Re: Mechanical Light

Again, it appears hopelessly divided in all the discussions. Of course
you all support PD's views learnt from all no-aether theories, Formal
science philosophy-based mathematical models and against physics of
mechanics-based explanations. Before, you thought that there is no
aether and it is not possible that all universal phenomena can have
simple mechanical interpretation. Now, even such explanations are found
and presented to you, you can no longer accept them and become the
protecters of religion-like pseudo-science of all no-aether theories.
Please open your eyes and have a good look at the science of all other
fields. None of them are mathematical theory based.

I repeat, unlike social issues there is only one real science or
correct scientific answer. The real science must be consistent through
and is supported by all experimental findings. Physics of mechanics is
the only scientifically repeatedly proven scientific physics, not any
nor all no-aether theories. It appears that I have little change to
convince any of you participating in the discussions but I believe that
the silence majority are finding my posts exciting and bringing hope to
bring real science back.

JoeT

Jim Black wrote:
JoeT wrote:
PD wrote:
Actually, I was referring to more than that.
a) There are at least as many photons as there are neutrinos in all
space, and there is a wealth of dark matter as well.

Neutrinos are objects having masses and relative motions. What are
photons and dark matter?

I'm not sure I understand what your criterion for distinguishing
objects from non-objects is. You seem to be saying that in order for
something to be an object, there has to be an frame of reference in
which the object is at rest. I don't see the reasoning behind that.

b) Neutrinos do not travel at light speed.

At what speed? Why scientists found "high energy neutrinos"
simultaneously when they dicover supernovae?

Neutrinos travel at very near light speed. How near depends on the
energy at which they are emitted, and on the mass of that type of
neutrino. The masses of the three neutrino types are not yet known,
although there are now some lower bounds on the differences between the
masses.

c) Light travels at light speed.

Agreed

d) Neutrinos interact too STRONGLY to account for gravity.

That's what you have learnt. Besides, neutrinos produce charged
particles, electric force, etc. The are the common scientific origin of
all universal phenomena.

e) You haven't demonstrated that neutrinos account for anything you
claim in a quantitatively predictive way. Doing that is essential to
the success of any theory.

You want a mathematical theory to back physics of mechanics up? I do
not have one. I did not claim anything. What I have done is, instead of
use postulations and mathematical models, based on a lot of
experimental findings to scientifically explain universal phenomena.

Even qualitatively, your theory does not match experiment:

- No drag on the planets
- No discrepancy in the direction of gravity from propagation delays
- Polarization of light

If you look into what Bell and Aspect did, you'll see another reason
why this "physics of mechanics" philosophy of yours will run into
problems.

This is a _good_ sign for you. Many people come here with ideas about
physics, but can't express them coherently enough for anyone to find a
contradiction between their ideas and reality. I just hope I can
explain to _you_ why it is that your neutrino idea doesn't work.

Yes, quantitative aspects are also included in my scientific
explanations. For example, Newton's gravitational formulae still can be
used for calculations of planetary motions. Also, Einstein's spacetime
and distorted spacetime mimic some of the energy variations of the
atmospheric neutrinos well and therefore some of his calculations are
usable.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you aren't actually
familiar with general relativity. That's not a big limb, really; most
people aren't familiar with it, and the popular descriptions of it are
often very misleading. And if you knew enough mathematics to take a
course on it, you wouldn't be here asking people to develop your ideas
quantitatively; you'd be doing it yourself.

You really shouldn't go around saying things like that until you can
actually evaluate whether or not they're true.

I did emphasized that the new aether science is in its infancy
and need the entire scientific community to discuss it and to develope
it.

When one idea doesn't work, you have to move on to the next, if you
want to accomplish anything. People will be a lot more interested in
discussing your ideas if you come up with new ideas when the old ones
don't work out.

Even then, it seems a little arrogant to me to demand that the entire
scientific community stop what it's doing and pay attention to your
ideas. If a few people who know about experimental evidence of which
you are unaware look at an idea of yours and also think it might be
useful, then perhaps they'll develop it mathematically. And if after
that, the idea still looks good, then it's time to think about
publication. And I encourage you to learn more math and science so
that you'll be better able to evaluate and develop your ideas on your
own.

Good luck!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... >>> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... >>> scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative. ... Let us say that science has provided them with the means to do their ... called "scientists". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: the truth
    ... "Western" science ... the foundation for modern mathematics. ... It then goes on to detail his contributions as the father of algebra, ... scientists as well as to conduct research into various realms of science. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... community has instead accepted light theories contradicting the science ... is the "particle wave" of neutrinos just like that sound is the ... anywhere in the universe. ... For example, scientists have found ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... >> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... In fact, most scientists do not ...
    (talk.origins)