"pink" noise from 0 to .1Hz. Anyone that put a gaff like that in his abstract I would regard with suspicion.
EDIT - not a single reference to the 100's of papers on this subject. I have a copy of a book surveying the latest G-wave detectors I assure you this is not one.
Last edited:
More fatally, nearly every cite in his paper is to one particular crank and his "papers" in one particular fringe journal ("Progress in Physics").
Edit: the author is apparently a student of the aforementioned crank.
Excellent thread!
I enjoyed myself that I chewed through this.
Although, as we know, my English is terribly wrong.
My physical knowledge is rather weak.
Only my mathematical knowledge, that was necessary to understand the physics, are lower .
Therefore, I think, I can only comment on the philosophical aspects of the topic.
My basic thought was: there is no absolute truth, there are different points of view only.
For example, the nature of light: particle or a wave?
It depends on what method are examined.
In an age where I grew up in the ether theory from the mention of blasphemy.
(It is possible that even now it is?)
Lately, however, strange things can be heard such as:
Dark energy.
Dark matter.
Dark human brains. (Bocsánat.)
Now they will have instead of the aether? (Are there any?)
However, the fundamental problem is that the modern physics of everyday people become like, such as the various religions.
Here are examples:
Question 1:
What was before the Big Bang?
Answer:
The question is meaningless, and anyway, you can not receive any information about that, what was before this.
Question 2:
Who created God?
Answer:
Similar as above ...
Wacky
I enjoyed myself that I chewed through this.
Although, as we know, my English is terribly wrong.
My physical knowledge is rather weak.
Only my mathematical knowledge, that was necessary to understand the physics, are lower .
Therefore, I think, I can only comment on the philosophical aspects of the topic.
My basic thought was: there is no absolute truth, there are different points of view only.
For example, the nature of light: particle or a wave?
It depends on what method are examined.
In an age where I grew up in the ether theory from the mention of blasphemy.
(It is possible that even now it is?)
Lately, however, strange things can be heard such as:
Dark energy.
Dark matter.
Dark human brains. (Bocsánat.)
Now they will have instead of the aether? (Are there any?)
However, the fundamental problem is that the modern physics of everyday people become like, such as the various religions.
Here are examples:
Question 1:
What was before the Big Bang?
Answer:
The question is meaningless, and anyway, you can not receive any information about that, what was before this.
Question 2:
Who created God?
Answer:
Similar as above ...
Wacky
They fly already, independently from existence or absence of ether. It is simple: they fly on a different level of abstraction.
Like, speaker cables work no matter electrons move in them, or atoms pass an energy to each other, or an electricity flows through them like through the pipe.
Does somebody understand this possibly here?
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a8thpaper.pdf
Maybe from some exorcism there may be a word.
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a8thpaper.pdf
Maybe from some exorcism there may be a word.
I wonder.
Any theory which is introduced should do two things:
1. Explain existing experimental data, obviously
and, which is much more important,
2. give predictions which are experimentally verifiable.
GTR (I am not even talking about STR) meets both criteria and works very well.
One more thing about working theories (for those who forgot marxism-leninism they studied at school
)"practice constitutes the criterion of truth".
GTR is used in practice with good results. Is it complete theory? maybe not, but it will be completed when time comes. For now it works. And MMX is one of the most elegant experiment ever performed.
I agree of course.I wonder.
Any theory which is introduced should do two things:
1. Explain existing experimental data, obviously
and, which is much more important,
2. give predictions which are experimentally verifiable.
GTR (I am not even talking about STR) meets both criteria and works very well.
One more thing about working theories (for those who forgot marxism-leninism they studied at school
"practice constitutes the criterion of truth".
GTR is used in practice with good results. Is it complete theory? maybe not, but it will be completed when time comes. For now it works. And MMX is one of the most elegant experiment ever performed.
But as you may know SRT was before GRT and SRT is the subject of this discussion. SRT was the big eye-opener at the time and one of the reasons it was so quickly adopted was the null result of the MMX.
So we could discuss GRT too of course but for the purposes of the discussion it's not necessary.
One further point I would like to raise that although the MMX result was interpreted as null yes there were speed differences observed. However these were within the margin of error of the experiment. Subsequent experiments which were increasingly accurate have been able to repeat the result with increasingly smaller deviations.
The MMX had a null result because there is no ether. End of story.
Ether believers IMHO are akin to the PM believers like Steorn, the only difference is that they don't try to scam people out of their money.
What is wrong if they adopt some therm from another field?
I wonder, what kind of well known physical phenomena can cause similar results?
So then perhaps you can answer the question that SY avoided answering. Which, out of Standish and Wallace (or perhaps both) are lying?
It may well capture changes of gravitational forces that stretch fibers, not necessary gravitational waves. Or, temperature gradient changes between horizontal and vertical loops.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.