Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25th August 2010, 05:17 PM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
leadbelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
With the aether ( at least in Cahill's formulation to the extent I understand it, which admittedly is highly limited) things get a lot simpler. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
That's it! That would have to be the funniest thing said so far!
__________________
Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines. Enzo Ferrari
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 05:36 PM   #102
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
We imagine they do, but how could we know for sure?
We cannot. But it would be very arrogant to assume that only our neck of the woods is valid.

Quote:
Well apparently they don't work without 'dark matter' for which there's no evidence to date. And they don't work accurately in boreholes. Seems they also might well not work at the edge of the solar system (Pioneer anomaly) and on radar measurements of Venus. Just a handful of examples to whet your appetite. So no, I disagree here.
I agree that what we have now is by no means perfect. And dark matter/energy is a controversial subject sure. Of course we need to further refine our understanding of the physical reality, but I feel that going back to the ether is a big step backwards.

Quote:
No, ISTM you've got it the wrong way around. With the aether ( at least in Cahill's formulation to the extent I understand it, which admittedly is highly limited) things get a lot simpler. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Sure I heard of Occams razor.

I don't think we need the ether to explain our physical reality and Occams razor would suggest that is basis to get rid of it.

We originally conceived the ether to explain our physical reality. Experiments have shown that there is NO ether wind. Other experiments have confirmed the validity of the SRT as well. Why still cling to the idea of the ether?

It presents to me a fundamental problem, which I have tried to explain, and will re-iterate quickly. Our movement with respect to the ether may be fast, but is by no means fast enough to really throw off our physical reality.

A planet similar to earth with people living on it just like us but moving relative to us with 80% of the speed of light, willl also be moving very fast relative to the ether. Then light will move much much slower OR faster there. Maxwell's field equations will NOT work there. Light will be hindered in one direction and accelerated in another. This presents massive problems for the physical reality. It implies that MOST of the universe has different laws of physics from ours. That is something that IMHO simply cannot be true.

So you may think that the ether simplifies things, but I think they only complicate things. A lot.

SY help me out here.

Last edited by mace1337; 25th August 2010 at 05:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 06:19 PM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Many years ago, I was working with a system that measured photon absorption spectra by passing a laser across a sample surface, hitting the surface normally with a light beam at the frequency of interest, then measuring the deflection of the laser due sample heating from the photon absorption and the consequent refraction from the air boundary layer. We used some cool devices called PSDs.

In any case, one particular sample kept giving us odd results, very high absorption (apparently) with a really strange heating/cooling curve having about a 1Hz periodicity. We brainstormed this for hours, the experiment was repeated, and we found that the absorption weirdness changed frequencies from run to run, but always at that same 1Hz periodicity. The electronics were torn apart and rebuilt. Same issue. Detectors replaced, same result. We were quite excited- when scientists find stuff that's unexpected or outside what they THINK is going to happen, well, that's the stuff you live for.

Punch line: most of the measurements were done at 2 am for reasons of quiet and grad student schedules; the guy doing this particular sample was always running the stuff at more or less the same time. It turns out that there was a VERY large professor (I'm talking 400 pounds) who liked to work at night and would walk by our lab every few minutes to make a run to the candy machine.

Ooops.
Similarly, in one factory that used to make transistors once all parameters of devices changed, but they could not find the cause until somebody said that she changed a boyfriend at the same time.
It appeared, that a new boyfriend liked a different perfume...
After that perfume was prohibited there.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 08:34 PM   #104
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
And of course the batch of transistors infused with the new perfume are highly sought after by DIY-enthusiasts because of their warm sound.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2010, 09:59 PM   #105
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Wavebourn, I have not worked with semiconductor manufacturing, but a colleague of mine has, and he discovered a problem with the tech's eating french fries at lunch and coming back on the line, because of the salt. You know, NaCl. You are correct, though many others cannot understand you.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 12:17 AM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Wavebourn, I have not worked with semiconductor manufacturing, but a colleague of mine has, and he discovered a problem with the tech's eating french fries at lunch and coming back on the line, because of the salt. You know, NaCl. You are correct, though many others cannot understand you.
My point was, if the experiment has to prove something experimenters must consider other impacts on the result. It is the basic, and I believe everyone understands that.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 12:38 AM   #107
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by mace1337 View Post
I don't think we need the ether to explain our physical reality and Occams razor would suggest that is basis to get rid of it.
It depends how good (accurate) we want our explanation of physical reality to be. You've already admitted the current explanations don't cut it in various diverse areas. So I agree, many people are happy with a set of explanations which don't actually work in those areas, so obviously they don't need the aether. That you think the PP (Process Physics, Cahill's ontology) explanations are more complex ontologically just shows you really need to read the papers to correct your misunderstandings.

Quote:
We originally conceived the ether to explain our physical reality. Experiments have shown that there is NO ether wind. Other experiments have confirmed the validity of the SRT as well. Why still cling to the idea of the ether?
Cling to the idea? Who's doing the clinging here? The reason for employing the idea of aether in PP is because the explanations are thereby ontologically more parsimonious. But I've already said that.

Quote:
It presents to me a fundamental problem, which I have tried to explain, and will re-iterate quickly. Our movement with respect to the ether may be fast, but is by no means fast enough to really throw off our physical reality.
I agree you have a problem in your understanding - so recheck your assumptions. You'll have made either an error in them or in your reasoning.

Quote:
So you may think that the ether simplifies things, but I think they only complicate things. A lot.
Well this is science, so what you or I think is totally irrelevant. Opinions have no place in science. Now if you're able to show that having the aether makes things more complex, then go ahead, I'm interested.

You're mistaken in your claim that I think the aether simplifies things - I'm observing that it does (in the PP formulation of aether).
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 12:52 AM   #108
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
abraxalito is referencing Occam's Razor.

Then, it turns out, completely inappropriately. The aether is a needless complication, providing no useful insight. That is the crux, nothing useful flows from it's inclusion.

Laugh? I nearly wet myself.

Get a grip 'brax. Inter nos, you're out of your depth, and not just linguistically. Settle down, go back to making observations about grounding systems. Too much pondering of imponderables has left more than one person permanently unhinged.

w
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 12:58 AM   #109
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 109
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post
abraxalito is referencing Occam's Razor.

Then, it turns out, completely inappropriately. The aether is a needless complication, providing no useful insight. That is the crux, nothing useful flows from it's inclusion.
Argument from ignorance waki.

Quote:
Laugh? I nearly wet myself.
Great, I'm all for providing entertainment here

Quote:
Get a grip 'brax. Inter nos, you're out of your depth, and not just linguistically. Settle down, go back to making observations about grounding systems. Too much pondering of imponderables has left more than one person permanently unhinged.
Thanks for the advice waki, appreciated that you took the time to chip in here. I just don't find it at all persuasive
__________________
Seek not the favour of the multitude...rather the testimony of few. And number not voices, but weigh them. - Kant
The capacity for impartial observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who lack it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2010, 01:15 AM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakibaki View Post
abraxalito is referencing Occam's Razor.

Then, it turns out, completely inappropriately. The aether is a needless complication, providing no useful insight.
The problem is, if to assume it's presence calculations are simplified. I don't remember all details, I studied Physics in Irkutsk State University more than 30 years ago, but I can tell you for sure it actually simplifies, and a lot.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wrong Voltage / current on BoZ... or Wrong Measuring ? gionag Pass Labs 8 14th May 2008 12:24 PM
Where did I go wrong? Cup of coffee Solid State 31 26th June 2007 05:26 AM
My uncle could have been another Einstein keantoken The Lounge 16 15th October 2006 11:39 PM
Gemini proved crossovers? Hisatugo Multi-Way 2 7th March 2004 02:20 PM
What am I doing wrong???? Chuck Richey Everything Else 14 17th July 2003 09:42 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2