That would be absurd: it'd be equivalent to saying that I couldn't feel the rocket fire while I was in a rocketship, or that I couldn't feel it if you punched me, or that I couldn't tell if the swing I am sitting on was being pushed by someone.

Nobody say you couldn't feel it. You can feel that you are being pushed back while going to space. But my point is that this is relative to the Earth, from which you are moving away.

Please, tell me what it means to have a "force relative to another object".

It means that X is applying force to another object Y. Thus, one would be moving, relative to another.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

That's untrue - you've been provided with evidence: you simply ignore it.

If you are talking about videos, then yes, I'm ignoring them. This is a forum, not Youtube.

No one has suggested - least of all scientists - that there's any such thing as "empty space".

That is precisely what STR was invented for!

It's filled with forces, radiation, and various chemical compounds.

Oh God... I'm talking about empty space, the vacuum.

You continue to attempt to shift the goalposts - first you say that there's a actual aether with definite properties, then you change your position to using the term as a synonym for the metric tensor of GR.

Metric tensor is the aether. Its a description of space, its properties.

Science has not accepted Einstein's altered use of the term - there is no aether.

Science is not a person, it can't accept anything.

You made an assertion - it behoves you to prove it

Fact 1.) You have no idea how will radar waves bounce of the Moon.
Fact 2.) You have no idea what fields the radar wave will pass through on its way to the Moon.

Fac3.) All those assumptions are totally non-existant for trigonometry.

The sentence which states the value and the sentence which hints from where I got it.

And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.

What? Where? Be more specific!

Then you can't use him to prove your assertion that the aether exists.

LOL! I never tried to! I would never dream to use him as someone who is going to tell me about the aether. I simply used his quotes to show you that you were wrong when you said that Einstein abolished the aether and never reintroduced it.

In everyday life it does.

Because you don't use relativity in everyday life. You use absolute space. With an absolute reference frame being the Earth.

Your retreat into philosophical musing about "What is reality?" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Wrong. I'm specifically talking about science here. The question of reference frames is a scientific question.

Marmet lost his chair - what better evidence is there for someone who is considered to be on the "fringe" of Science - and who's considered to have fallen off the edge of the scientific world into "pseudo-science"?

He lost what? And no, don't tell me, I'm not interested. I don't care what a person is considered to be by others. Either you have the evidence, or you don't.

From the "sources" you've been quoting up to now, you do. Unless it's only when they agree with your opinions.

No, my sources are all valid according to me.

The answer I gave, in general, is the explanation - you're going to make another attempt at trying to use this as evidence of "the aether"...

Well its wrong because it does not explain uniformity.

Go ahead - let's hear what "evidence" you have for the "aether"....

The Casimir effect. It shows that there are forces in the vacuum.

No - analysis using statistical methods to detect them, along with advances in Science which contradict said papers will reveal such erroneous results.

Wait, what? You will use statistics to detect faulty articles? Wow. Okay, tell me how.

The station - as any two-year-old could tell you, if you weren't so intent on being sophist.


As a two-year-old would tell you; "the station".

Yes, to the station. But its equally valid to say that the station is moving relative to the train.

It can't - it needs tracks to do so.

Exactly, you can't tell. That's my point. If there was an absolute reference frame, the space, then the train would be moving, i.e. floating through space.

In the everyday world relativity doesn't count - people on a train "know" that it's the train that's moving, not the station, the world, the solar system or the universe.

That's like saying that in everyday world, gravity doesn't count, or atomic theory doesn't coun! LOL!

Then you accept that there are "horses for courses"?

Bannanas and apples?

So you're saying that the one is more likely to be right - all else being equal?

If all else is equal, then more are more likely to be correct.

I'm asking you - where would they be?

I don't know, I never measured them.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Where did I say absolute? Where did I say not moving?

You have some severe misconceptions about relativity.

You didn't but you implied it. Saying: ~ a car is moving" implies absolute motion.

Ah, I apologize, I meant to say "car starts moving"... Wait a minute, I went back through my posts (because I couldn't recall talking about cars), and I can't find anywhere where I said anything about cars, let alone in the one preceding the one where you prescribed "absolute motion" to me. I don't think it happened; but if it did, I really did mean to say "car starts moving": I've been very careful to talk about acceleration and force, not velocity and speed.

No. Relativity does not say you can't detect force. That would be absurd: it'd be equivalent to saying that I couldn't feel the rocket fire while I was in a rocketship, or that I couldn't feel it if you punched me, or that I couldn't tell if the swing I am sitting on was being pushed by someone.

Nobody say you couldn't feel it. You can feel that you are being pushed back while going to space. But my point is that this is relative to the Earth, from which you are moving away.

Incorrect. There is relative motion involved: you are moving relative to the gases/particles your engine is emitting. But there is an equal and opposite force: you are applying force to the particles you are emitting, they are applying force to you. An inertial reference frame is one where the reference frame itself does not have a force applied to it (the whole reference frame). If my reference frame is a sealed fish tank but it sits in an accelerating rocket, then it's not an inertial reference frame; we'll be able to detect that it's not inertial because we can detect force from within the reference frame itself (without anything in the reference frame causing it) (that's what accelerometers are for).

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Mod note:

This:

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=106300#p106300

This thread will not be locked, however.

Apologies to all who wanted to keep him around, but enough time has clearly been wasted now.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

That's untrue - you've been provided with evidence: you simply ignore it.

If you are talking about videos, then yes, I'm ignoring them. This is a forum, not Youtube.

All evidence - not just the videos.

If videos - YouTube or otherwise - were not acceptable, there wouldn't be a "style" to post them, would there?

We can still discuss the contents of such videos - if you were willing to watch them and learn.

No one has suggested - least of all scientists - that there's any such thing as "empty space".

That is precisely what STR was invented for!

And GTR? Bearing in mind that that's what followed from it.

Saying that "space(-time) is curved" describes an observed effect, not an actual "aether". [At least, in my understanding of it - I'd welcome a physicist's comment on my understanding - or lack! - of it.]

I think that you're confusing an aspect of Newtonian mechanics with Einstein's.

It's filled with forces, radiation, and various chemical compounds.

Oh God... I'm talking about empty space, the vacuum.

"God"? It seems you do believe in God , after all - even if you don't admit it to anyone, including yourself.

You continue to attempt to shift the goalposts - first you say that there's a actual aether with definite properties, then you change your position to using the term as a synonym for the metric tensor of GR.

Metric tensor is the aether. Its a description of space, its properties.

As I said above, there's no "aether" per se.

Science has not accepted Einstein's altered use of the term - there is no aether.

Science is not a person, it can't accept anything.

"Science" is the consensus of the scientific community as to what is accepted as proven through observation and experiment.

As such, "aether" is not accepted as part of "Science".

You made an assertion - it behoves you to prove it

Fact 1.) You have no idea how will radar waves bounce of the Moon.
Fact 2.) You have no idea what fields the radar wave will pass through on its way to the Moon.
Fac3.) All those assumptions are totally non-existant for trigonometry.

Nonsense!

We are aware of how radar waves will bounce off the Moon - we've received them back with a time delay consistent with the accepted Earth-Moon distance.

The Van Allen Belt, for one.

These "assumptions" have no bearing on either the use of radar or trigonometry - in fact, bearing in mind that you don't accept "proof" of anything, the latter is based on "assumptions": that plane geometry works.

The sentence which states the value and the sentence which hints from where I got it.

And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.

What? Where? Be more specific!

I see that I'm going to have to take this one step at a time.

The above post contains two (2) statements:

1) The sentence which states the value and the sentence which hints from where I got it.
2) And then answer the two questions which you've continued to avoid.

Let's divide the first statement into two parts:

1a) The sentence which states the value,

and

1b) the sentence which hints from where I got it.

These, along with 2), make three statements.

Let's now look at the part of my post - to which you're referring - in its original form:

Which just goes to show how little you know about astronomy!

Firstly, I gave you the apparent magnitude - this is the apparent brightness at it's actual distance from us.

The real brightness is the absolute one.

And, in this case, it's -12.5 - that's almost as bright as the Moon (-12.92).

If you use that figure in your equation, the answer is -8.07 - that's still brighter than anything else in the sky barring the Sun and the Moon (the next brightest is Venus, at -4-67 - "dim" in comparison!).

The fact that R136a1 isn't that bright in the sky - given it's actually in the Large Magellanic Cloud(!) - proves that your assertion about a "shell" of stars "1000 miles thick" about "1000 miles" above the Earth is complete and utter nonsense!

And you still haven't answered the questions:

1) Explain why there isn't a "white-out" (due to the stars being only "1000 miles" distant, in a "shell 1000 miles thick"?;
2) Hint: Why is the night-sky black?

In order to make it as blindingly obvious as possible, I've highlighted the relevant text.

The first highlighted text references question 1a) above - the second highlighted text references 1b) above.

So, if you substitute the first highlighted text - -12.5 - into your formula, you get the answer I gave you: -8.07.

And you still didn't answer the two questions of question 2).

Then you can't use him to prove your assertion that the aether exists.

LOL! I never tried to! I would never dream to use him as someone who is going to tell me about the aether. I simply used his quotes to show you that you were wrong when you said that Einstein abolished the aether and never reintroduced it.

Einstein was the one who introduced GTR - how could he do so and not be aware that the aether was inconsistent with the theory?

In everyday life it does.

Because you don't use relativity in everyday life. You use absolute space. With an absolute reference frame being the Earth.

Actually, we do use relativity in the broadest sense of the term.

We speak of "the train is moving" - in relation to the station, without explicitly stating it. We give directions to people - "Where are you now?...You need to take the first right, ..." - again, relative to where the other person is and relative to where we are.

And so on. It's all relative. Even when we "drop" something - we don't speak in terms of the Earth moving towards whatever we've "dropped".

Your retreat into philosophical musing about "What is reality?" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Wrong. I'm specifically talking about science here. The question of reference frames is a scientific question.

Not just a scientific one - there's also the philosophical aspect to it.

Marmet lost his chair - what better evidence is there for someone who is considered to be on the "fringe" of Science - and who's considered to have fallen off the edge of the scientific world into "pseudo-science"?

He lost what? And no, don't tell me, I'm not interested. I don't care what a person is considered to be by others. Either you have the evidence, or you don't.

Marmet was a engineer - not a physicist.

He didn't have the evidence - yet persisted in questioning "Science": remember that "consensus" of which I spoke earlier?

As a result, he lost his chair at university and died without tenure earlier this decade.

From the "sources" you've been quoting up to now, you do. Unless it's only when they agree with your opinions.

No, my sources are all valid according to me.

"According to you" - it's your opinion, not that of "Science".

The answer I gave, in general, is the explanation - you're going to make another attempt at trying to use this as evidence of "the aether"...

Well its wrong because it does not explain uniformity.

See It's a dusty Universe: surface science in space.

Go ahead - let's hear what "evidence" you have for the "aether"....

The Casimir effect. It shows that there are forces in the vacuum.

We've already dealt with this earlier.

Do you accept the Heisenberg Principle?

No - analysis using statistical methods to detect them, along with advances in Science which contradict said papers will reveal such erroneous results.

Wait, what? You will use statistics to detect faulty articles? Wow. Okay, tell me how.

Benford's Law.

Not "articles", but the fake research data.

The station - as any two-year-old could tell you, if you weren't so intent on being sophist.

As a two-year-old would tell you; "the station".

Yes, to the station. But its equally valid to say that the station is moving relative to the train.

Not in "everyday" parlance.

Please try to understand this simple perspective.

It can't - it needs tracks to do so.

Exactly, you can't tell. That's my point. If there was an absolute reference frame, the space, then the train would be moving, i.e. floating through space.

This example is not relevant to "the real world"

In the everyday world relativity doesn't count - people on a train "know" that it's the train that's moving, not the station, the world, the solar system or the universe.

That's like saying that in everyday world, gravity doesn't count, or atomic theory doesn't coun! LOL!

In the "everyday" world, gravity does count - atomic theory does not.

Then you accept that there are "horses for courses"?

Bannanas and apples?

Being facetious again.

So you're saying that the one is more likely to be right - all else being equal?

If all else is equal, then more are more likely to be correct.

THANK YOU!!

I'm asking you - where would they be?

I don't know, I never measured them.

Try and picture it - to scale - in your mind, if you don't want to draw it on a sheet of paper.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Mod note:

This:

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=106300#p106300

This thread will not be locked, however.

Apologies to all who wanted to keep him around, but enough time has clearly been wasted now.

I thank you. There was initially hope that he could one day think rationally for a second, but that hope was lost, long lost.

I suggest we now move on and start disagreeing with other people, but who are capable of accepting our case as valid, our evidence as such, and the point of this forum as a real one. This has been a call for attention.

Thank you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Yet, if no-one takes on "Tortucans", what's the point in arguing only with those whom you can "convert"?

Banning someone like him is not much different than his putting people on "ignore".

In order to show the paucity of his - and others' - views, rational people need to engage them in discussion so that the "audience" can learn to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

In Gnugface's defense, Tsar went on record to proclaim he was only here to have fun at our expense. He wasn't here to learn or to have honest disourse. He was given too much attention by all of us who should have known better after reading the original RatSkep thread in the OP. Nothing of intellectual value has been lost.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Yet, if no-one takes on "Tortucans", what's the point in arguing only with those whom you can "convert"?

Banning someone like him is not much different than his putting people on "ignore".

In order to show the paucity of his - and others' - views, rational people need to engage them in discussion so that the "audience" can learn to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.

Kindest regards,

James

We already did that. It took many pages and threads. I believe the audience has already distinguished the science and pseudo-science. That phase is past and now it had gone to a level of extreme stubbornness.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Yet, if no-one takes on "Tortucans", what's the point in arguing only with those whom you can "convert"?

Banning someone like him is not much different than his putting people on "ignore".

In order to show the paucity of his - and others' - views, rational people need to engage them in discussion so that the "audience" can learn to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.

Kindest regards,

James

While I truly understand your sentiments and sympathise (I've grappled with this stuff a lot myself), maybe we can think of it this way instead: Us "ignoring" Tsar, while probably "losing" him, has freed time for us to help 10 other people.

I see, for instance, that ThePuppyTurtle joined the forum. Hopefully he is more able to listen.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Just to be clear - I wasn't attacking Gnug215's decision to effectively end the discussions with "Czar".

"ThePuppyTurtle" ?? On no, another "Tortucan"! :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Just to be clear - I wasn't attacking Gnug215's decision to effectively end the discussions with "Czar".

"ThePuppyTurtle" ?? On no, another "Tortucan"! :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

Haha, oh dear, I hadn't even thought about that.

*groan*

I'll try to stay my trigger happy ban-hand this time, though.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Greetings,

Just to be clear - I wasn't attacking Gnug215's decision to effectively end the discussions with "Czar".

"ThePuppyTurtle" ?? On no, another "Tortucan"! :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

Haha, oh dear, I hadn't even thought about that.

*groan*

I'll try to stay my trigger happy ban-hand this time, though.

That's alright, Gnug215, do what you think is best.

Kindest regards,

James