Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 13:51 On Dec 31, 11:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31, 11:36 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 30, 9:16 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> >> > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > >> >> This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > >> >> and other tests. > > >> >Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? Aether > > >> >does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > > >> >matter which is the Earth. > > > >> It would seem that, as you claim, the aether near the earth is entrained > > >> by the earth, and (I assume) the aether near a star is entrained by the > > >> star, the next logical step would be to try to devise a way to measure the > > >> difference in velocities of these aethers. I don't know what stellar > > >> aberration is but I assume it would try to measure the velocity difference, > > >> and I doubt it involves pouring water into telescopes. > > > >One thing I think is evidence of aether entrainment is the moons of > > >Jupiter. If you look at the inner moons of Jupiter they exist within > > >Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons of Jupiter 'fell out of' > > >Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit in the opposite direction. All of > > >Jupiter's moons are under the effects of Jupiter's displaced aether > > >which is apply pressure back towards Jupiter, keeping all of Jupiter's > > >moons in orbit. > > > No need to create an "aether" to explain the orbits of planets and moons. > > Newton's and Kepler's Laws describe things just fine, other than a minor > > tweak by GR for things like Mercury's precession. > > Aether Entrainment explains the Pioneer Effect. > > Other evidence of aether entrainment is the rotation and magnetic > fields of Uranus. Somehow, possibly by a large body flying close by > Uranus, Uranus has 'tipped over', but its magnetic field did not 'tip > over' with the matter which is Uranus. If you imagine Uranus being at > the edge of the Sun's entrained aether you might be able to imagine > the Sun's entrained aether not being strong enough to keep the matter > which is Uranus 'upright' if Uranus interacted with a large body, but > strong enough to cause it's poles to rotate over time and align with > the 'flow' of the Sun's entrained aether once it had 'tipped over'. > > > > > Again, such "aethers" moving at different velocities, each with their own > > local speeds of light would have such speed differences easily detected.. > > No such result has been observed. > > Incorrect. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. The aether > is entrained by the stars. Once the light enters the solar system and > is received by the Earth it has been traveling at 'c' relative to the > Suns entrained aether and then the Earth's entrained aether. > > Again, it is like someone in Florida firing a bullet at almost 'c' at > the eye of a hurricane heading for Louisiana. It will difficult, > possibly impossible, for an Observer in the eye of the hurricane to > notice the winds effects on the bullet. > > Consider binary stars. The light emitted by one star is entrained by > that star. Soon after being emitted the light travels at 'c' with > respect to the aether entrained by both stars. Then that light enters > the solar system and travels at 'c' with respect to the aether > entrained by the Sun. Then the light gets close to Earth and travels > at 'c' with respect to the aether entrained by the Earth. Where along > the path the light travels can we detect the entrained aether's effect > on the light? > > > > > >> >> You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > >> >MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > > > >> ...or the aether simply doesn't exist. (MMX cannot tell the difference > > >> between these two possibilities) > > >'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" > > > Again, MMX cannot tell the difference between the two possibilities of > > entrained aether and no aether. Further experiments are needed to tell > > which of these possibilities is correct. > > > Einstein's comments were in a time when "everyone" thought there was an > > aether, it was before De Broglie and others came up with the wave-particle > > duality and the rest of quantum mechanics where all "things", including > > light and particle-like things like electrons all have characteristics of > > both waves and particles, making the need for an aether to explain things > > unnecessary. > > Once you exclude an aether you have to believe in magic like the C-60 > molecule, 60 interconnected atoms, is able to enter, travel through, > and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment > without requiring energy, releasing energy, or have a change in > momentum. > > In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule, due to the matter, which is > the C-60 molecule, connections with the aether, the C-60 molecule > creates a displacement wave in the aether. 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. When the displacement > wave exits the slits, it creates interference which alters the > direction the C-60 molecule travels. > > You also have to believe in magic in terms of what is occurring in a > 'delayed choice' experiment. If you look at the image on the right > here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experi... > > All that is occurring is the wave associated with the photon is > traveling both the red and blue paths. The photon 'particle' travels a > single path. When the red and blue paths combine, the physical waves > in the aether create interference and the direction the photon > 'particle' travels is altered. Nothing is delayed. Nothing is erased. > Just physical waves in the aether doing what waves do and that is > travel available paths, and a 'particle' doing what a particle does > and that is travel a single path. > > A modified deBroglie statement of, "A moving object or particle has an > associated aether wave" and all of the nonsense goes away. In a double slit experiment performed with a C-60 molecule detectors are placed at the exits right before the C-60 molecule is about to exit the slit(s) (i.e. the detectors are placed at the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s)). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. If there is no aether, what just occurred? Was the C-60 molecule traveling through the available slits and instantly, or almost instantly, was able to somehow exit a single slit? Or did the C-60 molecule enter one or more slits depending upon what was going to occur in the future (i.e. depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits or not while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s))? In AD, since the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit, the C-60 molecule was simply detected exiting the slit. The act of detection destroys the coherence (decoherence) of the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether which means there is no interference created by the displacement waves as they exit the slits, and the direction the C-60 molecule travels is not altered. A moving particle or object creates a displacement wave in the aether. And that includes the Earth too. For the Earth, it is called a gravity wave.
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 14:00 On Dec 30, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > How long did you spend on that reply? A minute? Maybe more? In that > > > > > > > time you could not answer if Einstein's train gedanken is performed in > > > > > > > water if the Observer at M' takes into effect the water when > > > > > > > determining the simultaneity of the events? > > > > > > > Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth > > > > > > replying to, along the lines that you wish. > > > > > > If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, > > > > > > You choose to believe it is not worth pursuing because of the dogma > > > > > you choose to believe. > > > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > and other tests. > > Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? No. That's not the tests I'm referring to. As I said, you have a lot of homework to do. > Aether > does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > matter which is the Earth. > > > You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. MMX *allows* aether entrainment, but other subsequent experiments RULED OUT aether entrainment. In science, it is the *collective* body of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is scientific fraud. > > > However, > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with physicists about what "physical" means. > Time is a concept. SR (and > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > describing the aether pressure Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > associated with aether displacement and > the GR concept of the connections between aether and matter is aether > displacement and entrainment. > > If the Observer on the train knows the train is moving through water > at rest with respect to the embankment, can the Observer on the train > use this information when determining simultaneity? > > > > > > Meaning, > > > the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Meaning, the > > > Observer at M and the Observer at M', having this information, will > > > arrive at the same conclusion as the the simultaneity of lightning > > > strikes at A/A' and B/B'. > > > > I realize your dogma will not let you understand this. > > > I realize you have a lot of homework to do. > > > > > In science, that finishes the debate. > > > > If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's > > > > not worth pursuing. > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect > > > > > to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at > > > > > rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train > > > > > determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at > > > > > A/A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with > > > > > respect to the embankment? > > > > > > Of course the Observer at M' factors in the state of the medium the > > > > > wave propagates through. You have to know the state of the medium the > > > > > wave propagates through in order to determine how far the wave > > > > > traveled. Once you know the state of the medium the wave propagates > > > > > through, the simultaneity of events will be able to be determined by > > > > > all Observers, and all Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as > > > > > to the simultaneity of the events, in nature. > > > > > > The aether is entrained by the Earth. Meaning, the aether is at rest > > > > > with respect to the embankment. Light travels at c with respect to the > > > > > aether. Both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the > > > > > embankment have this information. The light from the lightning strikes > > > > > at A/A' and B/B' reach the Observer at M simultaneously. The light > > > > > from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A' reaches M'. The > > > > > Observer at M' knows the aether is at rest with respect to the > > > > > embankment and knows the trains speed relative to the embankment, > > > > > giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the > > > > > aether. With this information, along with knowing the difference in > > > > > time from when the light from B/B' reaches M' and when the light from > > > > > A/A' reaches M' and factoring in the distance A' is from M' and the > > > > > distance B' is from M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning > > > > > strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
From: PD on 31 Dec 2009 14:03 On Dec 30, 8:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 9:16 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 30, 6:46=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > >> > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > >> This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > >> and other tests. > > >Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? Aether > > >does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > > >matter which is the Earth. > > > It would seem that, as you claim, the aether near the earth is entrained > > by the earth, and (I assume) the aether near a star is entrained by the > > star, the next logical step would be to try to devise a way to measure the > > difference in velocities of these aethers. I don't know what stellar > > aberration is but I assume it would try to measure the velocity difference, > > and I doubt it involves pouring water into telescopes. > > Aether Entrainment is the reason for the Pioneer Effect (http:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly). The Sun's entrained aether > ends past Uranus. This is where the Pioneer Satellites 'fell out of' > the Sun's entrained aether. There are several models that would accommodate the Pioneer anomaly. Yours is only one. However, entrained aether models of all kinds also demand other effects to be seen, such as stellar aberration and seasonal variations of the light from stars. Those entrained aether models have already been put to those experimental tests, and ruled out. Again, cherry picking an experiment that is consistent with your model and ignoring the others that rule out your model is scientific fraud. You have a lot of homework to do. > > Just to help conceptualize the aether entrained by the Earth, think of > the Moon as 'floating' in the Earth's entrained aether. The aether at > the surface of the Earth is moving at almost the identical speed as > the Earth's surface and the further away from the Earth you get, the > slower the aether. The first 30 seconds makes the point: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLZzaDVJxIc > > One thing I think is evidence of aether entrainment is the moons of > Jupiter. If you look at the inner moons of Jupiter they exist within > Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons of Jupiter 'fell out of' > Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit in the opposite direction. All of > Jupiter's moons are under the effects of Jupiter's displaced aether > which is apply pressure back towards Jupiter, keeping all of Jupiter's > moons in orbit. > > Here is a good animation of Jupiter's moons. Select Jupiter and then > use the '+' sign to drill down and see Jupiter's inner moons: > > http://janus.astro.umd.edu/SolarSystems/ > > Just to try and visualize what I mean by the planets or satellites > 'fall out of' the entrained aether. Take a look at this video of a > hurricane. It is hard to notice, but right around the 20 second mark, > the clouds over Cuba fall back towards Cuba and start to go in the > other direction. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUuG63EO6bs > > > >> You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > >MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > > > ...or the aether simply doesn't exist. (MMX cannot tell the difference > > between these two possibilities) > > '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"
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 14:14 On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > How long did you spend on that reply? A minute? Maybe more? In that > > > > > > > > time you could not answer if Einstein's train gedanken is performed in > > > > > > > > water if the Observer at M' takes into effect the water when > > > > > > > > determining the simultaneity of the events? > > > > > > > > Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth > > > > > > > replying to, along the lines that you wish. > > > > > > > If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, > > > > > > > You choose to believe it is not worth pursuing because of the dogma > > > > > > you choose to believe. > > > > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > > > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > > > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > > > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > > This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > > and other tests. > > > Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? > > No. That's not the tests I'm referring to. As I said, you have a lot > of homework to do. > > > Aether > > does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > > matter which is the Earth. > > > > You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > > MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > > MMX *allows* aether entrainment, but other subsequent experiments > RULED OUT aether entrainment. In science, it is the *collective* body > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > scientific fraud. > But of course, since you main point is to maintain your belief in your dogma, you will not point to any references to other such experiments. > > > > > > > However, > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are mathematical representations of nature. Yes, I know, your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > describing the aether pressure > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > AD is a physical representation of SR and GR, but again, your dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been indoctrinated into believing. It is pointless trying to have a conversation with someone who cannot understand time is a concept and a 'wave function probability' is not nature. > > associated with aether displacement and > > the GR concept of the connections between aether and matter is aether > > displacement and entrainment. > > > If the Observer on the train knows the train is moving through water > > at rest with respect to the embankment, can the Observer on the train > > use this information when determining simultaneity? > > > > > Meaning, > > > > the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Meaning, the > > > > Observer at M and the Observer at M', having this information, will > > > > arrive at the same conclusion as the the simultaneity of lightning > > > > strikes at A/A' and B/B'. > > > > > I realize your dogma will not let you understand this. > > > > I realize you have a lot of homework to do. > > > > > > In science, that finishes the debate. > > > > > If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's > > > > > not worth pursuing. > > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect > > > > > > to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at > > > > > > rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train > > > > > > determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at > > > > > > A/A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with > > > > > > respect to the embankment? > > > > > > > Of course the Observer at M' factors in the state of the medium the > > > > > > wave propagates through. You have to know the state of the medium the > > > > > > wave propagates through in order to determine how far the wave > > > > > > traveled. Once you know the state of the medium the wave propagates > > > > > > through, the simultaneity of events will be able to be determined by > > > > > > all Observers, and all Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as > > > > > > to the simultaneity of the events, in nature. > > > > > > > The aether is entrained by the Earth. Meaning, the aether is at rest > > > > > > with respect to the embankment. Light travels at c with respect to the > > > > > > aether. Both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the > > > > > > embankment have this information. The light from the lightning strikes > > > > > > at A/A' and B/B' reach the Observer at M simultaneously. The light > > > > > > from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A' reaches M'. The > > > > > > Observer at M' knows the aether is at rest with respect to the > > > > > > embankment and knows the trains speed relative to the embankment, > > > > > > giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the > > > > > > aether. With this information, along with knowing the difference in > > > > > > time from when the light from B/B' reaches M' and when the light from > > > > > > A/A' reaches M' and factoring in the distance A' is from M' and the > > > > > > distance B' is from M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning > > > > > > strikes were simultaneous, in nature. > >
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 14:25
On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 6:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > How long did you spend on that reply? A minute? Maybe more? In that > > > > > > > > time you could not answer if Einstein's train gedanken is performed in > > > > > > > > water if the Observer at M' takes into effect the water when > > > > > > > > determining the simultaneity of the events? > > > > > > > > Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth > > > > > > > replying to, along the lines that you wish. > > > > > > > If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, > > > > > > > You choose to believe it is not worth pursuing because of the dogma > > > > > > you choose to believe. > > > > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > > > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > > > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > > > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > > > This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > > > and other tests. > > > Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? > > No. That's not the tests I'm referring to. As I said, you have a lot > of homework to do. > > > Aether > > does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the > > matter which is the Earth. > > > > You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. > > > MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > > MMX *allows* aether entrainment, but other subsequent experiments > RULED OUT aether entrainment. In science, it is the *collective* body > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > However, > > > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > > > > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > > > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > > > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > > > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > > > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > > > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are mathematical representations of nature. Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > describing the aether pressure > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been indoctrinated into believing. You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function probability' is not nature. |