How many minor plants/moons/large asteroids have been discovered since 1974?
That happens to come from those "All science is wrong" hogwash websites that tends t misrepresent what was said. In that case, the misunderstanding comes from the fact that an inadequate amount of factors had been considered, and thus corrections needed to be included. If you look up his lifes work, you will find that all those "corrections" lead to the discovery of various gravitational effects that were not yet well understood. Everything from tidal effects to the gravity of black matter, etc. It didn't disprove SRT, it was just incomplete at the time. What he said was right, based on the then theoretical understanding, there was no way to explain the effects. Not having enough variables in a model doesn't disprove an entire mathematical or theoretical framework.
I may have been hit by some Muons, I have been losing weight lately.
I think the valid point here was my original point, Science doesn't disprove things from null results. Its an elementary mistake, no Phd physicist would ever do that, and those of us that know better ignore the ramblings of people who try do that.
I don't think they ever disproved the ether theory per sé, only what happened was that the experiment designed to prove the existence of an ether wind, came up with nothing.
Which would suggest that either Earth is at rest relative to the ether, which was previously thought to be dis-proven, and it also violates the Copernican Paradigm, or that something else was happening.
The Lorentz theory was a way to try and explain the result, but had no basis whatsoever.
Now you tell me what is the most likely answer? That the ether exists but due to some strange effect the MMX had a null result? An experiment that had 20x the needed resolution? (The difference in speed between earth moving one way and moving the other is 40 miles per second, and the experiment was sensitive enough to detect discrepancies of two M/s)
Which would suggest that either Earth is at rest relative to the ether, which was previously thought to be dis-proven, and it also violates the Copernican Paradigm, or that something else was happening.
The Lorentz theory was a way to try and explain the result, but had no basis whatsoever.
Now you tell me what is the most likely answer? That the ether exists but due to some strange effect the MMX had a null result? An experiment that had 20x the needed resolution? (The difference in speed between earth moving one way and moving the other is 40 miles per second, and the experiment was sensitive enough to detect discrepancies of two M/s)
There may be more than one model of reality that allows to produce the same KaBoom!
It depends on a brand of GPS, according to my observations. Garmin never suggested me to go off Bay Bridge even when traffic stops completely, while Magellan always does that. Why? The answer is simple: Magellan was a sailor. Do you know who was Garmin? I don't know, but I suspect he did not ride his horse through oceans.
What an experiment with observation of particles that go through the slot demonstrates? Right, that particles change their behaviour as soon as the way to observe it exists. Why other experiments that show "nothing" can be different?
Last edited:
What do you mean by this exactly?
In this case viewing the interference pattern collapses the wave-particle duality and light acts as a wave. Any shift in that interference pattern would suggest ether wind slowing down the light. This effect was not observed, that's what I mean by coming up with "nothing" (null result).
I mean, if the fact of potential observation has to be considered as the variable factor in the experiment coming up with "nothing" means undetermined result. Period.
Edit: At least, "In presence of potential observation, ..." has to be added to the conclusion.
Okay, so you mean that if there is a possibility that the experiment can be observed in two different ways given a different means of detecting (wave interferometer or particle detector) then the experiment is not valid because it could have different results if you observe the light as particles instead of as a wave?
No. I mean, the conclusion has to be rephrased: instead of "There is no ether impact", it should be, "In case of possibility of observation ether impact did not show".
I have copies of The Einstein Myth And The Ives Papers, Petr Beckman's book Einstein Plus 2, Relativity is Dead, Challanging Modern Physics by Al Kelly and a couple of other books.
Some more literature: Relativity skeptics and aether proponents
I believe in mass, length (ie. Lorentz contraction) and time (ie. time dilation) transformations, but also believe there must be a prefered electromagnetic frame of reference, ie. the aether, because of the twin paradox arguments. I also believe light bends in a gravitation field, the speed of light is slower and atomic clocks run slower at lower gravitational potentials, but believe its due to the properties of the aether varying with gravitational potential (Eric Baird calls it an aether density gradient) instead of curved space (general relativity).
Also, look up stellar (Bradley) aberration. Einstein fanatics believe it happens as a result of relative motion between a star and the earth, but when experiments are done with binary stars it appears to show that the earth is moving through a transmitting medium of light, because the tilt of the telescope depends completely on the motion of the earth (ie. the motion of the earth relative to the transmitting medium of light).
Last edited:
It might help to get some actual physics books. They're probably not as entertaining as the crank stuff, but they have the virtue of being correct.
Here's something that's too shocking for a lot of scientists to believe. I found it here:
Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!
but apparently a corrupt moderator edited the original post in order to hide criticism of Einstein's relativity theories.
John Bell the well known quantum mechanics guru said something that many would consider crackpot if it came from someone else, but yet he's considered an important contributor to quantum mechanics.
Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!
Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!
but apparently a corrupt moderator edited the original post in order to hide criticism of Einstein's relativity theories.
John Bell the well known quantum mechanics guru said something that many would consider crackpot if it came from someone else, but yet he's considered an important contributor to quantum mechanics.
Surprise! Dr. John Bell Liked the Ether!
Uh, yeah...... And watch out for the people in the walls, they are trying to brainwash you.
He means a corrupt moderator on the forum he linked to....although I'm sure some of you guys are corruptible too
There s no such thing as pre-einsteinian theories..
All foundings equations related to relativity where first
discovered by Lorentz and then layed down mathematicaly
by Poincaré...
Einstein was more than weak in mathematics compared to poincaré
and in fact, he was mainly good in vulgarizing Lorentz and Poincaré
works though he did aknowledged those sources only very late
in his life..
Quote from wikipedia article :
" Poincaré concluded that the electromagnetic field energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid ("fluide fictif") with a mass density of E/c2."
That is : M = E/c2.
Einstein was branded genius by re writing it E = Mc2....
Henri Poincaré - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All foundings equations related to relativity where first
discovered by Lorentz and then layed down mathematicaly
by Poincaré...
Einstein was more than weak in mathematics compared to poincaré
and in fact, he was mainly good in vulgarizing Lorentz and Poincaré
works though he did aknowledged those sources only very late
in his life..
Quote from wikipedia article :
" Poincaré concluded that the electromagnetic field energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid ("fluide fictif") with a mass density of E/c2."
That is : M = E/c2.
Einstein was branded genius by re writing it E = Mc2....
Henri Poincaré - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
It was there. I copied the post. You're obviously brainwashed. Moderators of physics forums constantly try to suppress criticism of Einstein.
He means a corrupt moderator on the forum he linked to....although I'm sure some of you guys are corruptible too
It just takes money, cocaine, and teenage girls.
No. Einstein's relation had a very different and much broader physical meaning. It's incorrect to the point of silly to claim that all he did was rearrange terms.
But then, crank science is by definition silly. Shall we revive the Lenard tome, "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein?" After all, he was a Nobel Laureate while Einstein was still doing the 9-5 in the Berne patent office.
I don't see any contradiction here. Without describing the cause the effect can be described mathematically using curved space.
Did Sir Isaac Newton need to describe the cause of gravitation in order to describe it's effect, similarly?
Nothing wrong. Just different levels of abstractions, all of them leading to quite precise practical instrumentation.
You certainly forgot to start this sentence from, "According to my belief..."
You mean, "...according to prediction and experimental verification." See, the stubborn thing about physics is that it works. Whether or not you or any of the cranks believe it is irrelevant- E still equals mc2, the speed of light is still the same for all observers in the same inertial frame, energy is conserved, and the product of conjugate variables is still greater than h/2pi.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.