This thread was started with a post aimed at 'disproving' Einstein, and even referenced a few experiments with some interesting 'interpretations'. I thought it was most interesting that one of the most elaborate and conclusive experiments performed in an effort to verify certain effects of Einstein's predictions hasn't been brought up yet: Gravity Probe B.
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe
I don't pretend to be an expert on physics, but after reviewing the GPB experiment and it's findings it should be fairly obvious what gravity IS and what aether ISN'T.
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe
I don't pretend to be an expert on physics, but after reviewing the GPB experiment and it's findings it should be fairly obvious what gravity IS and what aether ISN'T.
This is not entertaining. Now, Randy Mills is entertaining:
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics Resources
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics Resources
I have admitted our laws are not perfect. Does the aether theory make our laws perfect? Do they explain EVERYTHING that happens? More importantly, does it fill in all the gaps where our current theories are insufficient?
The holy grail of physics is a "theory of everything", which explains every aspect of our physical reality, from the movements of the planets right down to the smallest quarks and other subatomic particles. We are not there yet! Maybe one day we will, but I don't think the aether will play any part in it.
We know that Newton's laws are not 100% correct. Does that disprove them entirely? Of course not! Newtons laws work very well! We would not have been able to land on the moon to name something without those laws being valid.
Same goes for Einstein's work. They work pretty damn good. No need for the aether.
You are the one who is clinging to an idea that has been scientifically disproven. I happen to "believe" (for lack of a better word) in a theory that has been proven over and over again.
Well then expain how I'm wrong! I challenge you. I don't have to change my assumptions until they are proven to be wrong. Please, I'm serious!
No, you show how the ether simplifies things, YOU, as a supporter of an abandoned theory, should demonstrate why your theories are better than the now commonly accepted and rigourously verified theories, instead of the rigorously DISPROVEN theory about the aether.
And I have already explained how the aether complicates things with my example of the planet travelling with .8c relative to us. Do you have an answer to that? I'm interested.
You're not observing anything, you're postulating, big difference.
Look, I will read up on the PP formulation of the aether, maybe there is something that I've overlooked here.
Maybe you could do some more research into the various ways scientist tried to measure the aether and how they failed each time.
Last edited:
SRT and GRT are both aether theories. Einstein believed the aether exists. Go back and read the first and second posts in this thread to understand why its a fallacy to say the aether doesn't exist. If the aether didn't exist then there is no reason to make the speed of light constant in SRT.
I read the first post, it doesn't make sense. Please stop making these claims without backing them up with something.
Yes, unless you widen your definition of "working". The background terrestrial vibration spectrum is well known and published G-wave detectors require millions of dollars in special housing to even hope to get out of the noise. Secondly his baseline instrument noise is flat to .00016Hz. It is highly unlikely that $1000 and the Edmond Scientific catalog will buy you a beyond the state of the art instrument. G-wave detectors have been built that can see the waves on the Pacific coast from Colorado.
The plot shown, for all I know, represents the noise of some detector with and without the output shorted
Aether theories in general? I have no idea. But PP looks to me to make a better stab than what we currently have.
Not to my knowledge ALL the gaps. But that's not realistic at present. PP is fairly young, so there's time.
You're welcome to your opinion. Just don't be under any illusions that your opinion will influence me - it most certainly will not
So you keep saying. Does repeating your opinion achieve anything useful do you think?
Evidence, please, to back up this claim.
That just shows your grasp of the philosophy of science is incomplete at best.
Set out your assumptions then and I'll have a go at showing (not proving) where you're mistaken.
I'm not as it happens a 'supporter of an abandoned theory' - I'm advocating PP (which can't be 'abandoned' as to my knowledge its never been adopted) as a better fit to the data we have than what we currently have. Remind me where the PP version of the aether has been 'disproven'? I'd like to take a look at the experimental data and procedures.
My answer to that was 're-check your assumptions and/or reasoning'.
That would allow you to argue from at least having considered the theory, rather than from your present condition of ignorance. So yeah, its a step forward for sure.
Persuade me that this will have some benefit then.
Thanks for the advice waki, appreciated that you took the time to chip in here. I just don't find it at all persuasive
Well, think on this. Every flaky argument that comes down the pipe, you're there on the flaky side. The art of science is in maintaining a healthy skepticism, particularly about your own ideas, not flat out taking a contrary position to every accepted precept.
The trouble with having a glib tongue for argument is that you can come to believe that argument is everything.
R.Feynmann said:
I'm not calling you a flake, but what I am saying is that if you don't pack it in you will become indistinguishable from a flake.
w
Then why not help me out here? - if I'm making basic errors in logic and/or reasoning, just correcting them will put a stop to my 'flakiness'.
Why would skepticism be any healthier than gullibility? Just set out the evidence and/or reasoning.
I'll certainly bear that in mind and strive to avoid such a basic error as believing argument is everything. Ta for the tip
What was it I need to pack in in order not to be perceived as a flake? Arguing with people?
Fine, that's where our opinions differ.
Fine, but then don't discount other theories like SRT because they have gaps.
Nah, but my opinions are based in fact.
I already posted a list of experiments that were supposed to prove the existence of the aether. They all failed to do so.
As is yours.
I think I have done a pretty good job of setting out my assumptions. If you can explain to my why my example was wrong then please do.
I'll need some help showing me where those are wrong.
Hmmm.... Read belowThat would allow you to argue from at least having considered the theory, rather than from your present condition of ignorance. So yeah, its a step forward for sure.
The aforementioned present condition of ignorance and allowing to argue from at least having considered the evidence.
Evidently your opinion on this matter (details of PP) is based on not having read the papers which explain it. That's really funny
Like the fact that you haven't read the PP papers. Just gets funnier
Naturally enough, I disagree with your opinion here which is why I asked for you to set them out.
<snipped out stuff I can't understand the relevance of, or just can't understand>
Evidently your opinion on this matter (details of PP) is based on not having read the papers which explain it. That's really funny
Like the fact that you haven't read the PP papers. Just gets funnier
Naturally enough, I disagree with your opinion here which is why I asked for you to set them out.
Ok fine looks like I dug myself a nice hole.
I'll get you yet.
I'll get back on this.Now now, that's not fair.
Maybe she thought it was a ground hog
Poor animal had to pee each time to make the phone ringing that stopped electrocution. Was it 120V 25 Hz? I don't remember.
If Einstein was right then we would be able to reproduce nuclear fusion that is supposed to take place in the sun here on earth. We can't because the sun is not driven by fusion. If Einstein was right then we wouldn't have to invent things like dark matter and dark energy. Just check out 'The Electric Universe' by Wallace Thornhill, he explains that the universe is controlled by electricity, not gravity as Eistein theorised.
The HIFI site
The HIFI site
The Sun (or any other star) is not driven by fusion?
Then where do all the elements heavier than hydrogen come from?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.