Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392923 > unrolled thread

Why isn't ether confirmed

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-19 03:35 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:12 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:05 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-09-19 17:15 -0700
      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 19:08 -0700
      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-22 05:29 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 17:22 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:46 +0200
      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-20 22:11 -0700
      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 23:23 -0700
        Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 08:50 +0200
          Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 00:09 -0700
            Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:23 +0200
              Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 00:04 -0700
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-04 05:37 +0200
                  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 03:14 -0700
                    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 09:00 +0200
                      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-26 01:16 -0700
                        Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 22:16 +0100
                          Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:24 -0700
                            Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:17 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#392923 — Why isn't ether confirmed

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...


|In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
|predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
|refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
|measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
|measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
ones,
|then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
|understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
in
|stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....

Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
deniers!!!!!!"
Why.
Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry
excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation",
"support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against
common sense managing these words in a sane people
minds.

A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from
brainwashed fanatics.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#392961

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1
> 
> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> ones,
> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> in
> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
> 
> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> deniers!!!!!!"
> Why.
> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry
> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation",
> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against
> common sense managing these words in a sane people
> minds.
> 
> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from
> brainwashed fanatics.

What you need is an authority figure to declare the ether to be real. One famous man who is tall and slim. He will assure you of the truth of ether. He is on TV and magazines. One top scientist with a well known title.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392976

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 6:35:31 PM UTC+8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> 
> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> ones,
> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> in
> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
> 
> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> deniers!!!!!!"
> Why.
> Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry
> excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation",
> "support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against
> common sense managing these words in a sane people
> minds.
> 
> A primitive, common, brainwashing trick. Expected from
> brainwashed fanatics.

The aether is confirmed by the wave dependency of light transmission and gravity and inertial phenomena. Michelson committed a fatal blunder in his interferometer experiment by assuming the lightpath on the transverse arm is unequal to the lightpath on the parallel arm. Both are equal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393017

Ether isn't confirmed because there are no viable ether theories that posit a detectable ether.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393034

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 8:15:12 AM UTC+8, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Ether isn't confirmed because there are no viable ether theories that posit a detectable ether.

There are many claims made by scientists which are not confirmed but believed like the dogmas of religion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393325

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 8:15:12 PM UTC-4, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> Ether isn't confirmed because there are no viable ether theories that posit a detectable ether.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393021

Einstein uses the reversal of Michelson-Morley to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter; therefore, according to Einstein, whom you dearly love, there is an optical ether, composed of matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393173

Am 19.09.2016 12:35, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> ones,
> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> in
> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>
> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> deniers!!!!!!"

'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.

'Stable' means: does not move.

And that would require an anchor point, in respect to which the ether 
would not move.

So the ether would cause some sort of wind, if you move through it.

But this would contradict relativity.

So we need an ether, that is 'relativistic' in nature.

This means, that a certain set of entities have for a certain observer 
this 'ether-like features' (thin, elastic, invisible, transparent), 
while in another FoR other entities have the same features and the 
former ether is not thin and transparent anymore.

This behaviour is too confusing to be called 'ether', so I would like to 
use the term 'spacetime' instead.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393175

'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it. 

'Stable' means: does not move. 

And that would require an anchor point, in respect to which the ether 
would not move. 

So the ether would cause some sort of wind, if you move through it. 

But this would contradict relativity. 

So we need an ether, that is 'relativistic


An object at the event horizon of a large mass would not feed any accelleration, it would be traveling along with the Aether @ c relative to many other object in the universe.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393181

W dniu środa, 21 września 2016 05:46:11 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 19.09.2016 12:35, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> >
> >
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> >
> > |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> > |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> > |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> > |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> > |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> > ones,
> > |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> > |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> > in
> > |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
> >
> > Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> > But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> > is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> > deniers!!!!!!" 

> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.

blah, blah, blah.
According to your official "logic", stated above,
ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
experimentally.
You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
mean refuting your SR too.
If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies, 
you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
your SR shit.
But you don't.
Because "logic" above isn't any logic. It's just a sorry
excuse for placing good looking words, like "confirmation",
"support" or "evidence" near relativistics idiocies - against
common sense managing these words in a sane people
minds. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393182

Am 21.09.2016 08:23, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
>>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
>>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
>>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
>>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
>>> ones,
>>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
>>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
>>> in
>>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>>>
>>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
>>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
>>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
>>> deniers!!!!!!"
>
>> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.
>
> blah, blah, blah.
> According to your official "logic", stated above,
> ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
> experimentally.
> You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
> mean refuting your SR too.
> If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies,
> you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
> Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
> your SR shit.
> But you don't.


Please specify whom you address with 'you'.

Since you replied to a posting from me, you should somehow comment on 
the content of what I have written.

But I have not written anything about Lorentz.

And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why 
you have chosen this particular part.

So have made an extremely dishonest quote and replied to me, while 
addressing someone else.

This VERY bad style of discussion.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393183

W dniu środa, 21 września 2016 08:51:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 21.09.2016 08:23, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> >>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> >>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> >>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> >>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> >>> ones,
> >>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> >>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> >>> in
> >>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
> >>>
> >>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> >>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> >>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> >>> deniers!!!!!!"
> >
> >> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.
> >
> > blah, blah, blah.
> > According to your official "logic", stated above,
> > ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
> > experimentally.
> > You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
> > mean refuting your SR too.
> > If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies,
> > you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
> > Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
> > your SR shit.
> > But you don't.
> 
> 
> Please specify whom you address with 'you'.

It's plural "you" meaning your community
of physicists.

> Since you replied to a posting from me, you should somehow comment on 
> the content of what I have written.
> 
> But I have not written anything about Lorentz.

I didn't write you did. I just wrote something
about Lorentz myself.

> And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why 
> you have chosen this particular part.

Your whole post was  off topic. The thread has 
"ether" in the title, but it is not about ether. 
It's about logic of confirming things in physics.
If you read what I wrote, you would notice.
So have made an extremly dishonest quote and
replied me not reading my post at all.
This VERY bad style of discussion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393295

Am 21.09.2016 09:09, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
>>>>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
>>>>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
>>>>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
>>>>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
>>>>> ones,
>>>>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
>>>>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
>>>>> in
>>>>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
>>>>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
>>>>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
>>>>> deniers!!!!!!"
>>>
>>>> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.
>>>
>>> blah, blah, blah.
>>> According to your official "logic", stated above,
>>> ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
>>> experimentally.
>>> You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
>>> mean refuting your SR too.
>>> If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies,
>>> you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
>>> Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
>>> your SR shit.
>>> But you don't.
>>
>>
>> Please specify whom you address with 'you'.
>
> It's plural "you" meaning your community
> of physicists.


But there are other plurals possible, like e.g. lefthanders, 
politicians, human beings, males, Chinese or the people which like to 
drink beer.

So you should add at least a few hints, whom you like to address with 'you'.

>> Since you replied to a posting from me, you should somehow comment on
>> the content of what I have written.
>>
>> But I have not written anything about Lorentz.
>
> I didn't write you did. I just wrote something
> about Lorentz myself.


So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote 
yourself.

What is that good for?

>> And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why
>> you have chosen this particular part.
>
> Your whole post was  off topic. The thread has
> "ether" in the title, but it is not about ether.

Well, maybe the subject of the thread does not truly fit to where the 
thread went.


This could be avoided actually, if the title is altered every now and then.

But this had disadvantages, too, since it would disrupt the thread.

So, as a rule of thumb, I leave the title as it is, ever if the subject 
moves away from the subject of the OP and its initial title.

> It's about logic of confirming things in physics.

Wasn't the subject 'Lorentz' and 'ether'???



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393298

W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 08:24:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 21.09.2016 09:09, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >>>>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> >>>>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> >>>>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> >>>>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> >>>>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> >>>>> ones,
> >>>>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> >>>>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> >>>>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> >>>>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> >>>>> deniers!!!!!!"
> >>>
> >>>> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.
> >>>
> >>> blah, blah, blah.
> >>> According to your official "logic", stated above,
> >>> ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
> >>> experimentally.
> >>> You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
> >>> mean refuting your SR too.
> >>> If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies,
> >>> you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
> >>> Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
> >>> your SR shit.
> >>> But you don't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please specify whom you address with 'you'.
> >
> > It's plural "you" meaning your community
> > of physicists.
> 
> 
> But there are other plurals possible, like e.g. lefthanders, 
> politicians, human beings, males, Chinese or the people which like to 
> drink beer.
> So you should add at least a few hints, whom you like to address with 'you'.

Yes, there are. So you should add at least a few hints
whom you like to address with 'you'. Unless, of course,
principles you're inventing are only for those that aren't
you (single you in the whole paragraph).


 > >
> > I didn't write you did. I just wrote something
> > about Lorentz myself.
> 
> 
> So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote 
> yourself.

No. Wrong conclusion, as expected from a moron.

> >> And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why
> >> you have chosen this particular part.
> >
> > Your whole post was  off topic. The thread has
> > "ether" in the title, but it is not about ether.
> 
> Well, maybe the subject of the thread does not truly fit to where the 
> thread went.

It does. The thread is about confirming and the title
is "why isn't [something] confirmed."


> So, as a rule of thumb, I leave the title as it is, ever if the subject 
> moves away from the subject of the OP and its initial title.

It doesn't. The thread is about confirming and the title
is "why isn't [something] confirmed."


> > It's about logic of confirming things in physics.
> 
> Wasn't the subject 'Lorentz' and 'ether'???

No. The subject is - confirming/not confirming
things in physics. It's general. Confirming/
not confirming Lorentz's ether is a special 
case of confirming/not confirming things in
physics. Clear enough?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394779

Am 22.09.2016 09:04, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>>>>> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
>>>>>>> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
>>>>>>> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
>>>>>>> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
>>>>>>> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
>>>>>>> ones,
>>>>>>> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
>>>>>>> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
>>>>>>> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
>>>>>>> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
>>>>>>> deniers!!!!!!"
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.
>>>>>
>>>>> blah, blah, blah.
>>>>> According to your official "logic", stated above,
>>>>> ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
>>>>> experimentally.
>
...
>> So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote
>> yourself.
>
> No. Wrong conclusion, as expected from a moron.


So you meant actually me and what I have written with 'blah, blah...'.

In case you actually try to criticise one of my statements, you should 
at least write, which statement you want to criticise and why.


Since you have quoted this partial sentence:

"...'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it."

this is the statement, with which you do not agree.


>>>> And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why
>>>> you have chosen this particular part.
>>>
>>> Your whole post was  off topic. The thread has
>>> "ether" in the title, but it is not about ether.
>>
>> Well, maybe the subject of the thread does not truly fit to where the
>> thread went.
>
> It does. The thread is about confirming and the title
> is "why isn't [something] confirmed."

What do want to say with 'confirmed'?

You apparently think, there exist a hidden committee, which confirms (or 
rejects) scientific theories (???).

But no such thing exist, hence a theory does not get confirmed. Theories 
are what withstood attempts to disprove them.

It is more a question of acceptance in the general public and by the 
special public of scientists, concerned with this particular subject.

If 'ether' is a somehow useful hypothesis, than such a hypothesis will 
eventually be used.

But to be useful, the hypothesis must first be formulated in a usable 
fashion.

So the question is certainly possible, which features such an ether 
should have, whether it is stable and in respect to what.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394904

W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 05:38:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 22.09.2016 09:04, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> >> So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote
> >> yourself.
> >
> > No. Wrong conclusion, as expected from a moron.
> 
> 
> So you meant actually me and what I have written with 'blah, blah...'.

Right.

> In case you actually try to criticise one of my statements, you should 
> at least write, which statement you want to criticise and why.

Did you do the same criticizing my statements?

> > It does. The thread is about confirming and the title
> > is "why isn't [something] confirmed."
> 
> What do want to say with 'confirmed'?

What do you want to say with "say"?


> You apparently think, there exist a hidden committee, which confirms (or 
> rejects) scientific theories (???).
> 
> But no such thing exist, hence a theory does not get confirmed. Theories 
> are what withstood attempts to disprove them.

Well, somehow most of your fellow idiots have
different opinion. Take a look at the Tom's
quoting starting the thread, for instance.

> It is more a question of acceptance in the general public and by the 
> special public of scientists, concerned with this particular subject.

That's right. 
You have no confirmation.
All you have is an insane belief that when you
accepted it it has to be accepted by everyone.
And your tales of zillions of experiments
confirming your bullshit - are obvious lies,
intending to "help" us to accept these right
things you accepted.

 
> If 'ether' is a somehow useful hypothesis, than such a hypothesis will 
> eventually be used.

If your concept of "local time" was somehow
useful hypothesis, the clocks of GPS would 
be set to indicate it.
But they aren't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396809

Am 05.10.2016 12:14, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>> You apparently think, there exist a hidden committee, which confirms (or
>> rejects) scientific theories (???).
>>
>> But no such thing exist, hence a theory does not get confirmed. Theories
>> are what withstood attempts to disprove them.
>
> Well, somehow most of your fellow idiots have
> different opinion. Take a look at the Tom's
> quoting starting the thread, for instance.


You certainly mean the regular 'Tom Roberts'.

I would not call this person 'fellow' in any respect, since he usually 
attacks me or any of my statements.

>> It is more a question of acceptance in the general public and by the
>> special public of scientists, concerned with this particular subject.
>
> That's right.
> You have no confirmation.
> All you have is an insane belief that when you
> accepted it it has to be accepted by everyone.
> And your tales of zillions of experiments
> confirming your bullshit - are obvious lies,
> intending to "help" us to accept these right
> things you accepted.
>
>
>> If 'ether' is a somehow useful hypothesis, than such a hypothesis will
>> eventually be used.
>
> If your concept of "local time" was somehow
> useful hypothesis, the clocks of GPS would
> be set to indicate it.
> But they aren't.


GPS satellites do not fulfil the requirement of being local.

'Local' means 'near and at rest' and this is not, how satellites behave.

Especially they are not at rest, since they fly around in Earth orbit.

I am at rest - at least in my personal experience.

So I say, I'm at rest and the universe circles around me.

As generous person (and as centre of the universe) I decree the 
equivalent right to any other observer, who is the centre of his 
respective universe as well.

This would result in kind of 'subjectivism' and 'multiverse'.

GPS satellites are not real observers, but I would grant the same right 
to them as well, and they are allowed to define themselves as locally at 
rest and as having their own local time.

But this time is directed by the 'master clock', hence the satellite 
needs to synchronise his local time to our Earth time.

Now each local time could be easily synchronised within a certain 'time 
domain'. And the Earth' surface is apparently one.

But Earth orbit is a different one and satellites in orbits of same 
heights could be synchronised among each other, but it requires a few 
tricks to synchronise them with ground level clocks.



TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396812

W dniu środa, 26 października 2016 09:00:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:

> I would not call this person 'fellow' in any respect, since he usually 
> attacks me or any of my statements.

Sorry for my mistake, then.


> > If your concept of "local time" was somehow
> > useful hypothesis, the clocks of GPS would
> > be set to indicate it.
> > But they aren't.
> 
> 
> GPS satellites do not fulfil the requirement of being local.
> 'Local' means 'near and at rest' and this is not, how satellites behave.

Suppose you are one of the famous relativistic 
twins. Your brother isn't local, it seems?

> 
> Especially they are not at rest, since they fly around in Earth orbit.
> I am at rest - at least in my personal experience.
> So I say, I'm at rest and the universe circles around me.

This is the most primitive approach possible.
"Earth is at rest and universe circles around it"
is far, far more advanced - but it's also obsolete.
 
> But this time is directed by the 'master clock', hence the satellite 
> needs to synchronise his local time to our Earth time.

Welcome to reality.
Yes, it NEEDS. Great Guru didn't know much about 
needs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397225

Am 26.10.2016 10:16, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>> If your concept of "local time" was somehow
>>> useful hypothesis, the clocks of GPS would
>>> be set to indicate it.
>>> But they aren't.
>>
>>
>> GPS satellites do not fulfil the requirement of being local.
>> 'Local' means 'near and at rest' and this is not, how satellites behave.
>
> Suppose you are one of the famous relativistic
> twins. Your brother isn't local, it seems?


My 'twin' is getting younger, while I grow older, since he moves into 
the opposite direction.

>>
>> Especially they are not at rest, since they fly around in Earth orbit.
>> I am at rest - at least in my personal experience.
>> So I say, I'm at rest and the universe circles around me.
>
> This is the most primitive approach possible.
> "Earth is at rest and universe circles around it"
> is far, far more advanced - but it's also obsolete.


I did not say, that Earth is at rest.

I wrote, that I am at rest - in my own frame of reference.

And I can fly to the moon and are still at rest. This is so, because I 
am the observer (of my universe).

Any other observer has the same right and is at rest in another FoR and 
would see a different universe from a different location.

And all of these universes are of equal rights, since any observer has 
the right to decide, whether he moves or not.

And the most simple case would be to stay at rest.

And any observer has also his special axis time along which he 'moves'.

So time for one observer is space for a different one, moving a long a 
different timeline.




TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397252

W dniu niedziela, 30 października 2016 22:17:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> Am 26.10.2016 10:16, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >>> If your concept of "local time" was somehow
> >>> useful hypothesis, the clocks of GPS would
> >>> be set to indicate it.
> >>> But they aren't.
> >>
> >>
> >> GPS satellites do not fulfil the requirement of being local.
> >> 'Local' means 'near and at rest' and this is not, how satellites behave.
> >
> > Suppose you are one of the famous relativistic
> > twins. Your brother isn't local, it seems?
> 
> 
> My 'twin' is getting younger, while I grow older, since he moves into 
> the opposite direction.
> 
> >>
> >> Especially they are not at rest, since they fly around in Earth orbit.
> >> I am at rest - at least in my personal experience.
> >> So I say, I'm at rest and the universe circles around me.
> >
> > This is the most primitive approach possible.
> > "Earth is at rest and universe circles around it"
> > is far, far more advanced - but it's also obsolete.
> 
> 
> I did not say, that Earth is at rest.
> 
> I wrote, that I am at rest - in my own frame of reference.
> And I can fly to the moon and are still at rest. This is so, because I 
> am the observer (of my universe).
> 
> Any other observer has the same right and is at rest in another FoR and 
> would see a different universe from a different location.
> 
> And all of these universes are of equal rights, since any observer has 
> the right to decide, whether he moves or not.
> 
> And the most simple case would be to stay at rest.
> 
> And any observer has also his special axis time along which he 'moves'.
> 
> So time for one observer is space for a different one, moving a long a 
> different timeline.

Now you read the above, and notice: your 
physics is about "we demand equal rights 
for every observer!".
A popular idea 100 years ago, no doubts. 
But it served us ill during these 100
years.
In other words: your concept is naive, 
primitive and useless. Simply.
Geocentrism was FAR more useful and
FAR more advanced. I mean it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web