Aether model of QM.

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

What evidence will you accept?

Anything you got.

Lecture 21: The Rotation & Revolution of the Earth

You continue to claim that the MG experiment detected the aether - it did not. Your linking to the other article is a effort to prove its existence by "proving" that it's the aether that's turning (even though it doesn't explicitly state the word: in effect, if it's not the Earth that's turning, then...)

Then what did it do? The predicted values was the one measured by the experiment. And tuhs the best explanation is that it was detected.

Pulsar (and others) have already explained that it wasn't detected.

Just as the air is the best explanation of things that we observe concerning air.

Yet more prevarication - you contradict yourself with regard to your previous post.

Now, it appears, that you accept that air is the best explanation of things concerning air.

In the same way is this and other experiments best explained by an aether.

As already explained, the aether does not exist because none of the experiments have shown any evidence for it.

That is complete nonsense!

We already have valid explanations for these - with verifiable evidence.

You're claiming that the atmosphere is actually aether? What?! All of it?? The same or different types???

No. I'm saying that air is the best explanation for what goes on in the atmosphere.

Same prevarication/equivocation as above!

Just as the aether is the best explanation for the MG and other similar experiments.

Again, no evidence.

Your claims are false - I know this through empiric observation and experimental evidence, carried out over centuries by lots and lots of people all over the world. Yet you claim that all of these are wrong and your explanation is right?

No, my point is that all those observations were made by people throught their senses you claim are failable. Thus, they are not reliably to give us the ultimate truth.

At no point have I said - or implied - "ultimate truth".

I have indicated that, in order to discern between subjective and objective reality, the Scientific Method is used to test for and verify whether something is (externally) real or not. Science approaches "Truth" like the Newton-Raphson Method - even if we may never actually reach it.

You're equivocating again.

First you refer to it as a "shell" - consistent with a geocentric model - now you claim it isn't a actual "shell", just "empty space" and that it's "at least as big as the observable universe".

So - how big is that??

We don't know that. At least 1000 miles.

"At least 1000 miles".

Really??!!

What arrant nonsense!!

Then you'll get the "white-out" to which I referred earlier!

Prove that it isn't.

And, in case you ask me to do prove that it is, you should be well aware of what Science already says about that.

Prove that an Invisible Pink unicorn does not exist!

Avoiding the question, I see...

And by using the adjective "invisible", what you really mean is "undetectable", which - by definition - negates the ability of anyone to prove its existence or non-existence.

Your original statement was made with the intention of proving your point: that Science and scientists are not to be trusted - they make their results conform to what they want them to show. In effect, there's a conspiracy amongst scientists to fake their research/results.

My statement was a denial of this allegation.

You missed my point by about 10000000000000%.

You can only have anything from 0% up to - and including - 100%: not "10000000000000%".

I simply said that scientists are people, and people are failable, thus they can not by definition tell you the ultimate truth. They can't by definition. I'm not accussing anyone of anything.

And as I've already pointed out - no-one here is talking about "ultimate truth".

Instruments are calibrated prior to experiments - this is the same in any practical field, such as computer maintenance (electrical testing equipment is checked to ensure that it's working prior to a engineer using it - I know, I've worked in the industry).

It doesn't matter how good you check it, there is always a chance you will miss something.

...so there's no point in trying...

We cross-check everything we can - after that, we have to accept that we can't be "absolutely, 100%" certain: but we can go forward and live our lives and make progress.

We all know that. You speak as if nothing can be trusted - ever - under any circumstances.

It depends on what you need. If you need ultimate truth, then no. If you simply want descriptions of of how nature works, then yes.

No - we go one step further: we identify which descriptions match the observable workings of Nature. Those that don't are discarded.

If that's the case, then no-one would be able to make any statements about life, the universe or anything - yet, that doesn't stop you from making all sorts of claims which fly in the face of human history and science.

But I'm not claiming that my statements are the ultimate truth. I'm simply sayign that they are descriptions of how nature works.

But not descriptions which match Nature's workings - merely hypotheses. And yours has been discarded through centuries of observation and experiment (space travel, to name but one type).

The probability of one person being wrong is 0.5.

The probability of a thousand people being wrong is (0.5)^1000.

Now, what's the probability of millions upon millions of people - all over the world, throughout human history - who've made observations, which are reviewed by others; who carry out experiments, whose results are verified through further experiments - making a mistake?

Yup, and philosophically that still means that a mistake can happen.

"Philosophically" anything can happen!

In reality, that isn't the case.

We use the Scientific Method to reduce the likelihood of error as much as possible. And on that basis we make progress to more a accurate understanding of how Nature works.

I have the weight of numbers on my side.

What numbers?

History.

If the mission planners had used a geocentric model - any model - they would have been lost. Claiming that "we just need more time to correct our model" would be pointless.

You don't get it, the Tychonic model is as precise as the Copernican today. And simply claiming that it does not work is meaningless.

It is not "as precise as the Copernican today".

The helicentric model is a closer match to the reality of how the Solar System is arranged.

Only on Earth or near-Earth - not out in the big, wide solar system.

Why not?

Geocentric model

"A geocentric frame is useful for many everyday activities and most laboratory experiments, but is a less appropriate choice for solar-system mechanics and space travel. While a heliocentric frame is most useful in those cases, galactic and extra-galactic astronomy is easier if the sun is treated as neither stationary nor the center of the universe, but rotating around the center of our galaxy, and in turn our galaxy is also not at rest in the cosmic background.^

Basically, tracking satellites or finding the RA/Dec of stars is easier using the geocentric model - however, to change the trajectory of spacecraft in the gravitational field of the Sun, it's more appropriate to use the heliocentric model.

If we ever travel to the stars, we'd use a galactic-centred model - the other two would simply result in our getting hopelessly lost (you'd no longer be able to detect the Earth - or, even, the Sun).

Consider...

How could we prove categorically which body orbits which (we'll assume here that we're including barycentres)?

One way would be if we could observe the Solar System from a vantage point above/below it - from where we could observe the Sun-Earth "dance".

That's what the Ulysses Mission has been doing for nigh on 20 years.

The stars aren't "smaller" - as the measurements from a number of different methods have shown.

But this measurement has been produced based on the assumption that its teh Earth that is orbiting the Sun.

It's not an assumption - the evidence indicates that it does.

You appear to believe that all people are morons - and that there is no point in having more people cross-check observations or experimental results - because the human race is a race of morons, therefore, there's no point in even trying.

No, I'm just saying that people are failable.

Which is why we use the Scientific Method to mitigate that possibility.

Which is why Science is based on lots and lots of people making the same observations, doing the same experiments, collating/analysing/synthesizing the results and cross-checking those results through peer-review.

I did not claim that it needed to be improved, I'm pointing out that it wasn't a case of people accepting it without question.

If you don't need to improve it, then you claim that you have the ultimate truth. Do you really think you do? How would you know you do?

Again, you have this obsession with "ultimate truth". No-one is expecting to gain "ultimate truth" in everything.

Can you improve the Scientific Method? Without adding unnecessary steps?

The Scientific Method is the simplest it can be without people ending up becoming paranoid and cross-checking everything ad infinitum.

It works like the Newton-Raphson Method.

Your point being?

What does the Newton-Raphson Method do? How does it do that?

That is the fault of the individual - not the Scientific Method.

Peer-review is meant to catch that failure - it may not always work, but it does act as a safety-net to prevent bad science from occurring.

I don't care whose fault is it! The scientific method is not working itself! Its the people who are using it! And they are failable!

So you keep repeating...

Only through the Scientific Method can we make steady but certain progress.

There's nothing else that'll allow us to progress.

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

It uses peer review, that's my point.

Prevarication.

That was not what you implied - nor intended.

As I, and others, have already pointed out, it had nothing to do with the Scientific Method - nor peer-review related to scientific theories or experimental results.

It was a lack of objective peer-review in the Humanities at that university.

There is a vast difference between arguing philosophical points and scientific ones - the latter must pass muster through observation and experiment; that is the litmus test for Science.

Arguing about philosophical matters, like "Virtue" or whether God exists or not is undecidable - like the undetectable Pink Unicorn. It's just one person's viewpoint versus another's, with no means of testing it objectively.

Unlike Science.

The peer-review process for Science papers is not at all the same as those for the Humanities!

Its the same thing.

As I've just pointed out, it's not!

But less likely so!

Less likely still means failable.

You're still obsessing about this - something to which borrofburi alluded earlier: The Relativity of Wrong.

It gives us models which work better than others - over time - and the less-workable and/or invalid models are discarded.

True,

Thank you for agreeing with me...

and this process still does not give you the truth.

Which I've never claimed it to do - not "the truth", just "a better truth"

As I've already pointed out.

Just better and better models.

As I've already implied - the Newton-Raphson Method.

Like geocentricism.

Its still in use as I provided evidence for earlier. The ECI and ECEF reference frames are geocentric.

But not when you leave the Earth.

You have dismissed the Scientific Method, Science and Mathematics as "failable" [sic]

Which they are. But that does not mean I do not accept them.

And yet you've been trying to prove that Science is wrong about physics here (the aether, heliocentrism, etc) - and biology (evolution) in the other thread...

If you have no trust in these to discern objective reality from subjective illusion, how can you expect to find out what's true?

I don't!

Then, you can't make any sort of progress.

Models (hypotheses/theories) are tested against the real world through experiment - if they fail that test, they are discarded for those models that reflect the real world. That are workable - which can be used to make predictions about what one will find before one tests it against the real world, again.

And what you got with that process is still an incomplete model. Thus NOT the truth.

Still obsessed!!

You appear to suffer from what's called "Man's need for certainty in a uncertain world".

Life - Nature - is not a zero-sum game, it's not "all-or-nothing".

Yes - it may not give you ABSOLUTE truth - but it gives a more accurate RELATIVE truth than previous models.

Yes, precisely my point. It does not give you absolute truth. And this relative truth of yours is still not any colser to real truth, since you don't know what the truth is,s o you don't know how close you are to the real truth.

The fact that a relative truth works in "the real world" is better than something which doesn't - and the fact that it does work is a fair indication that we're, at least, half-way there.

Hence, why Science uses the heliocentric model, rather than either of the other two.

This is simply not true. ECI and ECEF are geocentric models.

Geocentric - but not used off-Earth, as I've explained above.

No, it doesn't!

The heliocentric model has the planets going round the Sun - the Tychonic model has the Sun and the other planets going round the Earth. With circular orbits.

Wrong. The planets are going around the Sun too!

Not all of them do so in the geocentric model!!

Aristarchus On the Sizes and Distances [of the Sun and Moon]

This article doesn't give out any numbers on how exactly far the Moon and the Sun are.

It gives distances in terms of Earth and Moon radii - there's a table towards the end comparing the reconstructed and modern values. You should already know what these are.

It does - all observable evidence, from astronomical observations and probe/satellite mission data confirms this.

Show me one evidence.

We've shown you throughout - but see the Ulysses Mission above.

The mission data is - along with the fact that the probes arrive at their destination safely based on the heliocentric model.

That doesn't meant that they couldn't do teh same with the geocentric model.

As explained earlier, they wouldn't - due to the mechanics of the Solar System: predominantly, the Sun's gravitational field.

Because the heliocentric model had accounted for them - by virtue of it working! Unlike the geocentric one.

What exactly didn't the geocentric model do?

Not account for them!!

He based it on the assumption of a flat Earth - hence, he only took a 400 mile baseline.

If he'd based it on a spherical Earth, he'd have realized he had to take into account the proper value of the Earth's radius - and he'd have gotten a far more accurate result!

Well I did it for him.

The left part of the picture shows you the Earth. From the top to the bottom is the distance half of the equator which is 24,860 miles, so the half distance is 12,430. Thus 90,°is then a quarter, which is 6,215 miles. And thus, to make it short, we get to 400 miles distance that Rowbotham used. From the top of teh Earth, which is 0, to 400 miles is about 6,°. So to get the better approximation for a spherical Earth we need to add 6,°to Rowbotham's measurements.

Now on to the right side of the picture. The original Rowbotham's measurement had this same picutre, which had the distance to the Sun split up in 14 equal parts. Which are the same as 400 miles. If we now rotate the observed right line of light to the right for 6,°, we get the height of the sun at 18,6 parts. Which equals 531 miles.

Thus, according to Rowbotham's method, the Sun is about 531 miles above the Earth.

The problem here, as I've pointed out, is his assumption about the Earth being flat.

Given that the Earth is, in fact, round (an oblate sphere, to be precise), not only is his calculation wrong - but the manner in which he applied the formula.

There are other problems with his approach:

He assumes that the Bedford Levels were ... level - even though he states that there was a flow of water, which indicates that they're not.

He was looking "up-slope", which would add to the "height" of the horizon.

Worst of all, he seems to have been unaware of Aristarchus' attempt to measure the distance of the Earth from the Sun - Aristarchus was unable to measure the angle the Sun made (it's virtually 90 degress) which would have given Rowbottham some idea of how far wrong he was!

We do know - shining them through media tends to affect them, From which, you can deduce what effects the media are having and correct for that.

This is what's done with the "twinkling" effect of starlight passing through the atmosphere and detected by telescopes - astronomers correct for this to get a clearer image of the star.

Okay,

Again, thank you for agreeing with me...

but you don't know what else could affect those measurements.

Still obsessing!!

Where did I say this??

It is you who has been claiming this throughout my discussion with you!!

You said that people are failable right?

Actually, you're the one who's been banging on about people, Science, the Scientific Method, Mathematics, etc, being "failable" sic.

All I said was that the Scientific Method is used to discern whether a observed phenomenon was in our head or external to us - to ensure that errors weren't made in observation or experimental results.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Actually I made a mistake, its 930 miles.

14x = 700
18,6x = 930

I typed in 400 instead of 700.

Anyway, according to Rowbotham the Sun is at 930 miles from Earth

Actually I must admit that even if we take into account curvature the change is minimal. It's not 700 miles but instead 50 miles between his measurements, so yes, according to Rowbotham's measurements the Sun is around 700 miles from the Earth.

BUT,

please consider the evidence stacked against him. First I'll get my own speculation out of the way:
Rowbotham's measurements are nowhere near as accurate as today's standards since his instrument was a graduated arc. And, a quick scan of Google Earth shows his two points were not directly parallel to each other north-south wise.

But let's ignore my speculations since I nor anyone else has knowledge of how exactly he carried out his experiment, nor the amount of human error.

So let's consider the evidence against it. I've already made mention of the fact that telemetry from satellites tell us they orbit much further out than 700 miles, especially those that we position between the Earth and the Sun. Second, we can measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon using lasers, which tells us the Moon is about 238,897 miles away from us. This would mean that the Moon is further out from us than the Sun according to Rowbotham's measurements. But if that's the case, how would you explain solar eclipses when the Moon passes in front of the Sun?

Second, we can use Venus to measure the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Here's a diagram:



Using greatest elongation, the Venus-Earth-Sun angle, and the distance from Venus to Earth using radio waves, all of which we can observe, we find the distance to be about 93 million miles.

Then, according to geometry, if the Sun was really about 700 miles away it would only be about 12.22 miles in diameter (double 700 miles multiplied by the tangent of 0.5 degrees, the angle subtended by the Sun). If the diameter of the Earth were about 7926.28 miles, this would mean the Earth is a little less than 649 times bigger than the Sun. So let's draw a scale model:



And to be honest, if this were truly to scale you couldn't even see the Sun; Since if the Earth were 649 pixels wide the Sun would only be 1 pixel. I had to draw it much bigger than it actually would be. The distance is to scale, if you don't believe me feel free to draw your own model. Mine is constructed in such a way that about 34 pixels is 700 miles. As you can see, only the areas in yellow would receive any sunlight at any given time. That means that, in the summer for the northern hemisphere the southern hemisphere would be completely dark for 6 months of the year! This most certainly does not conform with observation.

So is it rational to reject multiple, independent observations and geometry that all tell us Rowbotham is wrong?

Interesting diagram, beefpatty!

But let's look at the first one - which diagrams the "sin 45" evidence I provided in a previous post...

Царь Славян, let's also take your "corrected" value of "930 miles" and round it up for ease of calculation...

So, 1000 miles for the distance to the Sun.

This means that Venus is passing-by at 300 or so miles above us.

But what about the rest of the planets, which are supposedly going round the Sun - which is supposedly going round the Earth??

In the above diagram, the Sun-Venus-Earth angle is 90 degrees.

But for the outer planets, the right-angle is the Sun-Earth-OP one - where, in all cases, the hypotenuse is the relevant ratio of the OP/Earth distance. [I'm astonished no-one picked-up on this after my earlier post!]

As these range from 1.5 (for Mars) to ~40 (Pluto), that means that Mars would be passing through the Earth - just to mention one minor problem with this scenario.....

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян, please address my point about the minimum mass a star needs to have sustainable nuclear fusion. If you do not respond to me, I will assume that you have no counter argument and actually have changed your point and do not believe that the sun is 700 miles from the Earth but rather the distance currently accepted by science. I await a response.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

I'd just like to add the following Seth Shostak article against MOND.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян, please address my point about the minimum mass a star needs to have sustainable nuclear fusion. If you do not respond to me, I will assume that you have no counter argument and actually have changed your point and do not believe that the sun is 700 miles from the Earth but rather the distance currently accepted by science. I await a response.

I wonder if he has you on ignore...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Is there a way of telling (by looking at your own Profile)?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[australopithecus]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I wonder if he has you on ignore...

He does.

 

[Darkchilde]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Is there anyone who is not a moderator that is still not ignored by Czar? Is this the way to conduct a rational discussion?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Is there anyone who is not a moderator that is still not ignored by Czar? Is this the way to conduct a rational discussion?

Me!?

Well,.someone has to...if only for those who can't.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

So you are now claiming that the earth's atmosphere is refractive enough to bend light along a 180 degree arc, but only when you are not looking at the sky and seeing individual stars.

You don't need an 180,° degree bend.

So, instead are claiming that an altimeter is the only method able to measure distance, because that distance happens to be in a direction away from the earth.? Again, altimeters are not as accurate as other methods of measurement, even when altitude is concerned.

Okay, what else do you got?

And that is why you fail at math, sir.

Why exactly?

A: the sun is the most massive body in the solar system

No, does not follow. The Sun does not have to be the largest object in our system.

B: Accurate measurements of distance in space are possible, to the extent that a distance anomaly as small as the pioneer anomaly can be detected using things as remedial as radio timing, and the doppler effect.

No, does not follow. I said that The Pioneer Anomaly shows that there are problems with the calculations of how gravity works on larger distances. That does not mean that our measurements of distant objects is accurate.

C: Pioneer's course was plotted using a heliocentric frame of reference, and you are acknowledging that the spacecraft was roughly where it should have been (around 4.2 million km from the sun) give or take a few thousand km using a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits. If the nature of the solar system were tychosian, the spacecraft would have never encountered its destinations.

No, nothing of this follw at all. I'm not saying that it was there. I'm saying that where scientists think it was, does not square with scientists though it should be.

Basically, by invoking the pioneer anomaly you have ceded your stance by invalidating each and every single part of it. Thanks, it only took me two posts!

Only if you accept a non sequitur as an argument.

I know the distance that picture was taken from. Everybody else here does. You do not.
That is largely irrelevant though.
Let's say we didn't know the distance that picture was taken from ( which is patently impossible, considering that if we didn't already know the distance, that picture would have been taken by a trio of floating corpses, or through a telescope of a miniscule crater in the moon ) You already acknowledge that the earth is an oblate spheroid with a diameter of roughly 12,000km. Please explain how far away from an oblate spheroid of 12,000km one has to be to take a photograph that comprises said spheroid in just a few arc minutes.

I have no idea. I never claimed that I do. But you still don't know from where that picture was taken from.

This is a photograph, taken by a camera on this probe.

Yes, and that probe, like any other, produces CGI.

Since you posit that it is CGI, please provide evidence of the conspiracy that involves the tens of thousands of people involved with the construction, launch, and maintenance of the probe in this photograph.

There is no conspiracy. The fact that you don't know how pictures from probes are taken is not my problem.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/503/1/L89/fulltext

This article explains how Hubble telescope takes pictures with a WFPC2-type camera. This camera takes in all kinds of waves in, and using a computer produces planets, galaxies, stars etc. Basicly it produces what shuld be there according to scientists, based on the waves, that is, signals that the probe receives from outer space. Note the keyword MKOBJECTS used in the article. And now take a look at this article here.

http://stsdas.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/gethelp.cgi?mkobjects

The article explains what the MKOBJECTS command is. Its a command for creating and inserting artifical 2D stars and galaxies on the image.

Therefore, this is CGI.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Parallel so that they are both in the same plane as the Sun at noon, but change would be negligible, certainly not enough to go from 700 miles to millions of miles.

Good, we agree on that.

Different from what calculations?

Halley's method and Delisle's method compared to the radar.

You are comparing distances given by two methods. One uses Venus, the other Mars. Are you claiming a discrepancy of less than 2% means using radar is useless in space? It is certainly not in the range of 700 miles, which would almost be a 100% discrepancy. In fact, the result from the Mars observation has an error of plus or minus 9.0 million miles, which well covers the Venus measurement. And you still have the problem of the Mars parallax giving a value of 94.2 million miles, nowhere near 700 miles. Also, if you look at the other measurements earlier astronomers made using Venus, they all agree very well with the radar method, even though they do not use radar.

Please look at teh picture on the original site. The measurements vary greatly. What was takes is the mean value of all measurements.

http://www.transitofvenus.nl/parallax.html

You also have to understand that the Method Rowbotham used is,a s you say clearly incompatible with this one. But let me ask you then, which one should we trust? Which one gives better approximation? Maybe they are both untrustworthy?

Radar uses lasers? Even though radar and lasers are electromagnetic radiation they behave very differently. How do you make the jump that "radars do not work in space (which they do) therefor lasers do not work in space" ? And again, we're not talking about error bars that include anything from 700 to 90 million miles, it's a discrepancy of less than 2%.

Radar is a wave, light is a wave.

At most light from the Sun is bent by 34 arcminutes when it is close to the horizon. So if you are at that tangent point where the Sun's ray touches the Earth, you can just see the Sun when it in reality has already set, but further east or west (and in this model both north and south) and you get nothing. And if it did somehow manage to defy physics and bend all the way to where we would expect to see it if the Sun were indeed 90 million miles away, you would only see a squished Sun. And it wouldn't just be light, it would be very red light since that light has to go through all that atmosphere and only the longest wavelengths do not get absorbed i.e. red. This is the same affect you see when the sky gets a reddish color at dusk/dawn.

That, and we also have gravitational lensing. Which would also mean that gravity would bend light towards Earth.

Except, if you admit the generalization is relevant on our solar system, I can (and have) shown you that the Sun is about 90 million miles away.

Yeah, let's use the generalization for the Solar system. How does that show that sun is 90 million miles fromt he Earth?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I love how you asserted for several pages that the sagnac experiment invalidates relativity because the same "beam" of light arrives earlier no matter which way the device is spun. Now you assert that since it does matter which way it spins, relativity is wrong... So I take it this is an admission that your earlier point, the "no matter which way it spins" point, is wrong?

No, it still stands. What I'm saying is that if we can't detect which way we spin the device, and there are no differences in travel time, then relativity is correct. It comes from the name itself, RELATIVITY, thus RELATIVE velocity of light.

Ok fine, then why would I take blind faith over well checked well reviewed data by a method that is designed solely to understand and model reality?

Who said you should? My stance is that we simply don't know the truth, and that's that. I'm not claiming that any religion knows the truth. Nor does science. Neitehr can it in principle, because it always gives incomplete answeres. Science is best used to model the way nature works.

Err, no... It means we see that our reference frame is non-inertial. Nothing in relativity precludes us from being able to realize that our reference frame is non-inertial. Indeed the extension from special relativity to general relativity is all about the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames.

But that presupposes an absolute reference frame that tells us what is inertial and what's not. If you don't agree, then I could just as well say that it's the other frame that is non-inertial, and not ours.

What is this "absolute motion" you keep talking about?

Motion relative to the absolute reference frame.

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

And I guess basic trigonometry just... isn't possible ... ?

Of course it is!

You're so mathematically illiterate it hurts to read your posts. There's doppler measurements, there's radar, you know, velocity can easily be found as the change in distance per unit time. And distance isn't hard to measure in space either. But we've been through that.

Read my previous posts. I explained why sending waves into outer space does not work well.

While it's not a consensus, the best explanation is that the probe's RTG is providing it with some thrust (photons bouncing off the dish or something like that) that wasn't modeled into their estimates of it's expected location from way back when. Even so, that's two spacecrafts. There's thousands more.

I don't know why its happening. But it is. Let's leave it at that for now.

It's a long-exposure image from the Cassini spacecraft. It's objective was to study the rings by seeing them illuminated from behind. This image led to the discovery some previously unknown structure in the rings. Do you always make such baseless, dismissive claims of anything that contradicts your beliefs?

What exactly did I dismiss?

 

[Царь Славян]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Lecture 21: The Rotation & Revolution of the Earth

The only evidence for the rotation of the Earth I found in this article was: The Coriolis effect, and the Parallax.

And I explained bot already. I explained Parallax way back, and I explained the Coriolis effect with the rotating universe and Mach's principle few posts ago.

Pulsar (and others) have already explained that it wasn't detected.

And they were WRONG. I want your explanation.

Here you go, from teh article itself. The experiment was done based on the idea of the aether. It says so right there. And guess what, the measured velocity was the one that was predicted. So the aether was detected.

Now, it appears, that you accept that air is the best explanation of things concerning air.

I NEVER SAID IT WASNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm trying to explain to you that your refusal to accept the evidence for the aether is the same as someones refusal to accept air as the best explanation for the observations we make! The notion of air is the best explanation for certain observations. Just as the aetehr is the best explanation for others, including the MG experiment.

As already explained, the aether does not exist because none of the experiments have shown any evidence for it.

Okay. What was the MG experiment supposed to measure, and what did it measure. If it did not detect the aethr, then explain why. Why are the measurements of the MG experiment according to you, not indicative of an aether?

At no point have I said - or implied - "ultimate truth".

I have indicated that, in order to discern between subjective and objective reality, the Scientific Method is used to test for and verify whether something is (externally) real or not. Science approaches "Truth" like the Newton-Raphson Method - even if we may never actually reach it.

What do you mean by objective reality?

"At least 1000 miles".

Really??!!

What arrant nonsense!!

Then you'll get the "white-out" to which I referred earlier!

First of all, that is what the method all of you proposed is teh one that can show us the distance to the Sun. I'm just showing you the results.

Second, as I said already, if the stars are smaller and don't shine as bright as you think they do, then we won't have a white-out.

Avoiding the question, I see...

And by using the adjective "invisible", what you really mean is "undetectable", which - by definition - negates the ability of anyone to prove its existence or non-existence.

My point is that I don't have to prove you wrong.

You can only have anything from 0% up to - and including - 100%: not "10000000000000%".

Well congratulations you just made the impossible.

And as I've already pointed out - no-one here is talking about "ultimate truth".

Then don't use the word truth.

...so there's no point in trying...

We cross-check everything we can - after that, we have to accept that we can't be "absolutely, 100%" certain: but we can go forward and live our lives and make progress.

If you simply want progress then yes, you can do it, and there is a point to it. But don't expect to reach the truth.

No - we go one step further: we identify which descriptions match the observable workings of Nature. Those that don't are discarded.

Which again, doesn't lead you to the truth. Because all observations are made through our senses. And everything we actually observe, by definition is inside our mind. Thus the world around us, is simply inside our mind. You never actually came in the contact with the real world, only with what your senses tell you is the real world. Which means, that the real world, could be something totally different, than what your senses tell you.

But not descriptions which match Nature's workings - merely hypotheses. And yours has been discarded through centuries of observation and experiment (space travel, to name but one type).

Space travel proves nothing. Please stop mentioning it.

"Philosophically" anything can happen!

In reality, that isn't the case.

We use the Scientific Method to reduce the likelihood of error as much as possible. And on that basis we make progress to more a accurate understanding of how Nature works.

You don't know what reality is like. The only thing you ever came in contact is is what your mind told you what reality is.

History.

Please be more specific.

It is not "as precise as the Copernican today".

The helicentric model is a closer match to the reality of how the Solar System is arranged.

They are identical! The only difference is in the reference frame!

If we ever travel to the stars, we'd use a galactic-centred model - the other two would simply result in our getting hopelessly lost (you'd no longer be able to detect the Earth - or, even, the Sun).

Why would we get lost?

One way would be if we could observe the Solar System from a vantage point above/below it - from where we could observe the Sun-Earth "dance".

Not really. What if the Earth is motionless, and your vantage point is revolving around the Earth. Then you would see Earth rotating, even though it was stationary.

It's not an assumption - the evidence indicates that it does.

What evidence?

Which is why we use the Scientific Method to mitigate that possibility.

Which is why Science is based on lots and lots of people making the same observations, doing the same experiments, collating/analysing/synthesizing the results and cross-checking those results through peer-review.

Well yes, I said that this is good if you want a workable model of nature, but not truth.

Again, you have this obsession with "ultimate truth". No-one is expecting to gain "ultimate truth" in everything.

Can you improve the Scientific Method? Without adding unnecessary steps?

The Scientific Method is the simplest it can be without people ending up becoming paranoid and cross-checking everything ad infinitum.

Just because I can't improve it, doesn't mean it can't be.

What does the Newton-Raphson Method do? How does it do that?

A method for finding roots. Works by an iterative process, and constantly gives better and better approximations.

So you keep repeating...

Only through the Scientific Method can we make steady but certain progress.

There's nothing else that'll allow us to progress.

And I'm all up for progress. I'm just saying that this is not how you get to truth.

Prevarication.

That was not what you implied - nor intended.

As I, and others, have already pointed out, it had nothing to do with the Scientific Method - nor peer-review related to scientific theories or experimental results.

It was a lack of objective peer-review in the Humanities at that university.

There is a vast difference between arguing philosophical points and scientific ones - the latter must pass muster through observation and experiment; that is the litmus test for Science.

Arguing about philosophical matters, like "Virtue" or whether God exists or not is undecidable - like the undetectable Pink Unicorn. It's just one person's viewpoint versus another's, with no means of testing it objectively.

Unlike Science.

My point is that this double-checking process is still failable. Your point is that its not. And when it fails you blame the people or claim that it wasn't actually used. Now, that's unfalsifiable.

As I've just pointed out, it's not!

And what is this supposed to be?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html

Which I've never claimed it to do - not "the truth", just "a better truth"

As I've already pointed out.

No, you shouldn't use the word truth at all. Because it implies that you know something that does not need to be changed. Which I think you willa gree, is not true.

But not when you leave the Earth.

Yes, but there is no reason why you couldn't still use it.

nd yet you've been trying to prove that Science is wrong about physics here (the aether, heliocentrism, etc) - and biology (evolution) in the other thread...

Science is about showing that theories are inadequate, and we need to replace them with others.

Then, you can't make any sort of progress.

Yes you can. You can still make models of nature that are not true, but work well for describing how nature works.

Still obsessed!!

You appear to suffer from what's called "Man's need for certainty in a uncertain world".

Life - Nature - is not a zero-sum game, it's not "all-or-nothing".

I'm not obsessed. I'm simply saying that we do not know the truth.

The fact that a relative truth works in "the real world" is better than something which doesn't - and the fact that it does work is a fair indication that we're, at least, half-way there.

How can you measure how far you have to get to the truth, when its obvious you don't know where it is?

Geocentric - but not used off-Earth, as I've explained above.

The fact, that its not used does not imply that it can't be used.

Not all of them do so in the geocentric model!!

LOL! Yes they do!

It gives distances in terms of Earth and Moon radii - there's a table towards the end comparing the reconstructed and modern values. You should already know what these are.

And how were those distances measured?

We've shown you throughout - but see the Ulysses Mission above.

Look, saying that heliocentric model is used over the geocentric one for space flight, does not mean that geocentric could not be used in principle. That's a non sequitur.

As explained earlier, they wouldn't - due to the mechanics of the Solar System: predominantly, the Sun's gravitational field.

No, the size of the Sun is identical in the relativistic geocentric model. The one that does not use the aether, the Sun could be smaller.

Not account for them!!

Show me what exactly did it not account for.

The problem here, as I've pointed out, is his assumption about the Earth being flat.

Given that the Earth is, in fact, round (an oblate sphere, to be precise), not only is his calculation wrong - but the manner in which he applied the formula.

I know. And that is what I corrected. I made the correction so it would give us the result that Rowbotham would get if he assumed a round Earth.

He assumes that the Bedford Levels were ... level - even though he states that there was a flow of water, which indicates that they're not.

He was looking "up-slope", which would add to the "height" of the horizon.

Which would be an irrelevant objection, because the angle would be unbelieveabely small.

Worst of all, he seems to have been unaware of Aristarchus' attempt to measure the distance of the Earth from the Sun - Aristarchus was unable to measure the angle the Sun made (it's virtually 90 degress) which would have given Rowbottham some idea of how far wrong he was!

That just goes to show that ALL OF YOU were wrong. ALL OF YOU claimed that this method works, not me. I have just shown you what results you get when you do use it. Now live with it.

All I said was that the Scientific Method is used to discern whether a observed phenomenon was in our head or external to us - to ensure that errors weren't made in observation or experimental results.

Nope, science can't do that. Since all you ever observed is the world inside your mind. All you ever observed were teh electric impulses created by your brain. And the question is, how do you know that they corespond to what is outside the brain?

As these range from 1.5 (for Mars) to ~40 (Pluto), that means that Mars would be passing through the Earth - just to mention one minor problem with this scenario.....

Or you could just have larger orbits? Ever thought of that?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

f you simply want progress then yes, you can do it, and there is a point to it. But don't expect to reach the truth.

I see an apple in front of me, lying on the table. I grab it, feel it. I hit the table with it. I smell it. Then I take a bite. Two bites. I taste the apple. I eat it 'till it's just the core. At this point I've "felt" the apple with all of my 5 senses.

Now am 100% sure that the apple exists, in reality? No. But I must move on assuming, with great certainty, that the apple existed, and that now I've got more energy, nutrients and vitamins. That is how we live. We MUST make assumptions, otherwise we're stuck, thinking of all the possibilities, which is useless.

So you can keep wondering and not progressing. Just keep it to yourself, and let the rest 99% of the world population make progress.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

I love how you asserted for several pages that the sagnac experiment invalidates relativity because the same "beam" of light arrives earlier no matter which way the device is spun. Now you assert that since it does matter which way it spins, relativity is wrong... So I take it this is an admission that your earlier point, the "no matter which way it spins" point, is wrong?

No, it still stands. What I'm saying is that if we can't detect which way we spin the device, and there are no differences in travel time, then relativity is correct. It comes from the name itself, RELATIVITY, thus RELATIVE velocity of light.

If there were no differences in arrival time of the different paths then relativity would be incorrect; I think if there were no differences then newton would be right (because you expect the angular momentum of the system to "push" one "beam" of light faster, and impede the other, but I'm not sure if that cancels out the change in distance or not).

Relativity is not the best named model: relativity is all about how the velocity of light in a vacuum is constant (i.e., the velocity of light never exceeds the constant known as "the speed of light"). That you think it's about velocity of light being relative to your reference frame only indicates great ignorance of the model.

Moreover, as I've pointed out many times now, Pulsar has given a paper that takes the basic model of relativity and applies them to this system to find out what relativity predicts will happen; what we actually observe happening is exactly what the relativistic model predicts. Since the model and the actual observation coincide, this experiment does not and can not invalidate relativity.

Ok fine, then why would I take blind faith over well checked well reviewed data by a method that is designed solely to understand and model reality?

Who said you should? My stance is that we simply don't know the truth, and that's that. I'm not claiming that any religion knows the truth. Nor does science. Neitehr can it in principle, because it always gives incomplete answeres. Science is best used to model the way nature works.

Ok... So what? Do you submit that saying the earth is flat is just as wrong as saying that the earth is an oblate spheroid?

Err, no... It means we see that our reference frame is non-inertial. Nothing in relativity precludes us from being able to realize that our reference frame is non-inertial. Indeed the extension from special relativity to general relativity is all about the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames.

But that presupposes an absolute reference frame that tells us what is inertial and what's not. If you don't agree, then I could just as well say that it's the other frame that is non-inertial, and not ours.

Err... I don't know what you mean by absolute reference frame (see below). But an inertial reference frame is defined as one that does not have an acceleration, and there are experiments that we can do that will have different results in the presence of acceleration (the sagnac experiment is one of those) allowing us to tell if a reference frame is inertial or not (within the sensitivity of our experiment/measurements).

What is this "absolute motion" you keep talking about?

Motion relative to the absolute reference frame.

Please define "absolute reference frame".

 

[Memeticemetic]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Radar uses lasers? Even though radar and lasers are electromagnetic radiation they behave very differently. How do you make the jump that "radars do not work in space (which they do) therefor lasers do not work in space" ? And again, we're not talking about error bars that include anything from 700 to 90 million miles, it's a discrepancy of less than 2%.

Radar is a wave, light is a wave.

This is a wave:

So is this:

Not to mention:

Does radar use these as well?

 

[scalyblue]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

So you are now claiming that the earth's atmosphere is refractive enough to bend light along a 180 degree arc, but only when you are not looking at the sky and seeing individual stars.

You don't need an 180,° degree bend.

So, instead are claiming that an altimeter is the only method able to measure distance, because that distance happens to be in a direction away from the earth.? Again, altimeters are not as accurate as other methods of measurement, even when altitude is concerned.

Okay, what else do you got?

And that is why you fail at math, sir.

Why exactly?
Why don't you tell me? You are the one trying to say that 30 satellites orbiting an oblate spheroid with a diameter of 24,000km at an altitude of under 1000km can simultaneously give at least 4, mostly 7 line of sight signals to every point on the surface of the globe. Tell me how that works, hon

A: the sun is the most massive body in the solar system

No, does not follow. The Sun does not have to be the largest object in our system.
Largest /= most massive. However, the sun is both the largest and the most massive body in the solar system.

B: Accurate measurements of distance in space are possible, to the extent that a distance anomaly as small as the pioneer anomaly can be detected using things as remedial as radio timing, and the doppler effect.

No, does not follow. I said that The Pioneer Anomaly shows that there are problems with the calculations of how gravity works on larger distances. That does not mean that our measurements of distant objects is accurate.

You can't say that the accuracy of measurement indicates that the pioneer anomaly is, indeed, an anomaly while at the same time questioning that same accuracy. One stance contraindicates the other.

C: Pioneer's course was plotted using a heliocentric frame of reference, and you are acknowledging that the spacecraft was roughly where it should have been (around 4.2 million km from the sun) give or take a few thousand km using a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits. If the nature of the solar system were tychosian, the spacecraft would have never encountered its destinations.

No, nothing of this follw at all. I'm not saying that it was there. I'm saying that where scientists think it was, does not square with scientists though it should be.

By a margin of a few thousand km, over millions of km. That is a discrepancy of roughly 0.2 percent, which is not sufficient to substantiate your claims.

Basically, by invoking the pioneer anomaly you have ceded your stance by invalidating each and every single part of it. Thanks, it only took me two posts!

Only if you accept a non sequitur as an argument. Why not? You invoke logical fallacy like it's the new style of breathing.

I know the distance that picture was taken from. Everybody else here does. You do not.
That is largely irrelevant though.
Let's say we didn't know the distance that picture was taken from ( which is patently impossible, considering that if we didn't already know the distance, that picture would have been taken by a trio of floating corpses, or through a telescope of a miniscule crater in the moon ) You already acknowledge that the earth is an oblate spheroid with a diameter of roughly 12,000km. Please explain how far away from an oblate spheroid of 12,000km one has to be to take a photograph that comprises said spheroid in just a few arc minutes.

I have no idea. I never claimed that I do. But you still don't know from where that picture was taken from.
If you have no idea, how can you tell me that I don't know? Do you see the problem here? You claim you have no idea, but you still claim enough knowledge to take a contrary stance, even though you claim to know anything.

Please explain how far away from an oblate spheroid of 12,000km one MUST be to take a photograph that comprises said spheroid in just a few arc minutes.

This is a photograph, taken by a camera on this probe.

Yes, and that probe, like any other, produces CGI.
Digital photography /= CGI. If you don't realize this, then you should just shut off your computer and hold your breath until you pass out.

Since you posit that it is CGI, please provide evidence of the conspiracy that involves the tens of thousands of people involved with the construction, launch, and maintenance of the probe in this photograph.

There is no conspiracy. The fact that you don't know how pictures from probes are taken is not my problem.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/503/1/L89/fulltext

This article explains how Hubble telescope takes pictures with a WFPC2-type camera. This camera takes in all kinds of waves in, and using a computer produces planets, galaxies, stars etc. Basicly it produces what shuld be there according to scientists, based on the waves, that is, signals that the probe receives from outer space. Note the keyword MKOBJECTS used in the article. And now take a look at this article here.

http://stsdas.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/gethelp.cgi?mkobjects

The article explains what the MKOBJECTS command is. Its a command for creating and inserting artifical 2D stars and galaxies on the image.

Therefore, this is CGI.
Yes, to calibrate the WFPC2, so that they knew what degree and sort of noise to remove from real exposures. You fail at reading comprehension.

you fail physics forever. Your fail is so great that it violates causality; if you were to ever take a physics course, you would fail before you signed up.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Greetings,

Lecture 21: The Rotation & Revolution of the Earth

The only evidence for the rotation of the Earth I found in this article was: The Coriolis effect, and the Parallax.

And I explained bot already. I explained Parallax way back, and I explained the Coriolis effect with the rotating universe and Mach's principle few posts ago.

You gave what you thought was a explanation based on a number of unproven assumptions.

Parallax and the Coriolis Effect - according to the scientific community all over the world - are the simplest means of providing evidence for the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Pulsar (and others) have already explained that it wasn't detected.

And they were WRONG. I want your explanation.

Here you go, from teh article itself. The experiment was done based on the idea of the aether. It says so right there. And guess what, the measured velocity was the one that was predicted. So the aether was detected.

They're not wrong! I agree with their explanation!

Have a look at this article:
Fresnel, Fizeau, Hoek, Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale and Sagnac in Aetherless Galilean Space

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!

Now, it appears, that you accept that air is the best explanation of things concerning air.

I NEVER SAID IT WASNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm trying to explain to you that your refusal to accept the evidence for the aether is the same as someones refusal to accept air as the best explanation for the observations we make! The notion of air is the best explanation for certain observations. Just as the aetehr is the best explanation for others, including the MG experiment.

Again, you prevaricate.

You clearly implied that the air was not the best explanation - that the aether was.

And to compare denying that gas is the best explanation - given the evidence for it through experiments - to denying the aether is the best explanation - given the lack of evidence - is clearly a false comparison.

As already explained, the aether does not exist because none of the experiments have shown any evidence for it.

Okay. What was the MG experiment supposed to measure, and what did it measure. If it did not detect the aethr, then explain why. Why are the measurements of the MG experiment according to you, not indicative of an aether?

See my earlier answer.

At no point have I said - or implied - "ultimate truth".

I have indicated that, in order to discern between subjective and objective reality, the Scientific Method is used to test for and verify whether something is (externally) real or not. Science approaches "Truth" like the Newton-Raphson Method - even if we may never actually reach it.

What do you mean by objective reality?

As I've said, has a external reality - as against subjective (possibly only in our heads).

Like St. Thomas faced with "Jesus" - he didn't trust his eyes (he could have been seeing things), so, he stuck his fingers in the wounds - it was the only way he could prove to himself that the apparent person in front of him had a physical presence.

"At least 1000 miles".

Really??!!

What arrant nonsense!!

Then you'll get the "white-out" to which I referred earlier!

First of all, that is what the method all of you proposed is teh one that can show us the distance to the Sun. I'm just showing you the results.

"All of you"?

When did I say it was?

One of us - Pulsar - mentioned it in calculating the Moon's distance, you then quoted from this Rowbotham's manuscript about his use of it to calculate the Sun's distance, and since then, ALL of us have been demonstrating to you that Rowbotham was wrong.

Second, as I said already, if the stars are smaller and don't shine as bright as you think they do, then we won't have a white-out.

Show me why not.

Avoiding the question, I see...

And by using the adjective "invisible", what you really mean is "undetectable", which - by definition - negates the ability of anyone to prove its existence or non-existence.

My point is that I don't have to prove you wrong.

Because you can't.

You can only have anything from 0% up to - and including - 100%: not "10000000000000%".

Well congratulations you just made the impossible.

No - you did! You're the one who made up the impossible.

And as I've already pointed out - no-one here is talking about "ultimate truth".

Then don't use the word truth.

Truth is a perfectly valid word to use - as long as you use it in the same way that the rest of the world uses it: relatively.

...so there's no point in trying...

We cross-check everything we can - after that, we have to accept that we can't be "absolutely, 100%" certain: but we can go forward and live our lives and make progress.

If you simply want progress then yes, you can do it, and there is a point to it. But don't expect to reach the truth.

As I keep having to repeat to you - no-one expects ultimate truth, just a better truth than before.

No - we go one step further: we identify which descriptions match the observable workings of Nature. Those that don't are discarded.

Which again, doesn't lead you to the truth. Because all observations are made through our senses. And everything we actually observe, by definition is inside our mind. Thus the world around us, is simply inside our mind. You never actually came in the contact with the real world, only with what your senses tell you is the real world. Which means, that the real world, could be something totally different, than what your senses tell you.

Yet, at some point, one has to give up paranoia to live life.

But not descriptions which match Nature's workings - merely hypotheses. And yours has been discarded through centuries of observation and experiment (space travel, to name but one type).

Space travel proves nothing. Please stop mentioning it.

Your inability to accept that space-flight proves that the heliocentric model is a accurate description of the solar system does not invalidate it.

"Philosophically" anything can happen!

In reality, that isn't the case.

We use the Scientific Method to reduce the likelihood of error as much as possible. And on that basis we make progress to more a accurate understanding of how Nature works.

You don't know what reality is like. The only thing you ever came in contact is is what your mind told you what reality is.

We only need something which works to allow us to live our lives.

Our senses have evolved to help us do this - due to the fact that they sometimes fool us necessitates the Scientific Method as a safety-net. As long as we have that, we can move forward.

History.

Please be more specific.

As I keep having to tell you: people throughout history making observations, doing experiments, etc, etc.

It is not "as precise as the Copernican today".

The heliocentric model is a closer match to the reality of how the Solar System is arranged.

They are identical! The only difference is in the reference frame!

That difference alone means that they're not "identical"!!

Geocentrism: Was Galileo Wrong?

Believe it or not, this observation is a killer for geocentrism! Why?

Read that article to find out why!

If we ever travel to the stars, we'd use a galactic-centred model - the other two would simply result in our getting hopelessly lost (you'd no longer be able to detect the Earth - or, even, the Sun).

Why would we get lost?

If you're on the other side of the galaxy, tell me why you wouldn't get lost?

One way would be if we could observe the Solar System from a vantage point above/below it - from where we could observe the Sun-Earth "dance".

Not really. What if the Earth is motionless, and your vantage point is revolving around the Earth. Then you would see Earth rotating, even though it was stationary.

But Helios doesn't. It revolves over/under the Sun and - in between times - it's viewing the Sun-Earth from other angles.

It's not an assumption - the evidence indicates that it does.

What evidence?

We've already provided it - the fact that you can't/won't accept it doesn't change the fact.

Which is why we use the Scientific Method to mitigate that possibility.

Which is why Science is based on lots and lots of people making the same observations, doing the same experiments, collating/analysing/synthesizing the results and cross-checking those results through peer-review.

Well yes, I said that this is good if you want a workable model of nature, but not truth.

Already gone through this before...

Again, you have this obsession with "ultimate truth". No-one is expecting to gain "ultimate truth" in everything.

Can you improve the Scientific Method? Without adding unnecessary steps?

The Scientific Method is the simplest it can be without people ending up becoming paranoid and cross-checking everything ad infinitum.

Just because I can't improve it, doesn't mean it can't be.

It's as good as it's going to get, as a method - the only weakness is if people fail to follow it.

What does the Newton-Raphson Method do? How does it do that?

A method for finding roots. Works by an iterative process, and constantly gives better and better approximations.

Precisely - so, why did you keep asking what's my point in mentioning it?

So you keep repeating...

Only through the Scientific Method can we make steady but certain progress.

There's nothing else that'll allow us to progress.

And I'm all up for progress. I'm just saying that this is not how you get to truth.

It gets us a better truth than before - which is something else I keep having to repeat.

Prevarication.

That was not what you implied - nor intended.

As I, and others, have already pointed out, it had nothing to do with the Scientific Method - nor peer-review related to scientific theories or experimental results.

It was a lack of objective peer-review in the Humanities at that university.

There is a vast difference between arguing philosophical points and scientific ones - the latter must pass muster through observation and experiment; that is the litmus test for Science.

Arguing about philosophical matters, like "Virtue" or whether God exists or not is undecidable - like the undetectable Pink Unicorn. It's just one person's viewpoint versus another's, with no means of testing it objectively.

Unlike Science.

My point is that this double-checking process is still failable. Your point is that its not. And when it fails you blame the people or claim that it wasn't actually used. Now, that's unfalsifiable.

The peer-review process is not - it's the people who don't apply it assiduously who are failing.

As I've just pointed out, it's not!

And what is this supposed to be?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html

This shows the peer-review process working!! :lol:

[And this only applies to medical research - given America's highly profitable healthcare sector and "pill-popping culture", it is not particularly surprising.]

You obviously:
a) haven't read the article;
b) don't understand what the article is actually saying;
c) dismissed the fact that the process worked - but thought to post if anyway.

There is a major problem with the article, though.

It doesn't indicate out of what total number the several hundred papers were withdrawn/etc.

Which I've never claimed it to do - not "the truth", just "a better truth"

As I've already pointed out.

No, you shouldn't use the word truth at all. Because it implies that you know something that does not need to be changed. Which I think you willa gree, is not true.

The use of the term "truth" - as I keep having to explain to you - refers to "relative", not "absolute" truth: in other words, it's generally accepted that it's going to change when further progress is made.

Strange as it may seem to you, there are some absolutes in Science..

But not when you leave the Earth.

Yes, but there is no reason why you couldn't still use it.

As long as you don't mind dying from running out of fuel, air, water, etc.

nd yet you've been trying to prove that Science is wrong about physics here (the aether, heliocentrism, etc) - and biology (evolution) in the other thread...

Science is about showing that theories are inadequate, and we need to replace them with others.

With better ones. But we still need Science to do that.

Then, you can't make any sort of progress.

Yes you can. You can still make models of nature that are not true, but work well for describing how nature works.

It's better to have models which are a truer reflection of reality than not.

Still obsessed!!

You appear to suffer from what's called "Man's need for certainty in a uncertain world".

Life - Nature - is not a zero-sum game, it's not "all-or-nothing".

I'm not obsessed. I'm simply saying that we do not know the truth.

Absolute truth - but we can live with relative truth, as long as we can verify it and improve on it.

The fact that a relative truth works in "the real world" is better than something which doesn't - and the fact that it does work is a fair indication that we're, at least, half-way there.

How can you measure how far you have to get to the truth, when its obvious you don't know where it is?

You might not know the root of a number, but you can work towards it using Newton-Raphson...

Geocentric - but not used off-Earth, as I've explained above.

The fact, that its not used does not imply that it can't be used.

As I said, as long as you're willing to pay the ultimate price - death - you can go ahead and use any old method, appropriate or not...

Not all of them do so in the geocentric model!!

LOL! Yes they do!

In the heliocentric model, the Earth - and Moon - and all the other planets go round the Sun.

In the geocentric model, the Earth - and Moon - don't go round the Sun. Correct??

Therefore, they don't!

It gives distances in terms of Earth and Moon radii - there's a table towards the end comparing the reconstructed and modern values. You should already know what these are.

And how were those distances measured?

By the methods already mentioned - please, read back... I grow weary of having to repeat myself..

We've shown you throughout - but see the Ulysses Mission above.

Look, saying that heliocentric model is used over the geocentric one for space flight, does not mean that geocentric could not be used in principle. That's a non sequitur.

As I've already pointed out - if you're willing to die, then you can use it - and claim to do so "on principle".

As explained earlier, they wouldn't - due to the mechanics of the Solar System: predominantly, the Sun's gravitational field.

No, the size of the Sun is identical in the relativistic geocentric model. The one that does not use the aether, the Sun could be smaller.

Well, it can't be both - either it's the same size as the heliocentric one (the one the scientific community accepts) or it isn't.

Not account for them!!

Show me what exactly did it not account for.

Really??

Earlier, you said that...

:!:

If there were other laws - for which the geocentric model failed to account - that would prove that the heliocentric model was, even more so, the correct one!

:!:

QED.

[ :facepalm: Talk about contradicting yourself...!!]

The problem here, as I've pointed out, is his assumption about the Earth being flat.

Given that the Earth is, in fact, round (an oblate sphere, to be precise), not only is his calculation wrong - but the manner in which he applied the formula.

I know. And that is what I corrected. I made the correction so it would give us the result that Rowbotham would get if he assumed a round Earth.

He assumes that the Bedford Levels were ... level - even though he states that there was a flow of water, which indicates that they're not.

He was looking "up-slope", which would add to the "height" of the horizon.

Which would be an irrelevant objection, because the angle would be unbelieveabely small.

Worst of all, he seems to have been unaware of Aristarchus' attempt to measure the distance of the Earth from the Sun - Aristarchus was unable to measure the angle the Sun made (it's virtually 90 degress) which would have given Rowbottham some idea of how far wrong he was!

That just goes to show that ALL OF YOU were wrong. ALL OF YOU claimed that this method works, not me. I have just shown you what results you get when you do use it. Now live with it.

As I pointed out earlier, most of us have been pointing out the errors in this. You were the one who trotted out Rowbotham's inappropriate use of this method.

All I said was that the Scientific Method is used to discern whether a observed phenomenon was in our head or external to us - to ensure that errors weren't made in observation or experimental results.

Nope, science can't do that. Since all you ever observed is the world inside your mind. All you ever observed were teh electric impulses created by your brain. And the question is, how do you know that they corespond to what is outside the brain?

Probability.

As these range from 1.5 (for Mars) to ~40 (Pluto), that means that Mars would be passing through the Earth - just to mention one minor problem with this scenario.....

Or you could just have larger orbits? Ever thought of that?

Not if you wish to remain consistent with Rowbotham's measured distance, you can't.

Either all the criteria are consistent or they are not - you can't "pick'n'mix" to suit your argument.

If the scenario doesn't work with all criteria matching, then, the whole scenario is false.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

Re: Царь Славян's Aether model of QM.

Царь Славян now admits he believes that the sun is in fact not 700 miles from Earth but 1 AU. He did not reply to my post thus admitting that he is wrong.