There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 19:14 In article <ee8f3625-658d-4762-9f4a- d209e1af31fd(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > that image is a pernicious little devil, > almost as bad as Minkowski's silly say-so > about phase-space, then dying on us. > > cast thee out! > > > http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif > > --Hey; they certainly did not follow *that* money. > http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: Paul Stowe on 30 Mar 2010 21:45 On Mar 29, 8:46 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote: > > [cut] > > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > > to that of Newton's time. > > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > No. First, such observation is not "experiment", in the strict sense. That > useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn't invalidate > anything that's been said here about experiments. > > Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do > you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further > investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs > before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure. > How do you know it isn't worthwhile? Answer: theory. Not necessarily, LENR (so-called 'cold fusion'), Pioneer's drag, the slingshot anomally, etc. don't fit current theories. Likewise, spiral galactic rotations, type 1A SN brightness/redshift variance are shoe- horned into current concepts to such a stretch that many are saying the dark side is seriously questionable. But the point is, no, many unexpected observation do not fit theory. > An observation that isn't known theoretically beforehand can be very > interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that > has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is > wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation > tell you? You need to look for one. > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > > science. > > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > > Indeed! > > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > > if one actually believes it. > > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > > run, an unaceptable state. > > Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been > with us for a long time. If it's "unacceptable", what do you do? 1. Man up & say so, clearly, and most importantly, quit saying you can't know so don't bother. Yup, that 'shut up & calculate' additude. > One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to > try to get there. Would this be a good investment? Probably not, because insightful discoveries are not accomplished that way. However, IMO gatekeepers function to protect the paradigm, not scientific advancement. > That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model > is the giant roadblock on the road to "fundamental understanding". How is > this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story > behind it be tested? By Ockham's Razor for one. Also it is very rare that two actual physical models predict exactly the same quantitative elements. > (There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology, > concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.) > > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > > changing. > > ??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long > as quantum mechanics has been with us. > > The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations > is close to zero (unless you consider "shut up and calculate" an > "intepretation"). Interpretations have at times impeded progress. I consider "shut up and calculate" a major roadblock to progress. > People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to > them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn't make it > science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing "interpretations" > with "art".) Art? Scientific physical models should underpin mathematical quantification. Mathematical forms point to physical functionality. > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Where "modern" is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so > story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the > part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations, > the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act. That 'leftover refuse' was the very first example of a quantized superfluid vortex model. I probably would not taken until the 1950's to rediscover it had it not been abandoned. The quantum nature of it becomes obvious when looked at in retrospect. Can one say spin foam :) > But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his > sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of > Maxwell's theory was well underway in Maxwell's writing. And this was > despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist. > > Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be > obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this > (published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell's Treatise). Hertz > did it again some years later, making Maxwell's theory (as in the > quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries. I know more than most what Maxwell was doing. Yes, he says that one does not need to consider the icroscopic model if all one wants to do is deal with 'field' effects. But, as evidenced by his references in his Treasties he never claims the microscopic model unnessary. It like saying we don't need to worry about the particulars of the microscopic kinetic theory if we are only interested in the bulk behavior of a medium, continuum Mechanics is good enough. But, again, that does not mean kinetic theory is needed or valid. > Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step > further away. They "explain" some observed phenomenon, but the elements of > the Cartesianist story remain unexplained. > > For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might > well yield Maxwell's equations. Why does this fluid have these properties? > No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these > properties - these real-world properties are the result of long-range > interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the > aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes > these? What 'assume' that? KISS/Ockham's Razor... > If one is willing to accept such interactions without further > explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original > electromagnetic interactions without further explanation? One is not willing to accept such and will claim that until all such questions have answers things are not complete AND! needs further explanations... > If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to > _different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the > models is better (but keep in mind that it'd be a test of the quantitative > models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead > somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free > parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification, > then it's less likely to lead anywhere. > > There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as > non-science. > -- > Timo Nieminen String theory is Maxwell's model in absurd mathematical abstraction. No wonder its sooooo.... free. Paul Stowe
From: mpc755 on 1 Apr 2010 11:01 On Apr 1, 2:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > WHAT EXTRA ASSUMPTIONS??? > > For an atomic aether, we could start with: > > 1. How many different kinds of aether-atoms are there? There are no aether-atoms. It is not be known if aether consists of particles or not. If you insist on their being aether particles, which there is no evidence of and which is not know, consider them to be quantum of matter (i.e. photons).
From: mpc755 on 1 Apr 2010 11:15 On Apr 1, 2:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > WHAT EXTRA ASSUMPTIONS??? > For an atomic aether, we could start with: > 1. How many different kinds of aether-atoms are there? There are no aether-atoms. It is not be known if aether consists of particles or not. If you insist on there being aether particles, which there is no evidence of and which are not know to exist, then consider them to be quantum of matter (i.e. photons).
From: mpc755 on 1 Apr 2010 11:18
On Apr 1, 2:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > WHAT EXTRA ASSUMPTIONS??? > For an atomic aether, we could start with: > 1. How many different kinds of aether-atoms are there? There are no aether-atoms. It is not be known if aether consists of particles or not. If you insist on their being aether particles, which there is no evidence of and which are not known to exist, consider them to be quanta of matter (i.e. photons). |