Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 6 Jan 2010 15:46 On Jan 6, 2:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > > > > > > > On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ><< I have searched it thoroughly and the experiments having to do with aether entrainment and the Pioneer Effect support my conclusion the Pioneer Effect is due to the Sun's entrained aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus.> [snip] > You do know that Dayton Miller is a laughing stock, right? > Miller spent 20 YEARS measuring the same thing that Michelson and Morley did, The only difference is in their results. [snip] > > > The problem with amateurs trolling the internet is that they lack a > > > bullshit meter. The problem with physicists is that whether or not they are trolling the internet they ARE the bullshit artists the meter measures. > > Michelson and Morley who's near-null result is evidence of aether > > entrainment. Are they laughing stocks also? > > Certainly not. Their result is also evidence of special relativity, > since SR's predictions are completely consistent with their results. Not "consistent with". "BASED on". > Therefore, their experiment does not *favor* aether entrainment over > special relativity. > > > Richard Muller - 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether > > Drift'. Him too? > > Certainly not. Again, the CMBR anisotropy (which has since been > measured with much more precision than this quite old result) is > completely consistent with relativity, and therefore this result does > not *favor* aether entrainment over special relativity. The results show that the cosmic background radiation IS NOT isotropic. On the largest measurable scale that indicates that our section is absolutely moving wrt the rest of the universe. Regardless of STR, that throws out GR's Minkowski-invented universally stationary space-time, glird
From: mpc755 on 6 Jan 2010 15:58 On Jan 6, 3:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >Michelson and Morley who's near-null result is evidence of aether > >entrainment. Are they laughing stocks also? > > MM's results indicate either no ether at all or ether entrainment. Since those are our two choices and we have: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" and "the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Where the state of the aether determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment. Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is.
From: PD on 6 Jan 2010 18:11 On Jan 6, 2:46 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jan 6, 2:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [snip]> > > > > > > On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ><< I have searched it thoroughly and the experiments having to do with > > aether entrainment and the Pioneer Effect support my conclusion the > Pioneer Effect is due to the Sun's entrained aether ending close to > the orbit of Uranus.> > [snip] > > > You do know that Dayton Miller is a laughing stock, right? > > > Miller spent 20 YEARS measuring the same thing that Michelson and > Morley did, > The only difference is in their results. No, the difference is in the *quality* of their results. Miller's analysis of his data was sloppy and introduced systematic bias in ways that beginners are taught to be wary of. He should have known better. This is why he is a laughing stock, especially since he stuck to his guns after his mistakes were pointed out to him. > > [snip] > > > > > The problem with amateurs trolling the internet is that they lack a > > > > bullshit meter. > > The problem with physicists is that whether or not they are trolling > the internet > they ARE the bullshit artists the meter measures. Conspiracy nuts who are determined to see a conspiracy are guaranteed success. > > > > Michelson and Morley who's near-null result is evidence of aether > > > entrainment. Are they laughing stocks also? > > > Certainly not. Their result is also evidence of special relativity, > > since SR's predictions are completely consistent with their results. > > Not "consistent with". "BASED on". No sir. SR is based on electrodynamics and the principle of relativity. The results of the MMX do not serve as the basis for SR. Regardless, SR is wholly consistent with the results of the MMX, and so the MMX cannot be said to favor AD over SR. > > > Therefore, their experiment does not *favor* aether entrainment over > > special relativity. > > > > Richard Muller - 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether > > > Drift'. Him too? > > > Certainly not. Again, the CMBR anisotropy (which has since been > > measured with much more precision than this quite old result) is > > completely consistent with relativity, and therefore this result does > > not *favor* aether entrainment over special relativity. > > The results show that the cosmic background radiation IS NOT > isotropic. That's what I said -- the measured CMBR anisotropy. > On the largest measurable scale that indicates that our section is > absolutely moving wrt the rest of the universe. It may indicate that to you, but it is also wholly consistent with relativity that has no absolute motion whatsoever. Therefore this result does not *favor* the model you like over relativity. > Regardless of STR, > that > throws out GR's Minkowski-invented universally stationary space-time, GR does not have a universally stationary spacetime. > > glird
From: Michael Moroney on 6 Jan 2010 20:49 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 6, 3:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> MM's results indicate either no ether at all or ether entrainment. >Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is. You forgot to supply the pointer to the experiment(s) that differentiate between aether entrainment and no aether, which indicate that there is, in fact, aether entrainment. PD has been asking you for evidence of aether entrainment (to the orbit of Uranus), too. Comments by a person aren't an experiment. Even if that person is Einstein. (and in particular ones made before QM really got going and supplied more evidence that a luminiferous ether is unnecessary)
From: mpc755 on 6 Jan 2010 22:39
On Jan 6, 8:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 6, 3:38 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> MM's results indicate either no ether at all or ether entrainment. > >Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is. > > You forgot to supply the pointer to the experiment(s) that differentiate > between aether entrainment and no aether, which indicate that there is, in > fact, aether entrainment. PD has been asking you for evidence of aether > entrainment (to the orbit of Uranus), too. > > Comments by a person aren't an experiment. Even if that person is Einstein. > (and in particular ones made before QM really got going and supplied more > evidence that a luminiferous ether is unnecessary) Evidence like the behaviors of a C-60 molecule in a double slit experiment? Evidence where the C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether? You still haven't answered how it is, in QM, a C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit when detectors are placed at the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot your answer was, "Because it's a wave". In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. |