Yeah, pigs will fly. You're just saying that. We don't believe you believe that. What advantages do you get from believing that?
w
You need to stop smoking waki tabaki.
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
by Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
by Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies
Science in Turmoil - Are we Funding Fraud?
Yes, it works. If to observe on quantum level we can predict that the observation changes results. So, if ether is on deeper than quantum level we can certainly expect similar surprises that confirm ancient wisdom about the nature of mind that is just another manifestation of the matter, just with higher frequency of vibrations.
...similar surprises that confirm ancient wisdom about the nature of mind that is just another manifestation of the matter, just with higher frequency of vibrations.
You've been hanging out with Bud Purvine?
Can't quite get the relevance of your question here. The statement is pertaining to the apparent inconsistencies arising from applying known physics equations to interplanetary measurements.
He means a corrupt moderator on the forum he linked to....although I'm sure some of you guys are corruptible too
Phew, thanks. We mods get accused of so many things we never even thought of, I feared we were falling behind!
A lot!
Buddy of mine even has an asteroid named after him, 'cause he "discovered" it. Kinda cool.
Yep - for any of you DIY physics bods who can comfortably handle fibre optics, how about this - a home-brewed gravitational wave detector. Haven't built one myself, but sure looks interesting:
[0707.1172] Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: Dynamical 3-Space Turbulence Detected
We don't need the ether anymore to explain our world to a pretty exacting degree.
Why hold on to it?
Sure there are going to be arguments against a theory, there are arguments against evolution, that does not invalidate it. You can probably find lots of "evidence" against relativity but on the other hand it has been independently verified lots of times. What's the problem?
Why hold on to it?
Sure there are going to be arguments against a theory, there are arguments against evolution, that does not invalidate it. You can probably find lots of "evidence" against relativity but on the other hand it has been independently verified lots of times. What's the problem?
Einsteinian relativity has never been verified. Experiments appear to support it because of mass, length and time transformations as a result of motion relative to the aether. Experiments that alledgedly support Einsteinian relativity actually prove its wrong when interpreted properly, like MMX combined with Sagnac, like I did here.
Experiments with gravity done by undergraduates in physics classes prove gravity is NOT curved space since it follows Newtonian theory very closely. If space was curved in a gravitational field then any projectile would follow the same path independent of velocity. But as experiments show, the faster the projectile, the straighter its path. This provides absolute indisputable proof gravity is NOT curved space, but rather a kind of aether density gradiant and also proves the aether is separate from space and is NOT at absolute rest.
Experiments with gravity done by undergraduates in physics classes prove gravity is NOT curved space since it follows Newtonian theory very closely. If space was curved in a gravitational field then any projectile would follow the same path independent of velocity. But as experiments show, the faster the projectile, the straighter its path. This provides absolute indisputable proof gravity is NOT curved space, but rather a kind of aether density gradiant and also proves the aether is separate from space and is NOT at absolute rest.
If you keep saying thoroughly incorrect stuff over and over, eventually it will become correct, is that the idea?
Yes, I fail to see the logic in the leaps you make. Applying some (crackpot or not) theory to the results of an experiment does not invalidate the results of said experiment.
I could say that the Lorentz contraction was caused by a ghost who wanted to confuse us, and there would be no way to really disprove my claim. But claiming that does not suddenly invalidate the MMX result or force us to re-evaluate the result.
What is your basis for this? You cobble together some experimental data and claim you acutally "interpret it properly". I think you should re-evaluate that statement. It makes no sense without actual science backing it.
I could say that the Lorentz contraction was caused by a ghost who wanted to confuse us, and there would be no way to really disprove my claim. But claiming that does not suddenly invalidate the MMX result or force us to re-evaluate the result.
What is your basis for this? You cobble together some experimental data and claim you acutally "interpret it properly". I think you should re-evaluate that statement. It makes no sense without actual science backing it.
Last edited:
The problem is that when you see things like this:
...then you know that the poster doesn't even grasp the basics of the theory he has deigned to criticize. So what use is it to ask for him to interpret anything?
Cool, so when can we expect to see the first production spacecraft with the new aetheric drive?
w
Actual physics books
"actual physics books"? Whar do you think we've studied in school? Read Ives' experiments with the photoelectric effect. He shows that the photoelectric effect can be easily and simply explained with standing waves, which makes wave/particle dualism totally unnecesary. You won't find that in an "actual physics book". It's time to stop taking on faith anything a physicist says just because he studied actual physics books. Now that Einstein is a god, and relativity dogma, they have to sweep contrary evidence under the rug, lest it fall like the house of cards it is. Sadly, modern physics is so politicised, that theologians are actually more open to new ideas than physicists are.
"actual physics books"? Whar do you think we've studied in school? Read Ives' experiments with the photoelectric effect. He shows that the photoelectric effect can be easily and simply explained with standing waves, which makes wave/particle dualism totally unnecesary. You won't find that in an "actual physics book". It's time to stop taking on faith anything a physicist says just because he studied actual physics books. Now that Einstein is a god, and relativity dogma, they have to sweep contrary evidence under the rug, lest it fall like the house of cards it is. Sadly, modern physics is so politicised, that theologians are actually more open to new ideas than physicists are.
That's an excellent question. Perhaps the books that teach "(i)f space was curved in a gravitational field then any projectile would follow the same path independent of velocity." Which would explain a lot.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.