Re: my gravity theory - Web Link

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/22/04 

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:56:48 GMT

"SeanSinjin" <delphiconsultingguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103673192.596494.322610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Bill, thanks for your feedback,
>
> >big emptiness just past the end of the upper atmosphere.'. It is not
> >science to assume, without evidence, and as if it is truth beyond
> question,
> >the existence of something no one has ever been able to detect.
>
> Your definition of science seems to preclude hypothesizing.

It precludes incorrect hypothesizing ie hypothesizing based on a fallacy -
you say 'We'll use a "soft, massless, transparent rubber" model to help us
describe the properties of ether, rather than the fluid, sea-like historic
model.' and 'One endearing new quality we'll introduce is homogeneity, or a
lack of particles. Our version of ether claims it to be the only substance
in existence, and also claims that it is not composed of smaller particles'.
Elsewhere I cited The Conceptual Development of 20th Century Field
Theories - Tian Yu Cao - page 30-40 to show it was not considered a fluid
sea like model - it was considered an elastic medium and further is was not
considered to be composed of other particles.

> I will
> however state that the observations of gravity and magnetism tend to
> support the existence of my ether model.

The evidence I have seen says otherwise. Mind detailing yours? My evidence
is that assuming SR (which implies the non existence of an aether because an
aether wind would break the POR) and coulombs law leads to Maxwell's
equations - http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/SpecialRelativity.htm.
Thus the non existence of an aether is in perfect agreement with EM - indeed
it leads to Maxwell's equations. It is well known that aether theories
exist but all known viable ones are, so far, are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR (Ijla's GLET is in principle experimentally
distinguishable but detecting the difference is beyond our current
capability). So unless you can actually cite an experiment that
distinguishes between them, then, obviously, you are speaking rubbish. As
to why this is and physicists prefer SR to aether theories see the following
posts by Tom Roberts:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com

> My evidence is all around us,
> I'm simply binding the observations together in a model that is
> consistent with all of them, something that hasn't yet been done.

That is not true. The standard model and GR are in accord with all known
physics. And GR can be combined with the standard model as an effective
field theory - see http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024. My evidence comes
from correspondence with experiment ie the foundation of the scientific
method - not the desire to see a preconceived notion in everyday
observation.

> If
> you have truly read my article, you would understand that my proposal
> for ether is quite adapted to fit current observations.
>

It does not. You, for example, claim that gravity can be considered as a
stretching of an aether filling space. This is not compatible with GR which
says that in the weak field small velocity limit it is the curvature of time
that causes gravitational effects - space is flat ie it does not enter into
it at all.

> This is both
> convenient, in the sense that everything fits, and yet precise, in that
> I've tried to keep the ether model as simple as possible.

The point is it does not fit.

> You may have
> a point that my ether may be more of a metaphysical construct rather
> than a true substance, but I think we'll find eventually that there is
> a point in reality where the physical becomes metaphysical, pure
> mathematics, and that is my version of ether.

Then pelase explain how your aether incorporates the curvature of time to
explan gravity in the weak field limit.

>
> > Such is the
> >way of the crank and crackpot. You need go no further than this to
> know it
> >is rubbish of the first order.
>
> So I'm to assume that your disregard for my theory is based upon the
> first few lines? No disrespect, but wouldn't the very scientific
> method you purport to be so necessary, be violated by the act of
> judging something without getting all the facts?

I have now detailed precise objections.

>
> > A genuine scientist would give reasons for
> >supposing it or deduce it from more fundamental postulates. For a
> >genuine
> >aether theory, and an example of what science is about, see
> >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/.
>
> Very interesting. I don't subscribe to his concepts but I'll make a
> better attempt to get inside his thoughts. However, I fail to see how
> my ether theory fails to convey information in a satisfactory way,

It is nothing but analogies - to count as a theory it needs to make
predictions - preferably different from current theories so it can be
checked. All you have is waffle.

> regardless of its lack of similarity to your above example. My
> approach was to be conceptual and visual. It still ultimately contains
> the same information that the math would, however, I feel more
> comfortable and expressive working with diagrams that more or less
> 'virtualize' the mathematics that are so difficult to digest. I think
> you'd understand better if you actually read my work prior to rejecting
> it.

Then make predictions that can be cheeked against experiment. Specifically
explain how it is compatible with the experimentally confirmed fact that in
the weak field limit it is the curvature of time that is important eg the
Pound-Rebeka experiment and the experiments of Alley -
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/gravity/redshift/redshift.html.

Bill

>
> kind regards,
> Sean
>