Aether model of QM.

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

The train is moving - not the station.

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

The train is moving towards/away and relative to the station.

The train is in motion relative to the station.

The station is in motion relative to the station.


Get it?!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

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.

See borrofburi's, hackenslash's and Pulsar's posts above.

And, no, I won't stop posting video - or, indeed, any - links: how else are we to educate you??

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.

No assumption - fact, proven by experiment!

I showed you with a quote incorporating highlighted text.

You've left that out.

No you haven't.

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

I already have - re-read my earlier post.

No, you haven't.

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

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?

Because they use modern technology - like lasers, radar, etc.

Unlike some chap looking up at the sky.

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.

165,000 light years, apparent magnitude: 12.77.

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

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

Avoiding the question - again.

Don't be facetious.

Nature kills those who don't respect it.

Nature has a will of its own?

No - it just is.

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.

I've just explained it - mathematics allows you to take into account all the relative motions of bodies to the Helios satellite and work out that the Sun and Earth revolve around a barycentre.

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.

I've given you the scientific explanation - you can either accept it or not.

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.

It's highly unlikely that "some may never be detected", because Science makes progress in all fields - therefore, errors, whether accidental or deliberate, will come to light.

Nature doesn't care, remember?

And you don't know what nature thinks.

Nature doesn't think - it just is.

The train is moving - not the station.

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

The only way the station is actually moving is through the Earth's rotation.

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.

That's what you're implying.

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.

Which is why you use the heliocentric frame for space travel within the Solar System and a galacto-centric frame for galactic space travel.

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.

As I said - "all else being equal".

Another reading failure!

How?? Show me!

I have shown you how the Tychonic model looks like!

You did not show how this model looks with the Sun 700 miles above the Earth!!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[borrofburi]

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.

Why? I've already done pretty much that on multiple occasions. It really gains me nothing to repeat myself. Unless any damned tenacious audience members actually still reading this want me to, then I will. But I'm pretty certain you're just trying to waste my time, on purpose, and I really don't care to indulge you in too much intentional time wasting.

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?

By experiments.

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

Why?

Because, to quote you "it removes all unnecessary objects", including things like mirrors used to perform experiments like the sagnac experiment...

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.

No, it shows that when you remove the ability to experiment, you can't experimentally determine things.

Point out the quote mine.

Hackenslash did just fine.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It also occurs to me that Einstein didn't actually support any model of quantum mechanics, even though much of it flowed from his work. He found the idea of quantum uncertainty abhorrent, and indeed this is the source of his most famous quote, so citing him as support for any model of QM, expecially one as nonsensical as this 'aether model' which, it has already been pointed out elsewhere, was a fleeting, crackpopt idea, is simply futile. He saw the universe as hard-deterministic in the Laplacian sense, and was predisposed against any probabilistic treatment of the cosmos.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

See borrofburi's, hackenslash's and Pulsar's posts above.

And, no, I won't stop posting video - or, indeed, any - links: how else are we to educate you??

I'm not going to look at any videos.

No assumption - fact, proven by experiment!

Where?

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

I disagree.

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

Same here.

Because they use modern technology - like lasers, radar, etc.

Unlike some chap looking up at the sky.

Modern does not equal more accurate. Especially because the technology used involves more assumptions.

165,000 light years, apparent magnitude: 12.77.

According to Rowbotham we have:
Distance to the stars 1000 miles which is 1609 km.

According to you we have 165,000 LY which is 1,561 * 10^21 km
And we have an apparent magnitude of 12,77.

By using this equation we get the following brightness for the stars if they were about 100 miles from us.

(1609 / (1.561 * 10^21) ) * 12.77 = 1,31 * 10^-17

Which is a miniscule brightness.

Avoiding the question - again.

Because it's irrelevant. But if you must know. Here you go.

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

No - it just is.

How does that have anything to do with disrespecting nature?

I've just explained it - mathematics allows you to take into account all the relative motions of bodies to the Helios satellite and work out that the Sun and Earth revolve around a barycentre.

From the reference point of the sattelite, right?

I've given you the scientific explanation - you can either accept it or not.

No, you did not. You said that Andromeda's Wake can give me an explanation.

It's highly unlikely that "some may never be detected", because Science makes progress in all fields - therefore, errors, whether accidental or deliberate, will come to light.

Even if that is true, we still have false articles right now considered to be accurate in our journals.

The only way the station is actually moving is through the Earth's rotation.

And relative to the train it is also moving.

That's what you're implying.

No, you are implying that because its you who accepts relativity.

Which is why you use the heliocentric frame for space travel within the Solar System and a galacto-centric frame for galactic space travel.

Why?

As I said - "all else being equal".

Another reading failure!

But all else is not equal. Methods used are not equal.

You did not show how this model looks with the Sun 700 miles above the Earth!!

That's true. Try to picture it in your mind.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Why? I've already done pretty much that on multiple occasions. It really gains me nothing to repeat myself. Unless any damned tenacious audience members actually still reading this want me to, then I will. But I'm pretty certain you're just trying to waste my time, on purpose, and I really don't care to indulge you in too much intentional time wasting.

No, you actually said it couldn't be done. You said that that picture makes it impossible for the experiment to be performed.

By experiments.

Okay, explain the experiment.

Because, to quote you "it removes all unnecessary objects", including things like mirrors used to perform experiments like the sagnac experiment...

W R O N G!

Obviously you get to use the devices to make the experiment. The only things that are there to measure are 2 objects. The ball and the disc. And your equipment.

No, it shows that when you remove the ability to experiment, you can't experimentally determine things.

False. You can use the devices you want.

Hackenslash did just fine.

He's on my ignore list.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

No, you actually said it couldn't be done. You said that that picture makes it impossible for the experiment to be performed.

No I didn't. Or at least I never intended to. If you put a little me in the environment, gave me some mirrors, a laser, a half silvered mirror and a proper detector, I could set up mirrors around the edge and perform the sagnac experiment and reliably tell you if the reference frame I was in was non-inertial or not (within the precision of my devices, at least).

Hackenslash did just fine.

He's on my ignore list.

As others have said: you don't get to pretend a refutation never happened just because you stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted that you couldn't hear him. Hackenslash did a fine job demolishing your appeal to Einstein's authority, that stands unless you present a good argument as to why Hackenslash's good argument is wrong, and everyone and anyone reading this will recognize that, except, apparently, you. Why you would believe "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" has any merit is beyond my imagining.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

No I didn't. Or at least I never intended to. If you put a little me in the environment, gave me some mirrors, a laser, a half silvered mirror and a proper detector, I could set up mirrors around the edge and perform the sagnac experiment and reliably tell you if the reference frame I was in was non-inertial or not (within the precision of my devices, at least).

Great!

Now that you have said that, and you are so sure of the Sagnac experiment being supportive of relativity, do explain us how that would work. Explain how would Sagnac experiment tell us which one of those two reference frames is inertial.

As others have said: you don't get to pretend a refutation never happened just because you stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted that you couldn't hear him. Hackenslash did a fine job demolishing your appeal to Einstein's authority, that stands unless you present a good argument as to why Hackenslash's good argument is wrong, and everyone and anyone reading this will recognize that, except, apparently, you. Why you would believe "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" has any merit is beyond my imagining.

I couldn't care less. If you want to use his argument, then do it. But I'm not arguing with him. End of story.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

No I didn't. Or at least I never intended to. If you put a little me in the environment, gave me some mirrors, a laser, a half silvered mirror and a proper detector, I could set up mirrors around the edge and perform the sagnac experiment and reliably tell you if the reference frame I was in was non-inertial or not (within the precision of my devices, at least).

Great!

Now that you have said that, and you are so sure of the Sagnac experiment being supportive of relativity, do explain us how that would work. Explain how would Sagnac experiment tell us which one of those two reference frames is inertial.

It can tell you if it's not inertial as follows:
Set up sagnac experiment, if one "beam" of light arrives earlier, then it's not an inertial reference frame because it's rotating and there's a centripetal force (alternatively, if the... holy crap word gone from my head... If phase changes over time then it's rotating about the center of the experiment) (and remember, inertial reference frame is one where there's no force being applied to the reference frame).
Alternatively put accelerometers in all 3 directions (i.e., with proper cross products) in multiple spots on the edges: if any of them register anything other than zero, it's not an inertial reference frame.

As others have said: you don't get to pretend a refutation never happened just because you stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted that you couldn't hear him. Hackenslash did a fine job demolishing your appeal to Einstein's authority, that stands unless you present a good argument as to why Hackenslash's good argument is wrong, and everyone and anyone reading this will recognize that, except, apparently, you. Why you would believe "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" has any merit is beyond my imagining.

I couldn't care less. If you want to use his argument, then do it. But I'm not arguing with him. End of story.

K, then your appeal to Einstein's authority is thoroughly discredited, your ignoring of hackenslash's argument doesn't make the argument go away, everyone else who is reading this knows you failed on that level, even the people not bothering to actually respond..

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Just so Slav can no longer play the ignorance card despite being hoplessly ignorant.

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.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

See borrofburi's, hackenslash's and Pulsar's posts above.

And, no, I won't stop posting video - or, indeed, any - links: how else are we to educate you??

I'm not going to look at any videos.

Fine - remain ignorant.

But don't try and argue against the evidence provided - because you won't have a leg to stand on.

If you haven't read/watched something, you have no business dismissing its contents summarily.

No assumption - fact, proven by experiment!

Where?

We've already shown you!

Here's a repeat of the last evidence I posted...

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:

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

I disagree.

See the above videos, which I've reposted for you - since you don't appear to accept that I had.

Liar!

See the relevant earlier post!

Same here.

Again, your mendacity knows no bounds!

I posted the relevant text - with highlights - relating to the "tweaking" I mentioned.

Here it is - again! - just for you!

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?

I already have - but have repeated it below.

Because they use modern technology - like lasers, radar, etc.

Unlike some chap looking up at the sky.

Modern does not equal more accurate. Especially because the technology used involves more assumptions.

Utter twaddle!!

Are you seriously saying that someone glancing up at the stars with their eyes is more accurate than someone using a astrolabe or telescope fitted with astrometrical devices? Never mind space missions like Hipparcos!

Have you taken leave of your senses?

Even Tycho Brahe - who's been called the most accurate observational astronomer in the historical development of Western astronomy - was more accurate than this Rowbotham chap in whom you place such store!

165,000 light years, apparent magnitude: 12.77.

According to Rowbotham we have:
Distance to the stars 1000 miles which is 1609 km.

According to you we have 165,000 LY which is 1,561 * 10^21 km
And we have an apparent magnitude of 12,77.

By using this equation we get the following brightness for the stars if they were about 100 miles from us.

(1609 / (1.561 * 10^21) ) * 12.77 = 1,31 * 10^-17

Which is a miniscule brightness.

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?

Avoiding the question - again.

Because it's irrelevant. But if you must know. Here you go.

The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Again, quoting from a pseudo-scientist, who - in the same paper - states (in bold letters, no less!):

The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang.

:facepalm:

No - it just is.

How does that have anything to do with disrespecting nature?

Again, reading failure!

"Disrespect", in this context, means that you take the consequences of taking chances lightly. If you're not careful, you can be killed by the simplest things in Nature.

And using a inappropriate reference frame is one of these.

I've just explained it - mathematics allows you to take into account all the relative motions of bodies to the Helios satellite and work out that the Sun and Earth revolve around a barycentre.

From the reference point of the sattelite, right?

How do you think Einstein was able to work out that the speed of light is constant - regardless of the frame-of-reference?

In the same way, physicists can do the same for the Sun-Earth system - regardless of the frame-of-reference, having taken into account all the observations, they revolve around their barycentre.

I've given you the scientific explanation - you can either accept it or not.

No, you did not. You said that Andromeda's Wake can give me an explanation.

False!

Here's the exact quote - again!

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.

As anyone can see, I gave my explanation - first! - then indicated that AW (or others) could give a more in-depth explanation of it.

It's highly unlikely that "some may never be detected", because Science makes progress in all fields - therefore, errors, whether accidental or deliberate, will come to light.

Even if that is true, we still have false articles right now considered to be accurate in our journals.

Thank you for acknowledging that it's true.

And, even so, all such will be detected - because they'll go against further evidence from observation and experiment. These new data/results will contradict earlier ones from such false papers, thus invalidating the latter.

The only way the station is actually moving is through the Earth's rotation.

And relative to the train it is also moving.

Doesn't change the fact that the train is what's actually moving.

That's what you're implying.

No, you are implying that because its you who accepts relativity.

I accept relativity - however, I don't let that blind me to the real world.

The train is what's moving - not the station.

Which is why you use the heliocentric frame for space travel within the Solar System and a galacto-centric frame for galactic space travel.

Why?

Because those are the appropriate frames-of-reference.

Use a maritime compass instead - in either scenario - and you'll be unable to navigate, and - thus - die from lack of air, water, food due to going way off-course and becoming "lost in space".

As I said - "all else being equal".

Another reading failure!

But all else is not equal. Methods used are not equal.

They are - that's what "all else being equal" means!

The only difference is the number of people competing with each other - one versus a countless number.

All those taking part - both the one and the many - are of the same intelligence, education, and are using the same method.

Just that the one gets a different answer from all the others.

Therefore, the law of averages suggests that the one is wrong rather than the countless many.

You did not show how this model looks with the Sun 700 miles above the Earth!!

That's true. Try to picture it in your mind.

Avoiding answering the question - again!

Your claim is completely wrong.

The planets would pass through the Earth.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It can tell you if it's not inertial as follows:
Set up sagnac experiment, if one "beam" of light arrives earlier, then it's not an inertial reference frame because it's rotating and there's a centripetal force (alternatively, if the... holy crap word gone from my head... If phase changes over time then it's rotating about the center of the experiment) (and remember, inertial reference frame is one where there's no force being applied to the reference frame).
Alternatively put accelerometers in all 3 directions (i.e., with proper cross products) in multiple spots on the edges: if any of them register anything other than zero, it's not an inertial reference frame.

"Its not an inertial reference frame" is a meaningless sentence in relativity. You have to say that its not an inertial reference frame relative to something. So its not inertial relative to what?

K, then your appeal to Einstein's authority is thoroughly discredited, your ignoring of hackenslash's argument doesn't make the argument go away, everyone else who is reading this knows you failed on that level, even the people not bothering to actually respond..

I made no appeal to atuhority. I simply wanted to make a correction to the false statement that Einstein did away with the aether. Yes, he did, with special relativity, but re introduced it in general relativity right back again.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Fine - remain ignorant.

But don't try and argue against the evidence provided - because you won't have a leg to stand on.

If you haven't read/watched something, you have no business dismissing its contents summarily.

I want you to explain the so called evidence.

We've already shown you!

Here's a repeat of the last evidence I posted...

I'm not watching the damn video. Explain why its evidence for your position.

Again, your mendacity knows no bounds!

I posted the relevant text - with highlights - relating to the "tweaking" I mentioned.

Here it is - again! - just for you!

But that is simply not true. Because Einstein re introduced eitehr back in general relativity.

In 1905 A. Einstein banished the ether from physics in connection with the
formulation of his Special Relativity. This fact is very well known but it is almost
unknown that in in 1916 he reintroduced the ether in connection with his General
Relativity. He denominated it ,,new ether" because, in oppposition to the old
one, the new one did not violate his Principle of Relativity. The purpose of this
paper is to present a short outline of the history of Einstein's new concept and to
show which elements of the mathematical formalism of General Relativity were
considered by Einstein as mathematical tools describing the relativistic ether.

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/0KOSTRO.PDF

He brought it back, because without it, his theory would not work. Its invalid with it too, but this made it seem less false. As you can see, the only thing he did is remove the absolute reference frame property from the aether. He made it the same as everything, which means its also a relative reference frame, like any other. But the fact remains that he brought it back.

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."

Again, he says that empty space is not empty. It has properties, thus we need to describe it with something, and that is what he calls the aether. While in special relativity, it was empty. He now understood that its not. That is why he reintroduced the aether in general relativity.

I already have - but have repeated it below.

No, you said someone else could do it.

Utter twaddle!!

Are you seriously saying that someone glancing up at the stars with their eyes is more accurate than someone using a astrolabe or telescope fitted with astrometrical devices? Never mind space missions like Hipparcos!

Have you taken leave of your senses?

Even Tycho Brahe - who's been called the most accurate observational astronomer in the historical development of Western astronomy - was more accurate than this Rowbotham chap in whom you place such store!

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.

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?

I said that the answer is 1,31 * 10^-17 not -8.07. How did you get your number?

Again, quoting from a pseudo-scientist, who - in the same paper - states (in bold letters, no less!):

So you think he is a pseudo-scientist, even though his papers are PR papers in standard scientific journals?

Here's an example.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=45504

But, that's fine. You can call hims a pseudo-scientist if you want. From now on, I will not accept any of your sources, and I will call all scientists that you quote as pseudo-scientists. So, yeah, Einstein is a pseudo-scientist.

Again, reading failure!

"Disrespect", in this context, means that you take the consequences of taking chances lightly. If you're not careful, you can be killed by the simplest things in Nature.

And using a inappropriate reference frame is one of these.

Which implies that there is an absolute frame of reference, thus relativity is false.

How do you think Einstein was able to work out that the speed of light is constant - regardless of the frame-of-reference?

You don't accept Paul Marmet, and claim him to be a pseudo-scientist, thus I can no longer accept Einstein. He is also a pseudo-scientist.

In the same way, physicists can do the same for the Sun-Earth system - regardless of the frame-of-reference, having taken into account all the observations, they revolve around their barycentre.

They have to be somewhere. And where they are, is the reference frame they are in. So according to that frame of reference, they come to a specific conclusion.

As anyone can see, I gave my explanation - first! - then indicated that AW (or others) could give a more in-depth explanation of it.

That interpretation is wrong since the polarization is uniform. Not everywhere do we have radiation and dust. And it is polarized in such a uniform way that it slightly changes from 0,° where it's the lowest, to 90,°where it's the strongest, and again to 180,°where it's the lowest again.

And, even so, all such will be detected - because they'll go against further evidence from observation and experiment. These new data/results will contradict earlier ones from such false papers, thus invalidating the latter.

You saying that they will be detected is a statement of fate. And even if they will be, new false one will keep coming in. So you will always have false articles posing as correct ones.

Doesn't change the fact that the train is what's actually moving.

Relative to what?

I accept relativity - however, I don't let that blind me to the real world.

The train is what's moving - not the station.

The train is moving is a miningless statement if relativity is true. You have no absolute motion if relativity is true. You have to say that the train is moving relative to something else if you accept relativity.

Because those are the appropriate frames-of-reference.

Use a maritime compass instead - in either scenario - and you'll be unable to navigate, and - thus - die from lack of air, water, food due to going way off-course and becoming "lost in space".

If that is true, then relativity is false, because then we have an absolute frame of reference.

They are - that's what "all else being equal" means!

The only difference is the number of people competing with each other - one versus a countless number.

All those taking part - both the one and the many - are of the same intelligence, education, and are using the same method.

Just that the one gets a different answer from all the others.

Therefore, the law of averages suggests that the one is wrong rather than the countless many.

Sending radar waves to space is not the same as using trigonometry.

Avoiding answering the question - again!

Your claim is completely wrong.

The planets would pass through the Earth.

Not if they have larger orbits.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

It can tell you if it's not inertial as follows:
Set up sagnac experiment, if one "beam" of light arrives earlier, then it's not an inertial reference frame because it's rotating and there's a centripetal force (alternatively, if the... holy crap word gone from my head... If phase changes over time then it's rotating about the center of the experiment) (and remember, inertial reference frame is one where there's no force being applied to the reference frame).
Alternatively put accelerometers in all 3 directions (i.e., with proper cross products) in multiple spots on the edges: if any of them register anything other than zero, it's not an inertial reference frame.

"Its not an inertial reference frame" is a meaningless sentence in relativity. You have to say that its not an inertial reference frame relative to something. So its not inertial relative to what?

As I have explained to you a multitude of times: relativity does not bar you from learning that your reference frame is non-inertial. An inertial reference frame is one that is not under acceleration; since acceleration is force, and since it's possible to detect force, it's possible to detect if your reference frame is non-inertial.

Are you really claiming that relativity bars you from detecting force? Because that's the only way your above claim can even possibly make sense.

K, then your appeal to Einstein's authority is thoroughly discredited, your ignoring of hackenslash's argument doesn't make the argument go away, everyone else who is reading this knows you failed on that level, even the people not bothering to actually respond..

I made no appeal to atuhority. I simply wanted to make a correction to the false statement that Einstein did away with the aether. Yes, he did, with special relativity, but re introduced it in general relativity right back again.

No, and that's exactly what hackenslash thoroughly debunked, and what you continue to respond to via the "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" method.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Fine - remain ignorant.

But don't try and argue against the evidence provided - because you won't have a leg to stand on.

If you haven't read/watched something, you have no business dismissing its contents summarily.

I want you to explain the so called evidence.

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.

We've already shown you!

Here's a repeat of the last evidence I posted...

I'm not watching the damn video. Explain why its evidence for your position.

See above.

Again, your mendacity knows no bounds!

I posted the relevant text - with highlights - relating to the "tweaking" I mentioned.

Here it is - again! - just for you!

But that is simply not true. Because Einstein re introduced eitehr back in general relativity.

In 1905 A. Einstein banished the ether from physics in connection with the
formulation of his Special Relativity. This fact is very well known but it is almost
unknown that in in 1916 he reintroduced the ether in connection with his General
Relativity. He denominated it ,,new ether" because, in oppposition to the old
one, the new one did not violate his Principle of Relativity. The purpose of this
paper is to present a short outline of the history of Einstein's new concept and to
show which elements of the mathematical formalism of General Relativity were
considered by Einstein as mathematical tools describing the relativistic ether.

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/0KOSTRO.PDF

He brought it back, because without it, his theory would not work. Its invalid with it too, but this made it seem less false. As you can see, the only thing he did is remove the absolute reference frame property from the aether. He made it the same as everything, which means its also a relative reference frame, like any other. But the fact remains that he brought it back.

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."

Again, he says that empty space is not empty. It has properties, thus we need to describe it with something, and that is what he calls the aether. While in special relativity, it was empty. He now understood that its not. That is why he reintroduced the aether in general relativity.

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

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.

I already have - but have repeated it below.

No, you said someone else could do it.

False!

You have shown that you have a "selective-reading disorder" with regard to my posts and those of others here.

Let me repeat it for you - for the third time - in larger letters so you can't miss it:

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

Remember it now?

Utter twaddle!!

Are you seriously saying that someone glancing up at the stars with their eyes is more accurate than someone using a astrolabe or telescope fitted with astrometrical devices? Never mind space missions like Hipparcos!

Have you taken leave of your senses?

Even Tycho Brahe - who's been called the most accurate observational astronomer in the historical development of Western astronomy - was more accurate than this Rowbotham chap in whom you place such store!

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.

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.

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?

I said that the answer is 1,31 * 10^-17 not -8.07. How did you get your number?

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.

Again, quoting from a pseudo-scientist, who - in the same paper - states (in bold letters, no less!):

So you think he is a pseudo-scientist, even though his papers are PR papers in standard scientific journals?

Here's an example.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=45504

But, that's fine. You can call hims a pseudo-scientist if you want. From now on, I will not accept any of your sources, and I will call all scientists that you quote as pseudo-scientists. So, yeah, Einstein is a pseudo-scientist.

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

Again, reading failure!

"Disrespect", in this context, means that you take the consequences of taking chances lightly. If you're not careful, you can be killed by the simplest things in Nature.

And using a inappropriate reference frame is one of these.

Which implies that there is an absolute frame of reference, thus relativity is false.

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?")

How do you think Einstein was able to work out that the speed of light is constant - regardless of the frame-of-reference?

You don't accept Paul Marmet, and claim him to be a pseudo-scientist, thus I can no longer accept Einstein. He is also a pseudo-scientist.

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

In the same way, physicists can do the same for the Sun-Earth system - regardless of the frame-of-reference, having taken into account all the observations, they revolve around their barycentre.

They have to be somewhere. And where they are, is the reference frame they are in. So according to that frame of reference, they come to a specific conclusion.

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

As anyone can see, I gave my explanation - first! - then indicated that AW (or others) could give a more in-depth explanation of it.

That interpretation is wrong since the polarization is uniform. Not everywhere do we have radiation and dust. And it is polarized in such a uniform way that it slightly changes from 0,° where it's the lowest, to 90,°where it's the strongest, and again to 180,°where it's the lowest again.

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

And, even so, all such will be detected - because they'll go against further evidence from observation and experiment. These new data/results will contradict earlier ones from such false papers, thus invalidating the latter.

You saying that they will be detected is a statement of fate. And even if they will be, new false one will keep coming in. So you will always have false articles posing as correct ones.

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

Doesn't change the fact that the train is what's actually moving.

Relative to what?

So, you do believe in relativity after all!

I accept relativity - however, I don't let that blind me to the real world.

The train is what's moving - not the station.

The train is moving is a miningless statement if relativity is true. You have no absolute motion if relativity is true. You have to say that the train is moving relative to something else if you accept relativity.

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.

Because those are the appropriate frames-of-reference.

Use a maritime compass instead - in either scenario - and you'll be unable to navigate, and - thus - die from lack of air, water, food due to going way off-course and becoming "lost in space".

If that is true, then relativity is false, because then we have an absolute frame of reference.

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

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

They are - that's what "all else being equal" means!

The only difference is the number of people competing with each other - one versus a countless number.

All those taking part - both the one and the many - are of the same intelligence, education, and are using the same method.

Just that the one gets a different answer from all the others.

Therefore, the law of averages suggests that the one is wrong rather than the countless many.

Sending radar waves to space is not the same as using trigonometry.

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?

Avoiding answering the question - again!

Your claim is completely wrong.

The planets would pass through the Earth.

Not if they have larger orbits.

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).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

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

His choosing to remain ignorant was made clear long ago. Was there a point explaining it to him for the umpteenth - 1 time? I got bored around the upteenth - 7 time. Others here got bored after the upteenth - 25 time.

intelligence = n; // defined elsewhere.
x=0;
while(x = 0)
{
   read(reply)
   if ((reply = 100_percent_convincing) || (remaining_flawed_counterarguments = 0))
   {
      // intelligence++;       // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      // LearnFrom(reply);     // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      // x++;                  // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      AddUserToIgnore(reply);  // Added to avoid a "'critical_thinking_skills' not found" error.
    }
    else
    {
      System.out.println(flawed_counterargument(reply));
    }
}

 

[MineMineMine]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

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

His choosing to remain ignorant was made clear long ago. Was there a point explaining it to him for the umpteenth - 1 time? I got bored around the upteenth - 7 time. Others here got bored after the upteenth - 25 time.

intelligence = n; // defined elsewhere.
x=0;
while(x == 0)
{
   read(reply)
   if ((reply = 100_percent_convincing) || (remaining_flawed_counterarguments = 0))
   {
      // intelligence++;       // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      // LearnFrom(reply);     // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      // x++;                  // This section commented out. Throws "method 'criticial_thinking_skills' not found" error.
      AddUserToIgnore(reply);  // Added to avoid a "'critical_thinking_skills' not found" error.
    }
    else
    {
      System.out.println(flawed_counterargument(reply));
    }
}

:mrgreen:

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

An inertial reference frame is one that is not under acceleration;

This is a perfectly meaningless statement in context of relativity. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It means as much as saying: ~It is because that...". A completely meaningless statement.

There are no absolute motions if relativity is true. Therefore, an objects can not be said to be moving. And to be moving, you need to apply force. Thus, if you can't say that something is moving, you can't say that you applied force. You can only say that a certain object is moving RELATIVE to another one. Or that a certain object has force applied to it RELATIVE to another one.

since acceleration is force, and since it's possible to detect force, it's possible to detect if your reference frame is non-inertial.

If relativity is true, you can only detect it relative to other objects.

Are you really claiming that relativity bars you from detecting force? Because that's the only way your above claim can even possibly make sense.

No. You can detect forces. But only relative to other objects that have no force applied to them, or force applied in another direction, or less force in the same direction.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Neither is Einstein.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

A statement of faith.

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.

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?

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?

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

Because that's what we are talking about.

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

I certainly wouldn't use it.

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?

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.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

An inertial reference frame is one that is not under acceleration;

This is a perfectly meaningless statement in context of relativity. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. It means as much as saying: ~It is because that...". A completely meaningless statement.

There are no absolute motions if relativity is true. Therefore, an objects can not be said to be moving. And to be moving, you need to apply force. Thus, if you can't say that something is moving, you can't say that you applied force. You can only say that a certain object is moving RELATIVE to another one. Or that a certain object has force applied to it RELATIVE to another one.

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

You have some severe misconceptions about relativity.

since acceleration is force, and since it's possible to detect force, it's possible to detect if your reference frame is non-inertial.

If relativity is true, you can only detect it relative to other objects.

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.

Are you really claiming that relativity bars you from detecting force? Because that's the only way your above claim can even possibly make sense.

No. You can detect forces. But only relative to other objects that have no force applied to them, or force applied in another direction, or less force in the same direction.

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