Re: my gravity theory - Web Link
From: SeanSinjin (delphiconsultingguy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/22/04
- Next message: Androcles: "MEGAFUMBLER MOORTEL IN RETREAT"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Dec 2004 20:01:17 -0800
Hi Bill,
First let me thank you for taking the effort to detail such an
informative response. I have gained a lot from our exchanges.
>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.
That is but one model of ether, and most likely not the one that
Michelson-Morley was attempting to test the existence of from the
simple fact that an elastic model doesn't flow.
>> 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?
I'm citing the observation of gravity and magnetism itself are
supportive of my model. My model is exactly adapted to what we see in
reality so in a sense, I'm trying to 'fit' the evidence, other than the
way around. (It's easier to find evidence that way)
> 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
My version of ether also fits SR POR EM, and anything else that you
want to throw at it. I think the common misconception going around
here is that I'm trying to re-introduce prior versions of ether theory,
which I'm not. Your 'ether wind' is not a property of my ether, for
example.
>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
Right, and my ether theory is no different, except it adds enough
properties to explain gravity and magnetism, without disrupting other
currently accepted theories.
>capability). So unless you can actually cite an experiment that
>distinguishes between them, then, obviously, you are speaking rubbish.
As
I must confess I am dismayed that I have received such a constant
barrage of insults and diminutives. I ignorantly thought I was going
to be enriched by this exposure, perhaps proven wrong, but never did I
expect such blind viciousness from those that I considered to be highly
intelligent people. I'm at a total loss for understanding. However,
despite this, I am not discouraged whatsoever because I believe that if
given a chance, my theory will hold its own weight upon comprehension.
Now, to manifest an experiment that 'proves' the existence of ether
isn't really possible because like I said earlier, it may very well be
a metaphysical construct, not real. I'm not sure if this makes sense
to you, but my model simply provides the structure of very simple
forces that are fundamental to combine and understand our worldly
observations. There is nothing to 'find' because we already see the
evidence for it. Don't you see, I simply added all the observations
together to come up with my theory. My theory fits everything that is
observable and so I actually have 'all' the evidence. I could still be
wrong, but there's nothing proving it wrong at this point. The only
way you're going to prove me wrong is to find some aspect of reality
that it doesn't accommodate.
>> 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 what I understand, the Grand Unification Theory has never been
solved. I believe my model does this.
>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.
I would argue that time is influenced by the stretching of ether. Same
results, different interpretations from different models. I believe
the GR version you cite though is more predictive than explanatory.
Kind of like drawing a map of a road, but not knowing why the road was
built.
> The point is it does not fit.
I don't think you've given much effort to understand my model.
>Then pelase explain how your aether incorporates the curvature of time
to
>explan gravity in the weak field limit.
My explanation for gravity is not dependant upon the curvature of time.
Time perturbance is a result of gravity (velocity)
>I have now detailed precise objections.
Again, thank you for taking the time
>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.
Again, I'm not trying to change observations, just trying to fit them.
The theories we have now do excellent at predicting everything we see,
I just added a very few subtle qualities that allow connections to
things where before there were none, e.g., magnetism and gravity being
different effects upon ether.
>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
I fail to see how the observations matching a theory can be considered
an experimentally confirmed 'fact'. All you have is a predictive
mathematical model that matches the observations, not an explanation
for those observations.
> 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. Such
is
Did I in some way imply that what I have written is fact? If so then I
must apologize for that. My intention was to suggest a plausible model
that matches all observations. My ether is undetectable beyond the
fact that all current observations fit within it.
the
> way of the crank and crackpot. You need go no further than this to
know
it
> is rubbish of the first order.
Again, why go here? Does this make sense? Does this support your
position, or negate mine? Doesn't this hostility diminish your own
credibility? You seem like a very intelligent person so this dichotomy
of knowledgability to oppressiveness is most confusing. I would like
to impress upon you and anybody else that would like to express these
forms of negativity and rage that they are most ineffective in
achieving their desired goals of intimidation and self-indulgence, for
I doubt very much that we could ever meet in person and I sincerely
doubt that we would have an exchange of this nature face to face, and
in that sense, very difficult to take seriously. I am not wounded by
your words, but I truly am saddened that my innocent model could ever
warrant such emotion. If you find it valuable at some point in your
future to perhaps express yourself in a more dignified and empathic
matter, you will find that many hidden opportunities for a better life
will reveal themselves to you.
Just so you know, I am atheist.
>.'. The aether of the 19th century was not considered to be
>composed of particles - it was considered as a space filling elastic
medium
>exactly of the type the author is advocating (
I am not familiar with this particular model, but don't you find it
interesting that someone proposed a somewhat similar model to mine?
Would you call them a crackpot as well? Isn't it worth investigating
the differing properties of mine that might salvage the original?
>). Why can't cranks at
>least get history correct? Of course that assumes they understand
enough
>actual physics to be aware of the requirement; which is itself
doubtful.
At this point I would like to announce that I will no longer indulge
hostility. As much as I would like to get to the source to be able to
address the cause of this hostility, I am not blessed with enough time
to do it properly. Please forgive me as this may mean I fail to
respond to some or all of your responses, but I will read them all and
if someone has something constructive to offer, rest assured I will
respond in kind.
thank you all,
Sean
- Next message: Androcles: "MEGAFUMBLER MOORTEL IN RETREAT"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: my gravity theory - Web Link"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
