Aether model of QM.

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

If that is true, then show me, how would you detect the inertial reference frame in the image I provided few posts ago.

The image you provided from a few posts ago is the illustration of the comparison between an inertial frame of reference, and a non inertial (rotating) reference frame from a wikipedia page, as I pointed out. you fail again.

Here's the original caption, for what it's worth

Figure 1: In the inertial frame of reference (upper part of the picture), the black object moves in a straight line. However, the observer (red dot) who is standing in the rotating frame of reference (lower part of the picture) sees the object as following a curved path.

--edit, fixed quotes.

--double edit, clarified my intention.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

No - you had a different definition of truth from the one everyone else uses in everyday life.

Good.

Glad that's been sorted out...

The aether, to name but one crucial one.

Its as much of an assumption as air is. If you disagree explain the MG experiment.

Already done that - re-read the previous posts.

So, you're claiming to be right? You have "ultimate truth", then, do you?

No. I'm scientifically right, not philosophically.

No - because you're relying on false assumptions.

Re-read the relevant posts.

False analogy.

Why?

I said:

Their experiments were done based on the assumption that the aether existed - but, at the end of the day, there was no need for an aether!

To which you replied:

That's like saying that all the observations that are based on the assumption that air exists, and show that it exists are correct, but in the end there is no need for an air.

Let me restate these in a simpler form:

Mine
Assumption that the aether exists;
Experiments don't show aether exists - tweaked to account for this to "prove" existence;
Actually no need for an aether.

Yours
Assumption that the air exists;
Experiments show air (gas mixture) exists;
Falsely claim no need for air.

Hence, a false comparison.

Throughout, you've been referring to the gas/wind relationship - now, you pretend that you were referring to aether/light all along.

I was since the light is a wave that travels through the aether.

No - you weren't.

There's no evidence of an aether - you're just assuming it.

Again, you raise the "what is reality?" canard.

Its a valid philosophical question.

...And a easy way of escaping answering questions you don't wish to - or can't - answer.

By one person, who didn't take into account all the evidence: strangely ironic, thus failing one of the axioms of his own philosophy!

I don't care who, when, why or how it was said. It was said. That is all that is important. I have shown you the results of the so much touted method.

Used in isolation of all other methods and results.

That doesn't prevent the "white-out".

Why not?

You explain how it does - show us the mathematics.

How much light would a star that doesn't "shine so brightly" produce?

How many stars and galaxies would be crammed from front to back of this "1000 mile shell"?

What would be the total amount of light that this scenario would produce?

Your evading answering the question shows that you can't.

No, I'm showing you that you are nto supposed to prove a universal negative!

Your original claim was:

But the spacetime is not expanding.

You still haven't proven that this is the case nor that science is wrong in it's acceptance that space-time is expanding.

We're waiting.

For space flight, it does.

Non sequitur! Geocentric model could still be used. The fact that another one was used does not discount the other one!

What's the point in a philosophical point when the scientific loss results in death?

Have you read any of the "crap" we've found on-line?!

Unfortuneately I have.

And still don't understand and/or accept it.

Who said you wouldn't?

So, what's the answer to my original question?

I did, because there is no reason to assume so.

Another question evaded...

It can observe the Sun-Earth "dance" from angles other than just the Sun's pole(s).

Therefore, it can detect if either is stationary or - as is the case - they rotate around a barycentre.

I don't understand you. Please speak English.

It can detect if the Sun (heliocentric) or the Earth (geocentric) is stationary (according to the respective theories) or - as is the (actual) case - they rotate around a barycentre (the gravitational point-of-balance).

Better?

We did prove all our assertions through the linked articles, etc, we provided to you. You can't/won't accept that proof.

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your loss.

Perhaps - but that still leaves us with the current system, which is the best we have for now.

Says you. Is it really the best? How do you account for the shifted polarity of light from distant galaxies?

Aberration.

No process is fool-proof - just as they don't provide "ultimate truth".

They provide ways of minimizing error - that's all.

You said you took all the qutes about the truth in one quote.

And you keep saying things which come back to it.

You clearly have no idea of how Science or the scientific peer-review process works...

If the papers were "withdrawn" - whether due to "serious error (545)" or "fraud (data fabrication or falsification)" - then the peer-review process worked.

It's like when you were at school and you handed in homework, where the teacher hands it back with "Rubbish! Do it again!" written on it.

My point is that they initially PASSED the damn PR process! In reality there are RIGHT NOW faulty and fake articles in PR that we think are valid. And anyone who uses them is using fake articles thinking they are fine! Do you, or do you not understand that?

Where does this article indicate that they "initially passed the damn PR process" ?

It's clear, from the following statement, that you still don't grasp how this works, do you?

In reality there are RIGHT NOW faulty and fake articles in PR that we think are valid.

This is the equivalent of your homework still being marked by the teacher - it hasn't been decided yet whether it's alright or "Rubbish! Do it again!".

Do you not understand that?

A scientific paper can be "withdrawn" at any point in the process by the author(s): before, during or immediately after - even before it's actually "rejected" - the end of the peer-review process (before it would have actually been published).

Do you not understand that either?

Here's a example of a paper being withdrawn before peer-review.

As I'd mentioned before, this article is not well-written - it's ambiguous.

It doesn't indicate the total number of scientific papers of which these are a sample.

Nor, as I've said, does it indicate when the papers were withdrawn - before, during or on completion of the peer-review process.

It certainly does not state that any of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals.

Absolute zero, for one.

Just one example of constants.

That can always change with further investigation. Its a constant for now.

What??

"Absolute zero" changing from being a constant to a variable?? :facepalm:

Another one for the "Stupidest Things..." thread!

As I and others have shown you throughout - space craft would not go where they were supposed to go, and - as a result - they'd end up running out of fuel, air, water, etc.

Simply saying it is not evidence for your position!

Yes, it is - because we already showed you the how and why. Again, you won't accept such explanations.

You don't need to know the limits - you can work towards the root or a relative truth about something in Nature from any starting hypothesis (a best estimate of the root or explanation).

But you don't know how close you are to the real value at any point. If you can start from any standpoint, than any starting point is equally valid. Which means you have no ide how close you really are to the final explanation.

You can know by reaching a required level of accuracy.

With roots, all you have to do is decide how accurate a value you want - the number of decimal places - and stop calculating when you reach that level of accuracy.

In Nature, through experiments, you can falsify less accurate hypotheses/theories/models - when you have one that allows you to deal with "real-world" situations (like travelling through space), you know you've reached a suitable level of explanation.

A valid one.

Then back it up by something.

We already have - you just don't accept it.

"But all the others do" - some don't, ergo, they all don't. Which is my point - proving your claim wrong.

LOL. Read this. And look at the images of the both models at the link I provided. They are the same. All observations are the same, regardless of the model you use. All observations can be accounted for by both models.

While Tycho acknowledged that Copernicus had succeeded in removing equants, he proposed a system which kept Copernicus' best results while avoiding the serious difficulty of finding an explanation for a moving Earth: the Sun moves around the Earth, dragging the rest of the planets with it! This is exactly equivalent, on the basis of ground-based observation, to a heliocentric model.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/science3.html

And yet in the same article - further down (below the two diagrams to which you refer) - the author writes:

It cannot be overemphasized that an explanation of a moving Earth was not scientifically possible, given the dominant four-elements theory and the associated, loosely observation-based idea that anything made of the four elements always fell toward the center of the universe. There was simply no way, without invoking supernatural help, to explain how it was that the Earth would not fall to the center of a heliocentric universe. And if the planets (including the Sun) were made of something else -- the quintessence -- why couldn't they naturally move in circles, just as Earthly matter naturally fell to the center?

However, roughly contemporary discoveries by Galileo Galilei -- of mountains on the Moon, of spots on the Sun, of irregular and blemish-like surface features on Mars, of the four large moons of Jupiter, and of "ears" on the planet Saturn -- began to call into question the idea that the heavenly bodies were made of something different from the gross, heavy matter of the Earth. Ultimately this led to the true speculation that the heavens were made of the same substances as the Earth, and the false one that the planets were inhabited by intelligent beings. It also led to the realization that there wasn't anything to keep the planets from falling to the center, either!

Galileo further discovered that the planet Venus shows phases just like the Moon, which (in conjunction with changes in its apparent size) could be best explained by a heliocentric model, or by Tycho's geocentric model. But all this was observation unsupported by any model of how such things could be.

Tycho's top pupil, Johannes Kepler, was convinced of the heliocentric system for religious reasons. He thought the universe should reflect God, and as God sheds grace on us from His central position in our lives, so should the Sun shed light on all equally. He ran through a number of models, discarding them as he realized they didn't fit the data, and finally had to discard perfect circles in favor of ellipses.

Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are crucial in the history of science, as they represent one of the best examples of the principle that when observation falsifies a theory or model, the theory or model should be radically modified or discarded -- even if there is no explanation for the new model suggested by the observations. While Kepler always hung onto the heliocentric idea, he painfully discarded model after model until he had something that fit the best observations of his day exactly.

As important as Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion were, they hung unsupported by any explanation. They were purely empirical; Kepler was reduced to the speculation that the planets were moved in their orbits by angels. Kepler's Laws remained purely empirical until Newton was able to explain them by his Theory of Universal Gravitation.

For more about older models of the solar system, and an up-to-date account of what we now know, explore The Nine Planets. NASA maintains simple simulations of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion

When you're sitting in a carriage in a stationary train at a train station, and the train slowly starts to move, for a short while your body is unable to detect any motion.

Is the station, and everyone on it, moving backwards - or is the train, and everyone on it (including you) moving forward?

From an observer's perspective on the Earth, are the stars moving westward across the sky - or is the Earth turning eastward - or some combination of the two?

:!: Nature does not care - it is what it is. :!: ​

The train is moving - not the station.

The Earth is turning - not the stars.

The subjective frame-of-reference is irrelevant to objective reality.

Understand?

And yet if he'd used other methods - or just checked to see what other methods had been used in the past and what results they gave - he'd have discovered that his was as wrong as he could be.

Which is the whole point of Science - cross-checking with others to ensure that you're not in error.

Explain what is wrong in his method. And explain why should we trust other methods.

If you and any countless number of other people are calculating a sum - for example - and you're the only one who got a different answer, what are the chances that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

Of being right or wrong.

How do you calculate it? In relation to what?

Probabilities in comparison with each other! As in the above example.

Which is why he failed - had he done so, he'd have discovered that the moon was farther away than the Sun, never mind the other planets.

No, his calculations wound bring the Moon closer, obviously.

Which would be completely impractical!

The planets would be passing through us and the Earth.

You are being incredibly obtuse - and wilfully so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Be generous in your interpretations of other people's words. It's obvious that he implied that we could see the effects of those forces. You're being unnecessarily obnioxious.

It was not obvious. Maybe it was obvious to you, since you can read his mind.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

By running experiments like the sagnac experiment.

Which fails conceptually in the most simple example. That is, the picture I have shown before. If it fails you in this, most simple example, why in the world, would you think its gonna work in a more complicated one?

The effects of a force.

Well we can see the effects of a force. The ball is going in a non straight line.

Wait, so you mean to say that in a highly limited environment where I can't run experiments it's not possible for me to experimentally determine if the reference frame is inertial? Well duh, hard to do things experimentally when you're not allowed experiments.

You experiment would fail conceptually. Because the picture I presented removes all unncecesarry objects. It simply leaves you with 2 objects. And in this environment you are unable to tell which object is in the inertial reference frame.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The image you provided from a few posts ago is the illustration of the comparison between an inertial frame of reference, and a non inertial (rotating) reference frame from a wikipedia page, as I pointed out. you fail again.

That's because it was set up that way in advance. But in reality, you could not tell which one is the inertial and which one was not. There is no way to tell simply by looking at the picture without actually knowing in advance. Both could be interpreted as being inertial.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Already done that - re-read the previous posts.

No, you pointed to a link that you claimed said that aether is unnenessary. And you than said nothing else. That's not an explanation.

No - because you're relying on false assumptions.

What assumptions?

Experiments don't show aether exists - tweaked to account for this to "prove" existence;

FALSE! The predicted value was the measured value under the assumption that the aether exists.

There's no evidence of an aether - you're just assuming it.

Then explain why do lights from distant galaxies have their polarity shifted?

...And a easy way of escaping answering questions you don't wish to - or can't - answer.

Which one was that?

Used in isolation of all other methods and results.

How was it used in isolation and how does that affect the outcome?

You explain how it does - show us the mathematics.

How much light would a star that doesn't "shine so brightly" produce?

How many stars and galaxies would be crammed from front to back of this "1000 mile shell"?

What would be the total amount of light that this scenario would produce?

You simply make them a lot smaller. Somewhere about 10 km in diameter, just like the Sun is supposed to be. If they are few million times cleser then we thought before, then whateer they shone before divide with few million times.

You still haven't proven that this is the case nor that science is wrong in it's acceptance that space-time is expanding.

We're waiting.

I said I have no reason to assume that it does so.

What's the point in a philosophical point when the scientific loss results in death?

Who says it does except you?

It can detect if the Sun (heliocentric) or the Earth (geocentric) is stationary (according to the respective theories) or - as is the (actual) case - they rotate around a barycentre (the gravitational point-of-balance).

Better?

Okay, and how exactly would you detect the center?

Aberration.

That's the effect's name. How would youa ccount for it. What makes it. That's my question.

Where does this article indicate that they "initially passed the damn PR process" ?

It's clear, from the following statement, that you still don't grasp how this works, do you?

The whole article talks about that very damn thing. How scientist fake their data.

This is the equivalent of your homework still being marked by the teacher - it hasn't been decided yet whether it's alright or "Rubbish! Do it again!".

Do you not understand that?

A scientific paper can be "withdrawn" at any point in the process by the author(s): before, during or immediately after - even before it's actually "rejected" - the end of the peer-review process (before it would have actually been published).

Do you not understand that either?

Here's a example of a paper being withdrawn before peer-review.

As I'd mentioned before, this article is not well-written - it's ambiguous.

It doesn't indicate the total number of scientific papers of which these are a sample.

Nor, as I've said, does it indicate when the papers were withdrawn - before, during or on completion of the peer-review process.

It certainly does not state that any of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals.

No its not the same. Some articles that actually do pass get withdrawn later on. Which means that right now they are thought of as correct data. Which they are not.

"Absolute zero" changing from being a constant to a variable??

Yes it can get more precise. We can have a more precise number.

Yes, it is - because we already showed you the how and why. Again, you won't accept such explanations.

Where?

You can know by reaching a required level of accuracy.

With roots, all you have to do is decide how accurate a value you want - the number of decimal places - and stop calculating when you reach that level of accuracy.

In Nature, through experiments, you can falsify less accurate hypotheses/theories/models - when you have one that allows you to deal with "real-world" situations (like travelling through space), you know you've reached a suitable level of explanation.

But that does not equal truth. Which was my point from the start.

We already have - you just don't accept it.

Where?

Is the station, and everyone on it, moving backwards - or is the train, and everyone on it (including you) moving forward?

Relative to what?

From an observer's perspective on the Earth, are the stars moving westward across the sky - or is the Earth turning eastward - or some combination of the two?

Relative to what?

The train is moving - not the station.

Relative to what?

The Earth is turning - not the stars.

Relative to what?

The subjective frame-of-reference is irrelevant to objective reality.

Which would imply an absolute frame of reference, thus rendering the theory of relativity wrong.

If you and any countless number of other people are calculating a sum - for example - and you're the only one who got a different answer, what are the chances that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

We would need to calcualte the probabilities.

It depends on the intelligence. If we have 1 person who is a genius and is right 99% of the time, and 100 people who are morons, who are right 1% of the time, then it would be more probable that if their calculations do not agree, that the genius is correct.

Probabilities in comparison with each other! As in the above example.

So you are basicly calculating probabilities backed up by nothing. If you don't know where the truth is, then you can't calculate how far you are from it.

Which would be completely impractical!

The planets would be passing through us and the Earth.

No they wouldn't, the planets would be farther out.

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

"Absolute zero" changing from being a constant to a variable??

Yes it can get more precise. We can have a more precise number.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. You, sir, need a crash course in logic. Take this, it'll serve as a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Zero is the representation of nothing. Null, nill, nothing, nada, nishto, res, asgjà«, ingenting.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Already done that - re-read the previous posts.

No, you pointed to a link that you claimed said that aether is unnenessary. And you than said nothing else. That's not an explanation.

It is! It explained that the aether was not necessary to explain the results - since Einstein was able to do away with that assumption, and solved the problem.

No - because you're relying on false assumptions.

What assumptions?

The aether.

Experiments don't show aether exists - tweaked to account for this to "prove" existence;

FALSE! The predicted value was the measured value under the assumption that the aether exists.

And was not needed.

The "tweaking", to which I referred, was...

Summary

We have seen how the initial assumption of the existence of an aether led to more and more corrections to the theory to explain continually improved experiments. In the end, Einstein did away with the aether, and was left only with the "corrections" to Galilean theory. This paper, especially in connection with [1] and [2], has shown that none of these corrections are necessary. Thus, through a strange series of bad assumptions and faulty interpretations, Einstein was led to the special theory of relativity, a theory which provides a mathematical equivalence to the areas to which it is applied, but which is based on faulty underlying principles. How much simpler it is to go back to first principles when experiment contradicts theories, rather than to keep building "castles in the air" to rescue a doomed theory.

There's no evidence of an aether - you're just assuming it.

Then explain why do lights from distant galaxies have their polarity shifted?

...And a easy way of escaping answering questions you don't wish to - or can't - answer.

Which one was that?

Go back and re-read the relevant post.

Used in isolation of all other methods and results.

How was it used in isolation and how does that affect the outcome?

He was the only one who did this and did not compare his results with anyone else's - from the ancient Greeks onwards. It is no surprise that he got a completely wrong answer.

You explain how it does - show us the mathematics.

How much light would a star that doesn't "shine so brightly" produce?

How many stars and galaxies would be crammed from front to back of this "1000 mile shell"?

What would be the total amount of light that this scenario would produce?

You simply make them a lot smaller. Somewhere about 10 km in diameter, just like the Sun is supposed to be. If they are few million times cleser then we thought before, then whateer they shone before divide with few million times.

I see no mathematical equations here.

Do the physics and let's see the results.

Hint: Why is the night sky black?

You still haven't proven that this is the case nor that science is wrong in it's acceptance that space-time is expanding.

We're waiting.

I said I have no reason to assume that it does so.

I see - so, again, you're right and everyone else is wrong!?

What's the point in a philosophical point when the scientific loss results in death?

Who says it does except you?

Because Nature isn't interested in your frame-of-reference - it you use the wrong one, your dead.

It can detect if the Sun (heliocentric) or the Earth (geocentric) is stationary (according to the respective theories) or - as is the (actual) case - they rotate around a barycentre (the gravitational point-of-balance).

Better?

Okay, and how exactly would you detect the center?

Helios' observations would allow the scientists to calculate that the Sun and Earth are revolving around a gravitational balance-point - the barycentre.

Aberration.

That's the effect's name. How would youa ccount for it. What makes it. That's my question.[/quote]
Pulsar and a number of others have already shown you this - I'm not re-inventing the wheel!

Where does this article indicate that they "initially passed the damn PR process" ?

It's clear, from the following statement, that you still don't grasp how this works, do you?

The whole article talks about that very damn thing. How scientist fake their data.

No - it shows how a small number of individuals (the same ones keep cropping-up), who are not interested in "Science", just fame and fortune, are attempting to slip papers past the peer-review process.

Nowhere does this article indicate that they succeeded in doing so!

This is the equivalent of your homework still being marked by the teacher - it hasn't been decided yet whether it's alright or "Rubbish! Do it again!".

Do you not understand that?

A scientific paper can be "withdrawn" at any point in the process by the author(s): before, during or immediately after - even before it's actually "rejected" - the end of the peer-review process (before it would have actually been published).

Do you not understand that either?

Here's a example of a paper being withdrawn before peer-review.

As I'd mentioned before, this article is not well-written - it's ambiguous.

It doesn't indicate the total number of scientific papers of which these are a sample.

Nor, as I've said, does it indicate when the papers were withdrawn - before, during or on completion of the peer-review process.

It certainly does not state that any of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals.

No its not the same. Some articles that actually do pass get withdrawn later on. Which means that right now they are thought of as correct data. Which they are not.

That's what you claim - yet you have yet to show me such articles.

There are cases pharmaceutical companies publishing fake "peer-reviewed journals" as marketing ploys - note that this one is not recognized as such by the medical science community. There are also cases where publishers, in a effort to gain kudos, cut corners, OA publisher accepts fake paper

Let me give you some real examples:
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck (opinion)

And, of couse, who can forget:
Hwang Woo-suk

[A unfortunately appropriate name! ]

"Absolute zero" changing from being a constant to a variable??

Yes it can get more precise. We can have a more precise number.

Are you serious??!! :facepalm:

That's another one for the "Stupidest Things..." thread!!

Yes, it is - because we already showed you the how and why. Again, you won't accept such explanations.

Where?

Re-read earlier posts.

You can know by reaching a required level of accuracy.

With roots, all you have to do is decide how accurate a value you want - the number of decimal places - and stop calculating when you reach that level of accuracy.

In Nature, through experiments, you can falsify less accurate hypotheses/theories/models - when you have one that allows you to deal with "real-world" situations (like travelling through space), you know you've reached a suitable level of explanation.

But that does not equal truth. Which was my point from the start.

We're back to this pedantic need for "absolute truth"!

We already have - you just don't accept it.

Where?

Again, re-read the relevant posts.

Is the station, and everyone on it, moving backwards - or is the train, and everyone on it (including you) moving forward?

Relative to what?

From an observer's perspective on the Earth, are the stars moving westward across the sky - or is the Earth turning eastward - or some combination of the two?

Relative to what?

The train is moving - not the station.

Relative to what?

The Earth is turning - not the stars.

Relative to what?

Are you serious?? :facepalm:

Relative to each other!

The subjective frame-of-reference is irrelevant to objective reality.

Which would imply an absolute frame of reference, thus rendering the theory of relativity wrong.

Don't use an inappropriate reference-frame!

That's the point I'm making - Nature doesn't give a monkey's what you're using!

If it's inappropriate, you'll suffer for it!

If you and any countless number of other people are calculating a sum - for example - and you're the only one who got a different answer, what are the chances that you're right and everyone else is wrong?

We would need to calcualte the probabilities.

It depends on the intelligence. If we have 1 person who is a genius and is right 99% of the time, and 100 people who are morons, who are right 1% of the time, then it would be more probable that if their calculations do not agree, that the genius is correct.

I said "you" - not a genius.

I'm referring to the law of averages; the average person (you) and any countless number of other average people doing this sum and you're the only one to get a different sum.

The law of averages strongly suggests that you're most likely to have made the error - not the countless other people.

Probabilities in comparison with each other! As in the above example.

So you are basicly calculating probabilities backed up by nothing. If you don't know where the truth is, then you can't calculate how far you are from it.

Wrong.

You're still banging on about "absolute"/"ultimate" truth.

In the real world, we only think in terms of "relative" truth

As I've said before, Dara O'Briain sums it up nicely:

Science doesn't know everything. Science knows it doesn't know everything - otherwise, it would stop!

Which would be completely impractical!

The planets would be passing through us and the Earth.

No they wouldn't, the planets would be farther out.

No, they wouldn't!

Kindly show me with either calculated distances or a diagram where the planets' orbits would be!

Bear in mind:

1) The Sun is - supposedly! - 1000 miles above the Earth's surface;
2) That Venus's orbit - from observation using the right-angle triangle method (sin 45 degrees) - is roughly 70% of the Sun-Earth distance: 300 miles above the Earth's surface.

Where would the rest of them be?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It is! It explained that the aether was not necessary to explain the results - since Einstein was able to do away with that assumption, and solved the problem.

False! Here are Einstein's words.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

The aether.

That's liek saying that air is an assumption.

And was not needed.

The "tweaking", to which I referred, was...

There was no tweeikng in the MG experiment. Can you point me to the tweaked parts?

Go back and re-read the relevant post.

Answer the question.

He was the only one who did this and did not compare his results with anyone else's - from the ancient Greeks onwards. It is no surprise that he got a completely wrong answer.

How do you know that his answer is wrong?

I see no mathematical equations here.

Do the physics and let's see the results.

Its irrelevant. I told you how you would do it if you knew the amount of light a particular star shines. Its conceptually valid. I don't need to actually do it.

I see - so, again, you're right and everyone else is wrong!?

No, since I'm not the only one who thinks that spacetime is not expanding.

Because Nature isn't interested in your frame-of-reference - it you use the wrong one, your dead.

So Nature says it? Nature has actually spoken to you?

Helios' observations would allow the scientists to calculate that the Sun and Earth are revolving around a gravitational balance-point - the barycentre.

My question was something different. If you went to space, how do you know what is rotating around what? You do know that if you are moving together with some other planet, you will think that that planet is inertial. If you are not moving with it, you will think its non-inertial. So how do you tell which one is it?

Pulsar and a number of others have already shown you this - I'm not re-inventing the wheel!

They haven't addressed the polarization shift of light at all. I haven't even presented them with that.

No - it shows how a small number of individuals (the same ones keep cropping-up), who are not interested in "Science", just fame and fortune, are attempting to slip papers past the peer-review process.

Nowhere does this article indicate that they succeeded in doing so!

So you are saying that no article that was false was ever published?

That's what you claim - yet you have yet to show me such articles.

How about this one?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/4351015a.html

Are you serious??!!

Yes I am.

Relative to each other!

So, basicly that means that the station is moving from the reference frame of the train. And from the reference frame of the station. It is the train that is moving. Both are equally valid.

Don't use an inappropriate reference-frame!

That's the point I'm making - Nature doesn't give a monkey's what you're using!

If it's inappropriate, you'll suffer for it!

If an inappropriate referene frame exists, that means that an appropriate one exists, which is the absolute one. Thus, rendering relativity false.

I said "you" - not a genius.

I'm referring to the law of averages; the average person (you) and any countless number of other average people doing this sum and you're the only one to get a different sum.

The law of averages strongly suggests that you're most likely to have made the error - not the countless other people.

That still doesn't mean I'm wrong. Maybe they all used a wrong method, and I used the right one.

Kindly show me with either calculated distances or a diagram where the planets' orbits would be!

I have no idea where they would be. Based on the Tychonc model, they would be further away then the Moon.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

By running experiments like the sagnac experiment.

Which fails conceptually in the most simple example. That is, the picture I have shown before. If it fails you in this, most simple example, why in the world, would you think its gonna work in a more complicated one?

If it fails, it fails because you refuse to allow any experiments. Of course I can't run the sagnac experiment in a place where there only exists a ball (no light, no half silvered mirror, no mirrors, no detection unit... yah, the sagnac experiment won't tell me anything because I can't do the sagnac experiment).

The effects of a force.

Well we can see the effects of a force. The ball is going in a non straight line.

Then either something in the reference frame is causing the force (acting on the ball), or the reference frame is non-inertial.

Wait, so you mean to say that in a highly limited environment where I can't run experiments it's not possible for me to experimentally determine if the reference frame is inertial? Well duh, hard to do things experimentally when you're not allowed experiments.

You experiment would fail conceptually. Because the picture I presented removes all unncecesarry objects. It simply leaves you with 2 objects. And in this environment you are unable to tell which object is in the inertial reference frame.

Yes, the picture you presented removes all ability to experiment...

There is no way to tell simply by looking at the picture

That may or may not be true, but even if true, it simply makes my above point for me: yes, without experiments it is not possible to experimentally determine... anything really.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Here are Einstein's words.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Lol it's like the darwin quote mine.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

False! Here are Einstein's words.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

The dishonesty knows no bounds.

Einstein didn't support the aether. That lecture is talking specifically about how Mach's conception of absolute space was wrong and had been replaced by absolute spacetime in the theory of relativity. That's the way he's using the word. The luminiferous aether had already been disproved.

Quote mine and fallacy of equivocation in one. If you read the entire lecture instead of cherry-picking the bits that appear to agree with you, you'll see that he doesn't support your idea even a little bit.

For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in inechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once inore, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ``empty space'' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.

Further on, and in conclusion:

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The dishonesty knows no bounds.

Einstein didn't support the aether. That lecture is talking specifically about how Mach's conception of absolute space was wrong and had been replaced by absolute spacetime in the theory of relativity. That's the way he's using the word. The luminiferous aether had already been disproved.

Quote mine and fallacy of equivocation in one. If you read the entire lecture instead of cherry-picking the bits that appear to agree with you, you'll see that he doesn't support your idea even a little bit.

Indeed. In a letter to Lorentz of June 17th, 1916, Einstein wrote:

,,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."

So he used the word aether to denote gμν, which we today call the metric tensor of GR.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

It is! It explained that the aether was not necessary to explain the results - since Einstein was able to do away with that assumption, and solved the problem.

False! Here are Einstein's words.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

As others have clearly shown, you're quote-mining in a vain effort to prove that Einstein believed in the aether.

When someone makes a false statement, there are only two possibilities, either:

a} the person doesn't know what they're talking about - which raises questions about their competence;
b) or the person is bearing false witness - which raises questions about their integrity.

You've just added the latter to the former.

Einstein's Thoughts on the Ether

Here's a three-part video on the Michelson-Morley experiment for you to watch - it may help clear up your misunderstandings about this and the aether:



The other two parts are directly linked to at the end of the first part. [Thanks hackenslash! ]

Here's a snippet from a Nova video on Einstein's viewsn the aether:

The aether.

That's liek saying that air is an assumption.

No, it isn't.

Experiments have proven the existence of the air - that it is a mixture of gases, each of which have been detected and whose properties have been identified.

In contrast, experiments have proven that the aether does not exist.

And was not needed.

The "tweaking", to which I referred, was...

There was no tweeikng in the MG experiment. Can you point me to the tweaked parts?

I showed you with a quote incorporating highlighted text.

You've left that out.

Go back and re-read the relevant post.

Answer the question.

I already have - re-read my earlier post.

He was the only one who did this and did not compare his results with anyone else's - from the ancient Greeks onwards. It is no surprise that he got a completely wrong answer.

How do you know that his answer is wrong?

Because it disagrees with everybody else's, who've used far more accurate methods and technology to do so!

I see no mathematical equations here.

Do the physics and let's see the results.

Its irrelevant. I told you how you would do it if you knew the amount of light a particular star shines. Its conceptually valid. I don't need to actually do it.

So the physics/mathematics is irrelevant?

Then you haven't proven it - to use your canard; "Saying it is doesn't prove it!"

I've given you the basic scenario - prove what you're saying is true.

I see - so, again, you're right and everyone else is wrong!?

No, since I'm not the only one who thinks that spacetime is not expanding.

Show us - who else doesn't believe it's expanding?

Because Nature isn't interested in your frame-of-reference - it you use the wrong one, your dead.

So Nature says it? Nature has actually spoken to you?

Don't be facetious.

Nature kills those who don't respect it.

Helios' observations would allow the scientists to calculate that the Sun and Earth are revolving around a gravitational balance-point - the barycentre.

My question was something different. If you went to space, how do you know what is rotating around what? You do know that if you are moving together with some other planet, you will think that that planet is inertial. If you are not moving with it, you will think its non-inertial. So how do you tell which one is it?

The same way Einstein did when he worked out that light travels at the same speed, irrespective of the frame of reference - mathematics.

Pulsar and a number of others have already shown you this - I'm not re-inventing the wheel!

They haven't addressed the polarization shift of light at all. I haven't even presented them with that.

If you are indeed talking about the polarization of starlight, then it's the result of a combination of interstellar dust in the presence of magnetic fields.

I'm sure others - like Andromeda's Wake - could give a far more in-depth explanation of it.

No - it shows how a small number of individuals (the same ones keep cropping-up), who are not interested in "Science", just fame and fortune, are attempting to slip papers past the peer-review process.

Nowhere does this article indicate that they succeeded in doing so!

So you are saying that no article that was false was ever published?

No - the point I was making was that this article does not prove your assertion.

That's what you claim - yet you have yet to show me such articles.

How about this one?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/4351015a.html

Yes - and I already showed you a couple of instances, which you appear to have missed.

And don't mistake this for wholesale fraud by the scientific community. As I've already pointed out, there are those - a minority - who are after fame and fortune.

Even so, these instances are discovered and corrected - granted, research may have been done based on these fake research results. Nevertheless, they are discovered and the scientific community, and Science, moves forward.

Are you serious??!!

Yes I am.

:facepalm:

Relative to each other!

So, basicly that means that the station is moving from the reference frame of the train. And from the reference frame of the station. It is the train that is moving. Both are equally valid.

Nature doesn't care, remember?

The train is moving - not the station.

What you're saying is as if the train's wheels turning is causing the Earth to rotate under it!

Don't use an inappropriate reference-frame!

That's the point I'm making - Nature doesn't give a monkey's what you're using!

If it's inappropriate, you'll suffer for it!

If an inappropriate referene frame exists, that means that an appropriate one exists, which is the absolute one. Thus, rendering relativity false.

:facepalm: You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill!

It's not complicated: if you use the wrong reference-frame, you'll end up dying in space.

Using a compass to find your way in space would be a inappropriate reference frame - magnetic compasses for sailing ships are no use in space.

Do you understand?

It has nothing to do with "absolute" versus "relative" frames-of-reference.

I said "you" - not a genius.

I'm referring to the law of averages; the average person (you) and any countless number of other average people doing this sum and you're the only one to get a different sum.

The law of averages strongly suggests that you're most likely to have made the error - not the countless other people.

That still doesn't mean I'm wrong. Maybe they all used a wrong method, and I used the right one.

The law of averages says not.

It says that, all else being equal, you're most likely to be wrong.

Kindly show me with either calculated distances or a diagram where the planets' orbits would be!

I have no idea where they would be. Based on the Tychonc model, they would be further away then the Moon.

How?? Show me!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I think there is a final point that I need to make. I have given up trying to fit any sense long ago, I have stated since the beginning that he would not listen and it would end up in the debauchery that you see here, I given him the benefit of the doubt none the less but it is almost always pointless.
Do not fool yourself, we are not doing science here. The best thing we could ever do here is to clear misconceptions and thus clearing some mistakes. But we have already gone too far, Царь Славян has far long refused to listen and disrespected the wealth of modern knowledge, and it has by far lost all legitimacy. If he wants to look like a fool then by all means let him, I cannot think for him. On my part I will refuse to play his game of pretend that Царь Славян is a hot shot scientist, this is how he sees himself. I have grown out of the pretend age long ago, I do take science seriously and I am not going to pretend that a "teenager with a dark age mentality who has shown to have absolutely no knowledge of the most basic of the basic science or any form of genuine source of knowledge of any kind and who's only credentials is having a computer with connection to the internet" has anything insightful to say that I need to consider much less revolutionize the scientific knowledge.
If he doesn't want to listen, if he wants to act up like a peer to real scientist that have spent years of hard study and training just not to be ridiculed much less contribute with anything meaningful, then ok. Instead of trying to patiently explain his mistakes, this is what I would have demanded of my peers in that same situation:
"This is totally absurd from beginning to end, and I am embarrassed to even call you something that remotely resembles a professional". Царь Славян would be here by ignored and I wouldn't even waste my time explaining why, because I do not care for the ramblings of a mad man or an uneducated buffoon. It is Царь Славян job to do his homework not mine, and I am not Царь Славян's mother to care if he does. And why should I see him any different than the thousands of other uneducated lunatics out there doing equally absurd things?

And I strongly encourage anyone who thinks that can still talk some sense into it to be disillusioned, your intentions maybe right but you are just fooling yourself.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

As others have clearly shown, you're quote-mining in a vain effort to prove that Einstein believed in the aether.

When someone makes a false statement, there are only two possibilities, either:

a} the person doesn't know what they're talking about - which raises questions about their competence;
b) or the person is bearing false witness - which raises questions about their integrity.

You've just added the latter to the former.

Where did I quote mine him? Explain exactly why. And stop posting video links.

No, it isn't.

Experiments have proven the existence of the air - that it is a mixture of gases, each of which have been detected and whose properties have been identified.

In contrast, experiments have proven that the aether does not exist.

No they haven't its an assumption.

I showed you with a quote incorporating highlighted text.

You've left that out.

No you haven't.

I already have - re-read my earlier post.

No, you haven't.

Because it disagrees with everybody else's, who've used far more accurate methods and technology to do so!

How do you know their methods are more accurate?

So the physics/mathematics is irrelevant?

Then you haven't proven it - to use your canard; "Saying it is doesn't prove it!"

I've given you the basic scenario - prove what you're saying is true.

Give me the distance to any star and its brightnes and I'll calculate it if you want.

Show us - who else doesn't believe it's expanding?

It doesn't matter. Science is not about majority opinion.

Don't be facetious.

Nature kills those who don't respect it.

Nature has a will of its own?

The same way Einstein did when he worked out that light travels at the same speed, irrespective of the frame of reference - mathematics.

Please elaborate a bit more.

If you are indeed talking about the polarization of starlight, then it's the result of a combination of interstellar dust in the presence of magnetic fields.

I'm sure others - like Andromeda's Wake - could give a far more in-depth explanation of it.

I'm not arguuing him, I'm arguing with you. You explain it.

Yes - and I already showed you a couple of instances, which you appear to have missed.

And don't mistake this for wholesale fraud by the scientific community. As I've already pointed out, there are those - a minority - who are after fame and fortune.

Even so, these instances are discovered and corrected - granted, research may have been done based on these fake research results. Nevertheless, they are discovered and the scientific community, and Science, moves forward.

But at this point in time, some such instances are thought of as correct articles. And some may never get corected.

Nature doesn't care, remember?

And you don't know what nature thinks.

The train is moving - not the station.

Relative to the station. But the station is moving relative to the train.

What you're saying is as if the train's wheels turning is causing the Earth to rotate under it!

No, its not causing it to rotate.

You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill!

It's not complicated: if you use the wrong reference-frame, you'll end up dying in space.

Using a compass to find your way in space would be a inappropriate reference frame - magnetic compasses for sailing ships are no use in space.

Do you understand?

It has nothing to do with "absolute" versus "relative" frames-of-reference.

Yes it does. If a wrong reference frame exists, that implies that there is a right one relative to which we should do the measuring. Thus, it is the absolute reference frame.

The law of averages says not.

It says that, all else being equal, you're most likely to be wrong.

The law of averages says nothing about which method I used.

How?? Show me!

I have shown you how the Tychonic model looks like!

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

If it fails, it fails because you refuse to allow any experiments. Of course I can't run the sagnac experiment in a place where there only exists a ball (no light, no half silvered mirror, no mirrors, no detection unit... yah, the sagnac experiment won't tell me anything because I can't do the sagnac experiment).

I want you to explain conceptually how a Sagnac experiment would determine the inertial reference frame in that picture.

Then either something in the reference frame is causing the force (acting on the ball), or the reference frame is non-inertial.

So, which one is it? How do you tell?

Yes, the picture you presented removes all ability to experiment...

Why?

That may or may not be true, but even if true, it simply makes my above point for me: yes, without experiments it is not possible to experimentally determine... anything really.

No, it shows that your ability to determine an inertial reference frame fails when presented with the most simple possible conceptual example.

Lol it's like the darwin quote mine.

Point out the quote mine.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Your quote mine has been pointed out by many people, perhaps if you didn't think the ignore function is part of honest discourse you'd have seen people quoting Einstein's full text that you mined.

Playing ignorant doesn't mean you get free pass at dishonesty.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

*The YouTube style doesn't work with "related" links - the other two parts are directly linked to at the end of the first part.

Hi, James. You just need to remove the extraneous code, so that:

[media=youtube]ZMdpyisUraY&feature=related[/media]

Becomes:

[media=youtube]ZMdpyisUraY[/media]