Science > Physics > Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2005 09:59:05 PM |
| Object: |
Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dzFOe.274637$_o.180950@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm
....[trim]...
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be
said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether".
....[snip]...
Irrespective of the continuation of the article
continued below, the above is not the complete
picture.
Hilman clearly exhibits injudiciousness
for not painting the complete picture.
I know John Baez wouldn't call Einstein "injudicious"
because it is not a very scientific thing to do, especially
on a web page in his personal .edu.domain that is
devoted to Scientifically Inaccurate Claims.
Einstein's comments were not localised to 1924, but
covered a period which commenced as soon as he
attempted to move from special relativity to his general
relativity, and continued throughout his life.
He could adequately deal with a new type of aether
and in many articles he provided limiting specifications
for this new kind of aether.
In other articles and public addresses, he did not
appear to exhibit the characteristics of a person who
was "injudicious"!
See for yourself, here is an earlier address given
on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
He clearly did not mean that the postulate of aether
in physics MUST be banished, Crackpot Patrolman Sam.
Dirac obviously agreed with Einstein in this seeing he
developed a theory from the postulate, published in 1951.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims,... |
26 Aug 2005 12:15:02 AM |
|
|
Einsteins DARK ENERGY .
either is for morons.
Dark energy is HUBBLE CONSTANT .
at the edge of the universe te star is going away at c and its photon
will pass us at 0 wavelngth at c.
The BGR is the c zone and past that stars move away faster than c BUT
all the photons from outside the universe pass us at c with no
wavelength .
Energy under presure as the atoms parts orbit at c they cut a slice
out of EP.
space must close back in after the neuteons and protons pass the space.
The more motion the more space they take up per time unit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims,... |
26 Aug 2005 10:17:53 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29142-430EA556-355@storefull-3212.bay.webtv.net...
Einsteins DARK ENERGY .
either is for morons.
Either? Either what you retard.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims,specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
24 Aug 2005 06:39:50 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dzFOe.274637$_o.180950@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm
...[trim]...
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be
said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether".
...[snip]...
Irrespective of the continuation of the article
continued below, the above is not the complete
picture.
Hilman clearly exhibits injudiciousness
for not painting the complete picture.
I know John Baez wouldn't call Einstein "injudicious"
because it is not a very scientific thing to do, especially
on a web page in his personal .edu.domain that is
devoted to Scientifically Inaccurate Claims.
Einstein's comments were not localised to 1924, but
covered a period which commenced as soon as he
attempted to move from special relativity to his general
relativity, and continued throughout his life.
He could adequately deal with a new type of aether
and in many articles he provided limiting specifications
for this new kind of aether.
In other articles and public addresses, he did not
appear to exhibit the characteristics of a person who
was "injudicious"!
See for yourself, here is an earlier address given
on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
He clearly did not mean that the postulate of aether
in physics MUST be banished, Crackpot Patrolman Sam.
Dirac obviously agreed with Einstein in this seeing he
developed a theory from the postulate, published in 1951.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1993/split/pnu143-4.htm
Number 143 (Story #4), September 9, 1993 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
THE STANDARD MODEL (circa 1993) , consisting of quarks and leptons
interacting via force- carrying bosons, is not the first theory of
everything. Berkeley science historian J.L. Heilbron describes two
others. The Napoleonic standard model (circa 1800), based on the work
of Coulomb, Laplace, Poisson, Ampere, and others, sought to make
physics more like astronomy. According to Heilbron, they especially
liked gravity's straightforward dependence on the inverse square of the
distance between interacting bodies. The primary ingredients in the
Napoleonic model were the electrical fluids (positive and negative),
magnetic fluids (north and south), heat fluid (caloric), light, and the
newly discovered infrared radiation. This model was done in partly by
Fresnel's wave theory of light and Fourier's work on heat. Heilbron's
other example, the Victorian standard model (circa 1890), based on the
work of Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Joule, Larmor and others, synthesized
electricity, magnetism, and light, and pictured heat as being related
to the motion of molecules. The Victorians were interested in studying
the hypothetical aether continuum, whose mechanical properties could
presumably be compared to those of springs, flywheels, and rubber
bands. But Victorian thinking, like Napoleonic thinking, collapsed when
it outran experimental results. (SLAC Beam Line, Summer 1993.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
24 Aug 2005 07:33:27 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:a0ZOe.276868$_o.5250@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:dzFOe.274637$_o.180950@attbi_s71...
mountain man wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm
...[trim]...
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and
Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be
said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that
sense,
to involve a kind of "aether".
...[snip]...
Irrespective of the continuation of the article
continued below, the above is not the complete
picture.
Hilman clearly exhibits injudiciousness
for not painting the complete picture.
I know John Baez wouldn't call Einstein "injudicious"
because it is not a very scientific thing to do, especially
on a web page in his personal .edu.domain that is
devoted to Scientifically Inaccurate Claims.
Einstein's comments were not localised to 1924, but
covered a period which commenced as soon as he
attempted to move from special relativity to his general
relativity, and continued throughout his life.
He could adequately deal with a new type of aether
and in many articles he provided limiting specifications
for this new kind of aether.
In other articles and public addresses, he did not
appear to exhibit the characteristics of a person who
was "injudicious"!
See for yourself, here is an earlier address given
on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".
He clearly did not mean that the postulate of aether
in physics MUST be banished, Crackpot Patrolman Sam.
Dirac obviously agreed with Einstein in this seeing he
developed a theory from the postulate, published in 1951.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1993/split/pnu143-4.htm
Number 143 (Story #4), September 9, 1993 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben
Stein
THE STANDARD MODEL (circa 1993) , consisting of quarks and leptons
interacting via force- carrying bosons, is not the first theory of
everything. Berkeley science historian J.L. Heilbron describes two
others. The Napoleonic standard model (circa 1800), based on the work
of Coulomb, Laplace, Poisson, Ampere, and others, sought to make
physics more like astronomy. According to Heilbron, they especially
liked gravity's straightforward dependence on the inverse square of the
distance between interacting bodies. The primary ingredients in the
Napoleonic model were the electrical fluids (positive and negative),
magnetic fluids (north and south), heat fluid (caloric), light, and the
newly discovered infrared radiation. This model was done in partly by
Fresnel's wave theory of light and Fourier's work on heat. Heilbron's
other example, the Victorian standard model (circa 1890), based on the
work of Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Joule, Larmor and others, synthesized
electricity, magnetism, and light, and pictured heat as being related
to the motion of molecules. The Victorians were interested in studying
the hypothetical aether continuum, whose mechanical properties could
presumably be compared to those of springs, flywheels, and rubber
bands. But Victorian thinking, like Napoleonic thinking, collapsed when
it outran experimental results. (SLAC Beam Line, Summer 1993.)
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims,specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
24 Aug 2005 07:56:20 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
Quite the opposite. The purely mechanical view of physical reality is
empirically false. Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong. Light is
not a wave carried transversally through some very stiff visco-elastic
medium, stiff then Toledo steel and rarer than honesty in politics. The
adherence to a totally mechanical view of reality hobbled physics for
several decades.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
25 Aug 2005 04:34:45 AM |
|
|
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
mountain man wrote:
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
Quite the opposite. The purely mechanical view of physical reality is
empirically false. Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong. Light is not
a wave carried transversally through some very stiff visco-elastic medium,
stiff then Toledo steel and rarer than honesty in politics.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 01:57:06 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
mountain man wrote:
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
Quite the opposite. The purely mechanical view of physical reality is
empirically false. Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong. Light is not
a wave carried transversally through some very stiff visco-elastic medium,
stiff then Toledo steel and rarer than honesty in politics.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
So long as you pretend the theory is relativity, sure. Unfortunately,
as soon as you try including the ether part of the theory, you're out
of luck, since you can't define any physical properties of that ether
which make any sense. Go ahead and try. Get back to me when you
can list the physical properties and show why those properties allow
for transverse waves and disallow longitudinal waves. Without being
able to do that, you have no ether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 04:26:06 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndgtidj.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
mountain man wrote:
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
Quite the opposite. The purely mechanical view of physical reality is
empirically false. Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong. Light is
not
a wave carried transversally through some very stiff visco-elastic
medium,
stiff then Toledo steel and rarer than honesty in politics.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
So long as you pretend the theory is relativity, sure. Unfortunately,
as soon as you try including the ether part of the theory, you're out
of luck, since you can't define any physical properties of that ether
which make any sense. Go ahead and try.
Newton once wrote (privately, 1675)
[Gravity is the result of]
"a condensation causing a flow of ether
with a corresponding thinning of the ether density
associated with the increased velocity of flow."
What if space itself (ie: the aether) is in-flowing to all
massive bodies, and as such is the "cause" of gravity?
Newtonian gravity can be written as fluid flow,
as can GR. (See Cahill for the maths).
The aether (or space [zpf] itself if you prefer) will
of course resist definition because it is essentially
another state of matter (separate from solid, liquid,
gas and plasma).
But its dynamic motion may define gravity, and
do away with the need for dark matter & energy.
Get back to me when you
can list the physical properties and show why those properties allow
for transverse waves and disallow longitudinal waves. Without being
able to do that, you have no ether.
The aether is postulated to be an extremely subtle
substance, the finest form of matter in existence,
out of which all other matter is formed. It pervades
the universe, and is associated with all cosmic space,
and all quantum scale space (ie: ZPF).
It would not surprise me if the dynamic nature of
the aether is behind the difficult specification of
turbulence, as the complete consideration of the
aether postulate implies the reconsideration of all
natural phenomena from a fundamental perspective.
If all the array of particles in the standard model
were able to be defined as various forms of dynamic
configurations of "some undefined primal substance"
then, although the underlying aether might not be
able to be defined (ie: only its dynamic properties)
it is able to define std model.
I say this only to point out, as a postulate, the aether
itself as a substance need not be defined, for it is only
in its dynamics (1-Flow as gravity; 2-Resonances as
elementary particles, etc) that it is detected.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 05:21:51 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndgtidj.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
mountain man wrote:
I would not be contemplating a parallel between
either Einstein or Dirac and "Victorian thinking",
would you?
Quite the opposite. The purely mechanical view of physical reality is
empirically false. Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong. Light is
not
a wave carried transversally through some very stiff visco-elastic
medium,
stiff then Toledo steel and rarer than honesty in politics.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
So long as you pretend the theory is relativity, sure. Unfortunately,
as soon as you try including the ether part of the theory, you're out
of luck, since you can't define any physical properties of that ether
which make any sense. Go ahead and try.
Newton once wrote (privately, 1675)
In other words, you can't.
[Gravity is the result of]
"a condensation causing a flow of ether
with a corresponding thinning of the ether density
associated with the increased velocity of flow."
What if space itself (ie: the aether) is in-flowing to all
massive bodies, and as such is the "cause" of gravity?
Newtonian gravity can be written as fluid flow,
as can GR. (See Cahill for the maths).
The aether (or space [zpf] itself if you prefer) will
of course resist definition because it is essentially
another state of matter (separate from solid, liquid,
gas and plasma).
But its dynamic motion may define gravity, and
do away with the need for dark matter & energy.
Get back to me when you
can list the physical properties and show why those properties allow
for transverse waves and disallow longitudinal waves. Without being
able to do that, you have no ether.
The aether is postulated to be an extremely subtle
So apparently, I was right. Your idea of an ether theory
amounts to relativity plus an imaginary substance that never
actually gets used to derive anything. Obviously, it can't
be necessary or else you'd have to know the physical properties
necessary to use it.
substance, the finest form of matter in existence,
out of which all other matter is formed. It pervades
the universe, and is associated with all cosmic space,
and all quantum scale space (ie: ZPF).
It would not surprise me if the dynamic nature of
the aether is behind the difficult specification of
turbulence, as the complete consideration of the
aether postulate implies the reconsideration of all
natural phenomena from a fundamental perspective.
If all the array of particles in the standard model
were able to be defined as various forms of dynamic
configurations of "some undefined primal substance"
then, although the underlying aether might not be
able to be defined (ie: only its dynamic properties)
it is able to define std model.
I say this only to point out, as a postulate, the aether
itself as a substance need not be defined, for it is only
in its dynamics (1-Flow as gravity; 2-Resonances as
elementary particles, etc) that it is detected.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 11:14:11 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndgtude.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
....[snip]...
The aether is postulated to be an extremely subtle
So apparently, I was right. Your idea of an ether theory
amounts to relativity plus an imaginary substance that never
actually gets used to derive anything.
As another has summarised it:
"there is not much difference between special relativity
and classical Lorentz ether theory. The only difference
is the assumption that there is a preferred frame - the
rest frame of the ether."
LET and SR share a subtle equivalence. Anything
that can be derived from the one can be derived
from the other. Experimentally, I believe they are
still indistinguishable:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501060
Obviously, it can't
be necessary or else you'd have to know the physical properties
necessary to use it.
The postulate is quite simple. Not only is the
aether necessary, but it is foundational to all
domains of scientific enquiry, seeing it fills all
space, from the cosmic to the sub-Higgs.
What are the physical properties
of space (aether) itself?
According to the domain of science, it has been
described as the ZPF, or at the cosmic domain/
scale as "dark matter and energy".
http://www.mountainman.com.au/Mapping%20the%20Domains%20of%20the%20Sciences%20to%20its%20theories.htm
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 01:14:52 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndgtude.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
...[snip]...
The aether is postulated to be an extremely subtle
So apparently, I was right. Your idea of an ether theory
amounts to relativity plus an imaginary substance that never
actually gets used to derive anything.
As another has summarised it:
In other words, you aren't going to answer the question.
"there is not much difference between special relativity
and classical Lorentz ether theory. The only difference
is the assumption that there is a preferred frame - the
rest frame of the ether."
LET and SR share a subtle equivalence. Anything
that can be derived from the one can be derived
from the other. Experimentally, I believe they are
still indistinguishable:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501060
Obviously, it can't
be necessary or else you'd have to know the physical properties
necessary to use it.
The postulate is quite simple. Not only is the
aether necessary, but it is foundational to all
domains of scientific enquiry, seeing it fills all
space, from the cosmic to the sub-Higgs.
What are the physical properties
of space (aether) itself?
According to the domain of science, it has been
described as the ZPF, or at the cosmic domain/
scale as "dark matter and energy".
http://www.mountainman.com.au/Mapping%20the%20Domains%20of%20the%20Sciences%20to%20its%20theories.htm
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
25 Aug 2005 12:17:05 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:VggPe.9964$FA3.5205@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
You seem unclear what you are talking about. Maxwell's
aether is not the same as Lorentz's aether.
If you just want to use the word 'aether' that is fine; the
aether is the birds, the trees, and the spirit of a fine
summer's day. If, on the other hand, you want to use
aether as a scientific concept then you need to be clear
exactly what you are referring to when you use the word.
In this thread you have already used the word with several
different meanings.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 04:26:07 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dekueh$n17$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:VggPe.9964$FA3.5205@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
You seem unclear what you are talking about. Maxwell's
aether is not the same as Lorentz's aether.
If you just want to use the word 'aether' that is fine; the
aether is the birds, the trees, and the spirit of a fine
summer's day. If, on the other hand, you want to use
aether as a scientific concept then you need to be clear
exactly what you are referring to when you use the word.
This is what I mean:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
In this thread you have already used the word with several
different meanings.
Elaborate?
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 12:26:52 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:PeBPe.11061$FA3.7403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dekueh$n17$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:VggPe.9964$FA3.5205@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RbKdnY1g0JTp85HeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
Maxwellian aetherics is just plain wrong.
Lorentz aetherics (LET) cannot be experimentally
distinguished from SR, and is _not_ empirically false.
This is what I mean:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
A quick look at that link shows several different concepts
described as aether.
In this thread you have already used the word with several
different meanings.
Elaborate?
There are two in at the top of this reply. Your web
site has many different aethers.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 10:32:04 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
The publication process of mainstream peer reviewed
scientific papers is not rushing out to clarify the concept.
Elsewhere you write:
Even if it is understood by the posters which particular
aether is being discussed you must bear in mind that
this is a public group and others may be following the
thread.
That's a very pedantic stance. Where has
the 'left as an exercise for the reader' gone?
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 01:17:15 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
Don't be ridiculous.
The publication process of mainstream peer reviewed
scientific papers is not rushing out to clarify the concept.
Elsewhere you write:
Even if it is understood by the posters which particular
aether is being discussed you must bear in mind that
this is a public group and others may be following the
thread.
That's a very pedantic stance. Where has
the 'left as an exercise for the reader' gone?
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 04:59:40 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrndh04eu.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
Don't be ridiculous.
Well, it does happen when *he* gets a thousand "people".
Just look at his list:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
and notice that he "has got"
Paul Stowe,
Barry Mingst,
Ken Seto (Aaarg!),
James DeMeo,
Reg Cahill,
Caroline Thompson,
and who knows what else on that list.
So, with all these well established crackpots, are you
surprised he gets a thousand different opinions?
( I have quickly taken a copy of that page before
he changes his mind about some of those "people")
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 11:28:55 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrndh04eu.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
Don't be ridiculous.
Well, it does happen when *he* gets a thousand "people".
Just look at his list:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
and notice that he "has got"
Paul Stowe,
Barry Mingst,
Ken Seto (Aaarg!),
James DeMeo,
Reg Cahill,
Caroline Thompson,
and who knows what else on that list.
But none of those people are theoretical or experimental physicists,
so at least 2/3 of his argument is flawed. Unless they are all taxi
drivers, the rest id flawed, too,
So, with all these well established crackpots, are you surprised he
gets a thousand different opinions?
I wouldn't be surprised if he got a thousand different opinions
from the people on that list even if that was the entire list.
( I have quickly taken a copy of that page before he changes his
mind about some of those "people")
Not to worry. They all satisfy the basic requirement for original
thinking: they are all on a crusade against relativity because agreement
with experiment isn't very original. To be original, one must search
through history for discredited ideas, remove any assumptions that
can be expressed mathematically and update the rest with jargon lifted
from google searches.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 06:54:49 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gQWPe.179595$mU6.9955452@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh04eu.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
Don't be ridiculous.
Well, it does happen when *he* gets a thousand "people".
Just look at his list:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
and notice that he "has got"
Paul Stowe,
Barry Mingst,
Ken Seto (Aaarg!),
James DeMeo,
Reg Cahill,
Caroline Thompson,
You forgot Steve Rado.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 09:10:56 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:depka9$r3s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gQWPe.179595$mU6.9955452@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh04eu.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
mountain man:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
Don't be ridiculous.
Well, it does happen when *he* gets a thousand "people".
Just look at his list:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
and notice that he "has got"
Paul Stowe,
Barry Mingst,
Ken Seto (Aaarg!),
James DeMeo,
Reg Cahill,
Caroline Thompson,
You forgot Steve Rado.
Ha? Never heard of him before...
Haven't seen him posting under that name on these groups.
A quick google reveals a nice chat where he is mentioned.
It's between Caroline Thompson and our good old friend
Dennis -not sue-suzysewnshow in 2002- McCarthy, and
even Paul Stowe joins in somewhere...
Entrypoint 57 of
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/dc30b93fdb84ada6/93ff21e9d36248e4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 10:49:13 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qv_Pe.179774$rU1.9999425@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:depka9$r3s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You forgot Steve Rado.
Ha? Never heard of him before...
Have a look at his web site:
http://www.westworld.com/~srado/
It is an excellent example of what a scientific theory is not.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 11:19:17 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:deq21o$dap$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qv_Pe.179774$rU1.9999425@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:depka9$r3s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You forgot Steve Rado.
Ha? Never heard of him before...
Have a look at his web site:
http://www.westworld.com/~srado/
It is an excellent example of what a scientific theory is not.
Huh. Indeed.
But from the little I have seen, he seems to be a nice, friendly
and calm person with a very difficult life...
He has my sympathy :-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 06:53:10 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message news:U8RPe.11664$FA3.3698@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
You obviously fail to see the difference between physicists and
taxi drivers on respect of theories of physics
Your site contains mainly a mixture of quotes from eminent
physicists (with no background or context) and references
to crackpot 'theories' like Steve Rado's. I often use this
'theory' as an example of what a scientific theory is not.
The publication process of mainstream peer reviewed
scientific papers is not rushing out to clarify the concept.
Of course not; the concept is redundant.
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
As I said, the answer to that question depends on
what you mean by 'the aether'.
The MMX disproved the only viable aether theory
of its day. Lorentz then made some major conceptual
adjustments to the theory to bring it into agreement
with the MMX.
In my opinion, Einstein basically said ' if you want
to consider my equations as being due to an
aether that is fine'. There is, of course, no need to
do that, the equations stand in there own right without
any need for an aether. What he clearly was not
doing was reinstating the aether of Maxwell or even
Lorentz.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 08:37:35 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:depk76$qrg$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:U8RPe.11664$FA3.3698@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm
Your web site has many different aethers.
Get a thousand people and you get a thousand different opinions,
whether or not they are theoretical physicists, experimental
physicists or taxi drivers.
You obviously fail to see the difference between physicists and
taxi drivers on respect of theories of physics
Your site contains mainly a mixture of quotes from eminent
physicists (with no background or context) and references
to crackpot 'theories' like Steve Rado's. I often use this
'theory' as an example of what a scientific theory is not.
You are such a good Crackpot Patrolman.
The publication process of mainstream peer reviewed
scientific papers is not rushing out to clarify the concept.
Of course not; the concept is redundant.
It used to be redundant, but universal ideas
have a habit of returning again and again.
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
As I said, the answer to that question depends on
what you mean by 'the aether'.
The MMX disproved the only viable aether theory
of its day.
This is a fallacy that you were spoon-fed.
It was pointed out as late as 2002 that a proper
analysis of the gas mode interferometer requires
that the refractive index of the gas be employed,
and that "relativistic effects" be calculated, neither
of which were utilised in the 1887 result.
At least 3 independent physicists have recently
re-analysed the MMX and have arrived at a
conclusion diameterically opposed to your claim.
[Munera, Cahill, Consoli].
Lorentz then made some major conceptual
adjustments to the theory to bring it into agreement
with the MMX.
So the story goes.
In my opinion, Einstein basically said ' if you want
to consider my equations as being due to an
aether that is fine'.
Yes, Einstein was quite happy to consider the aether
postulate as a valid foundation for future physics.
There is, of course, no need to
do that, the equations stand in there own right without
any need for an aether.
Yes, the equations in science are scattered and totally
non unified, defining a number of regions of phenomena
with a number of disparate theories and no common
foundation. I wonder why.
What he clearly was not
doing was reinstating the aether of Maxwell or even
Lorentz.
Einstein was considering the aether as a valid postulate.
He was seeking some means to express the unified field.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 12:46:48 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:z0_Pe.12289$FA3.10401@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:depk76$qrg$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:U8RPe.11664$FA3.3698@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote:
You are such a good Crackpot Patrolman.
But losing the battle I fear.
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
As I said, the answer to that question depends on
what you mean by 'the aether'.
The MMX disproved the only viable aether theory
of its day.
This is a fallacy that you were spoon-fed.
It was pointed out as late as 2002 that a proper
analysis of the gas mode interferometer requires
that the refractive index of the gas be employed,
and that "relativistic effects" be calculated, neither
of which were utilised in the 1887 result.
The MMX disproved the theory that light travels
at a fixed speed relative to a fixed, rigid aether.
Explain to my why this is not so.
To suggest that "relativistic effects" should have been
taken into account is absurd. It is to admit that
relativity is correct (of course it had not been
invented at the time of the MMX).
At least 3 independent physicists have recently
re-analysed the MMX and have arrived at a
conclusion diameterically opposed to your claim.
[Munera, Cahill, Consoli].
Crackpots.
Lorentz then made some major conceptual
adjustments to the theory to bring it into agreement
with the MMX.
So the story goes.
Are you saying that Lorentz's theory is not in agreement
with the MMX?
In my opinion, Einstein basically said ' if you want
to consider my equations as being due to an
aether that is fine'.
Yes, Einstein was quite happy to consider the aether
postulate as a valid foundation for future physics.
Obvious nonsense. Einstein never used any aether concept
in his work
There is, of course, no need to
do that, the equations stand in there own right without
any need for an aether.
Yes, the equations in science are scattered and totally
non unified, defining a number of regions of phenomena
with a number of disparate theories and no common
foundation. I wonder why.
When you come up with an aether theory that unifies all
of physics I will accept the you have a point. Note that
I mean a proper theory with equations and things.
What he clearly was not
doing was reinstating the aether of Maxwell or even
Lorentz.
Einstein was considering the aether as a valid postulate.
So long as it left his equations alone.
He was seeking some means to express the unified field.
He had already expressed his field equations using
mathemetics.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
31 Aug 2005 04:26:23 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:deq8u8$to$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
At least 3 independent physicists have recently
re-analysed the MMX and have arrived at a
conclusion diameterically opposed to your claim.
[Munera, Cahill, Consoli].
Crackpots.
Add to this list Michelson and Morley themselves, and
then you can add Dayton Miller and his experiments.
======[quoted material]===============
GOES TO DISPROVE EINSTEIN THEORY
Case Scientist Will Conduct
Further Studies in Ether Drift.
Einstein Discounts Experiments
Speaking before scientists at the University of
Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments
at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount
Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore,
altitude influences results.
In addition, temperature differences have provided
a source of error. "The trouble with Prof. Einstein
is that he knows nothing about my results."
Dr. Miller said. "He has been saying for thirty years
that the interferometer experiments in Cleveland
showed negative results.
We never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results.
He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature
differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in
November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
--- Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper,
27 Jan. 1926
======[end quoted material]===============
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
27 Aug 2005 12:38:05 PM |
|
|
mountain man, cheerleader for team cahill, rah, rah:
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:depk76$qrg$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Your site contains mainly a mixture of quotes from eminent
physicists (with no background or context) and references
to crackpot 'theories' like Steve Rado's. I often use this
'theory' as an example of what a scientific theory is not.
You are such a good Crackpot Patrolman.
``Ridiculous ideas deserve to be ridiculed.'' Unfortunately,
I don't recall to whom that quote should be attributed.
[...]
The MMX disproved the only viable aether theory of its day.
This is a fallacy that you were spoon-fed.
Just because someone has actually gone to the effort of studying
a subject, discovers that the subject is not wrong and rejects
so-called alternatives which no one is willing to support with
an explanation that can be used to quantify the theory and use it
to calculate anything, doesn't mean the person was spoonfed.
For some reasin, you seem to think that no theory is worthwhile
if it receives widespread support due to its ability to predict
experimental results from only a few simple, physical premises
and allows physicists to move on to deeper questions you don't
understand.
It was pointed out as late as 2002 that a proper analysis of the
gas mode interferometer requires that the refractive index of the
gas be employed, and that "relativistic effects" be calculated,
neither of which were utilised in the 1887 result.
Ah, yes. Back to the index of refraction scheme in which the index of
refraction only matters for gases where the any negative experimental
outcome can quickly be addressed by hypothesizing whatever extremely tiny
adjustment to an almost zero denominator moves the prediction back into
the error bars. It's rather strange how it turned out that materials with
a large enough index refraction to eliminate that issue are not subject to
any effects caused by the index of refraction. I guess there's nothing
original about subjecting a theory to the most obvious and most simple
test.
At least 3 independent physicists have recently re-analysed the MMX
and have arrived at a conclusion diameterically opposed to your claim.
[Munera, Cahill, Consoli].
Rather than point out the fallacy of your argument, I'll just use
the same fallacy to ask, what about the thousands physicists who
have arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of munera,
cahill and consoli, based on more recent experiments and the fact
that it's impossible to extract data from the region inside the
error bars which represent the limitations of the apparatus. The
entire point of quantifying sources of systematic error, making multiple
measurements and performing a statistical analysis to obtain an
experimental uncertainty is to avoid mistaking artifacts for data.
[...]
There is, of course, no need to do that, the equations stand
in there own right without any need for an aether.
Yes, the equations in science are scattered and totally non unified,
defining a number of regions of phenomena with a number of disparate
theories and no common foundation. I wonder why.
Maninly because you just made that up. You cannot even state what
those equations are. The number of theories to which you refer is
two and since you don't seem to know much about either one, you are
being rather dishonest in asserting anything at all about them.
[...]
What he clearly was not doing was reinstating the aether of
Maxwell or even Lorentz.
Einstein was considering the aether as a valid postulate.
He was seeking some means to express the unified field.
It's pointless to try and argue anything of current interest in physics
by appealing to commentary taken out of context from articles written by a
person who has been dead for 50 years. You and your kookpatriots are
willing to latch onto any statement that contains the word ``aether'' made
by a legitimate physicist regardless of context or anything else he/she
might have said. Argue in the present according to your own personal
understanding of the subject or accept the fact that you're a hypocrite
for arguing in favor of something you know nothing about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
31 Aug 2005 04:26:24 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh1cbe.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
....[snip]...
For some reasin, you seem to think that no theory is worthwhile
I like Popper think that no theory is ever _complete_.
Worth and worthlessness are shifting sands.
if it receives widespread support due to its ability to predict
experimental results from only a few simple, physical premises
and allows physicists to move on to deeper questions you don't
understand.
Deeper questions such as unification of all such scientitific theories,
currently inconsistent and non-unified because of inappropriate
physical postulates at their respective foundations.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims, specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
01 Sep 2005 02:31:53 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh1cbe.7ql.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
...[snip]...
For some reasin, you seem to think that no theory is worthwhile
I like Popper think that no theory is ever _complete_.
Worth and worthlessness are shifting sands.
Yet another day's work at the quote mine.
if it receives widespread support due to its ability to predict
experimental results from only a few simple, physical premises
and allows physicists to move on to deeper questions you don't
understand.
Deeper questions such as unification of all such scientitific theories,
currently inconsistent and non-unified because of inappropriate
physical postulates at their respective foundations.
Such as? Give some examples and prove the inconsistencies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Injudiciousness, Einstein and Scientifically Inaccurate Claims,specifically regarding the postulate of aether |
26 Aug 2005 11:05:19 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
The main issue here, if you'd care to address it,
is the assertion that the "MMX disproved the aether"
is a logically and scientifically inaccurate claim.
The MMX failed to find an aether effect.
No Aether is required by either the QFT, SR or GTR.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
