Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 31 Dec 2009 14:27 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >> 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. >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'. Gibberish. >> 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. Which one? >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 have all those speed changes along the way that will have a detectable effect. Heck, just the sun's light would have an easily detectable effect. >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. This is simply the wave nature of wave-particle duality showing up. We already have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle where we cannot pin down the exact location and momentum of an object. If we know the momentum of an object to within a certain range, we _cannot_ locate its position to more than a certain range. Something like C-60 would be quite massive, and its de Broglie wavelength would be therefore extremely small, so such a slit experiment would have to be with slits extremely close together. C-60 would act very particle-like. But Heisenberg applies to it as well, within an extremely small area, we cannot know the position of the molecule, and for appropiate slit sizes/spacings (if physically constructable from ordinary matter), we cannot know which slit it goes through, so we should be able to get interference patterns from such things. >In Aether Displacement, The only problem with it is it predicts things that are countered by ordinary experiments, so it is _still_ Automatically Wrong!
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 14:35 On Dec 31, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > >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'. > > Gibberish. > > >> 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. > > Which one? > The one it exists. > >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 have all those speed changes along the way that will have a detectable > effect. Heck, just the sun's light would have an easily detectable > effect. > How? > >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. > > This is simply the wave nature of wave-particle duality showing up. > In other words, it's magic! > We already have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle where we cannot pin > down the exact location and momentum of an object. If we know the momentum > of an object to within a certain range, we _cannot_ locate its position to > more than a certain range. > > Something like C-60 would be quite massive, and its de Broglie wavelength > would be therefore extremely small, so such a slit experiment would have > to be with slits extremely close together. C-60 would act very > particle-like. But Heisenberg applies to it as well, within an extremely > small area, we cannot know the position of the molecule, and for > appropiate slit sizes/spacings (if physically constructable from ordinary > matter), we cannot know which slit it goes through, so we should be able to > get interference patterns from such things. > Gibberish. More magic. Yes, I know, the C-60 molecule is a particle when it needs to be a particle and it is a wave when it needs to be a wave. And how do you explain the C-60 molecule being detected at a single exit when detectors are placed at the exits at the last instant but able to create interference if those same detectors are removed at the last instant? > >In Aether Displacement, > > The only problem with it is it predicts things that are countered by > ordinary experiments, so it is _still_ Automatically Wrong! What experiments? This is exactly the evidence of dogma that is making my point. The C-60 molecule creates a displacement wave in the aether.
From: spudnik on 31 Dec 2009 16:44 your problem is the same as the other Einsteinmaniacs, following Hubble's interpretation of his redshifting, as a Doppler effect; what if it is not, as in the Alfven cosmology? then again, the vast bulk of the hydrogen in space is diatomic H2, not ionized H+; that's about a 5-years-old dyscovery -- diatomic molecules have know dipolar moment! > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > probability' is not nature. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: mpc755 on 31 Dec 2009 17:07 On Dec 31, 4:44 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > your problem is the same as the other Einsteinmaniacs, > following Hubble's interpretation of his redshifting, > as a Doppler effect; what if it is not, as in the Alfven cosmology? > This does sound similar to Aether Entrainment and magnetic fields being physical waves in the aether: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html "[Alfven] argued that there could be a magnetic field pervading the entire galaxy if plasma was spread throughout the galaxy. This plasma could carry the electrical currents that would then create the galactic magnetic field." I think this following quote is dead on: 'Attempting to explain the resistance to his ideas, Alfven pointed to the increasing specialization of science during this century. "We should remember that there was once a discipline called natural philosophy," he said in 1986. "Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect." Among the causes of this transition, Alfven believed, are territorial dominance, greed, and fear of the unknown. "Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."' > then again, the vast bulk of the hydrogen in space is diatomic H2, > not ionized H+; that's about a 5-years-old dyscovery -- > diatomic molecules have know dipolar moment! > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > probability' is not nature. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: spudnik on 31 Dec 2009 17:15
just say, Duh! thus quoth: Papers of Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven, Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist who contributed to significant advances in the fields of magnetohydrodynamics, plasma physics, geophysics, thermonuclear reaction, and cosmology. He shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with Louis Neel in 1970. ... He was also an advocate of nuclear armaments destruction, working actively with other scientists such as Harold Urey to prevent nuclear proliferation and conflict. Among Alfven's teaching positions were posts at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and the University of California, San Diego. The papers span the years 1945 to 1991 and are organized into ten series: ... The collection contains significant correspondence with Alfven's fellow scientists, including ... Harold Urey, ... The collection focuses primarily on Alfven's time as Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San Diego, but nearly every work from his immense bibliography is represented, many in draft forms. ... Since 1967, he served as Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San Diego, spending six months of the year at UCSD and six months at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. For his research in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, Alfven shared the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics with Louis Eugene Felix Neel. ... .... ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1959) with C.G. Falthammar; ... THE TALE OF THE BIG COMPUTER (1968) under the pen name of Olof Johannesson; ATOM, MAN AND THE UNIVERSE (1969); ... and STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1975) with Gustaf Arrhenius. .... Hannes Alfven pioneered the development of MHD, the study of the motion of an electrically conducting fluid interacting with magnetic fields, and, in particular, the subject of plasma physics, the branch of MHD in which the fluid under study is a highly ionized gas consisting of nearly equal numbers of positively and negatively charged particles. Alfven was chiefly concerned with plasmas in stars, in the geomagnetic field, and in interplanetary and interstellar space, but his theories were basic to the study of laboratory plasmas encountered in the development of controlled thermonucelar fusion. More specifically, Alfven applied his analyses to such phenomena as geomagnetic storms, the aurora, the Van Allen radiation belts, sunspots, and the evolution of the solar system. His results have been seminal not only in designing thermonuclear reactors, but also in the development of astrophysics, space science, and geophysics. ... 2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies, 1969. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? |