The Elusive Awt Theory From Zephir, is there anything useful to learn, here

When I'm talking, you cannot keep the subject, it's just a very diplomatic description of reality. The people like AlphaNumeric would call you an idiot already with no doubt.

Therefore neither the AWT expect the exact transition at the 1.27 cm wavelength range.

This is nonsense. Like I've told, the 1.27 cm wavelength range is very distant to the observable light, so you cannot expect the observation of Lorentz symmetry violation in this range, especially under the state of technology in the 1878.

Everything is an Aether foam, but at the case of dark matter, here at least two components, which differs by their properties significantly. Therefore the behavior of dark matter is pretty nontrivial, even at the quite qualitative perspective.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jun 1 2007, 09:18 PM

Anybody else notice how subtly he added another Ad-hoc postulate to AWT.

it's gone from being:

"AWT predicts that Dark Matter is made of Ether."

to.

"AWT predicts that the illusion of Dark Matter is caused by (density?) Gradients in the Ether."

Question for you zephir.

If Density gradients are created by Mass, or create mass, which is what you seem to have been implying on more then one occasion.

Then how does AWT account for what appears to be Dark Matter, or the effects of Dark Matter in regions of space where there is no visible matter?

Your answers keep changing while I reply to them Zephir.

I notice he hasn't corrected me anywhere in this discussion (although I think he has elsewere).

Why don't we ask alphanumeric.

alphnumeric. do you think I'm an idiot? Do you think i'm straying from the topic?

You're allowed to be honest, I promise I won't take it as an insult (and saying I'm foolish for arguing with zephir at his level isn't the same thing).

By AWT everything is created by/observed as a gradients of Aether density by definition, even these gradients itself. Therefore the dark matter is no exception and nothing very special follows from such insight concerning the dark matter. It can still behave like the water or like you or me with no prob.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jun 1 2007, 09:25 PM

Which character these corrections are supposed of? Which testable phenomena these corrections should manifest by?

Wait...

I'm confused...

So now you're adding yet another ad-hoc postulate to AWT.

"Dark Matter does exist, but like every other form of matter it's still just ether foam."

You also seem to be saying.

"If Dark matter exists, AWT predicts it's exostence, but if it doesn't then AWT predicts that the illusion of dark matter is caused by the density gradient in the dark matter."

Isn't that a bit like saying "if it's white, AWT predicts it's white, but if it's black, then AWT predicts it's black."

That's bit.... I don't have a word for it to be honest.

Yep. Even the watermelon is composed from Aether foam by AWT, too. This is another postulate.

You should stop dreaming.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jun 1 2007, 10:13 PM

Once again, I use Zephirs own posts to put holes in his AWT, and what does he do? Resort to personal attacks, and flaming.

Do you have such feelings and seemings often? You're not very smart, are you?

This is not direct offense, just the direct question.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jun 1 2007, 10:12 PM

If this were a scored debate, I would have won already.

What you said wasn't a question, it was a statement.

You stated that I should stop dreaming.

I was drawing Suppositions and conclusions from your posts on AWT and asking you questions to clarify AWT's predictions about things.

I have done nothing less then treat AWT with the same respect I would treat any [i]proven[/ì] scientific theory.

I gave you rope to allow you to attempt to save AWT with, instead you hung yourself with it.

Instead of giving a detailed mechanistic, qualitative explanation of how AWT could explain certain results, you simply started adding ad-hoc postulates that contradicted what you had previousy said.

This is your doing, not mine.

Communication is a two way street, and is not successful until the recipient has demonstrably understood precisely what you are trying to convey.

If I have misunderstood something you said, and drawn wrong conclusions on the basis of that, then that is your fault, not mine. You should endeavour to correct the comunication difficulty, rather then filling AWT with ad-hoc posulates, and attacking someone who is trying to have a meaningful debate or discussion with you.

To imply that I am dreaming, that I am imagining things that seem like logical consequences ofyour own statements, yes, I find that mildly insulting.

Especially given that I hae endeavoured to be nothing less then respectful, honest, and up front with you.

To use a local collquiaism:

"Piss, or get off the pot."

Either make a verifiable prediction and justify that prediction in the light of any recent observations that have been made, or any consequences of that prediction that may be raised by people in this thread, and on this forum.

Or drop AWT and relegate it to the realm of Word Salad.

Either way, if you're unsuccessful here, what makes you think you're going to convince mainstream physicists?

You mean with all your amazing understanding of string theory you don't know?

The corrections are perturbative expansions in the string length (more precisely the alpha-prime quantity) and various quantities constructed of the Riemann curvature tensor. Therefore they are extremely small compared to the usual GR result and do not appear in current experiments. But that's not unexpected given GR's ability to so accurately describe gravity so far.

Trippy, in an answer to your question, no I don't think you're an idiot. You seem to be doing a good job of showing Zephir's typical style of 'discussion' to be the nonsense it is. He chops and changes claims, refuses to justify anything and all the while has the hypocrisy to say to others "You don't understand this bit of physics do you?" when he's the most ignorant one in the thread!

So, can the string theory supply some testable prediction concerning these corrections or not? Should these corrections affect the behavior of black holes by observable way, for example?

The question is, why I should struggle by your understanding, if you're demonstrably not capable to comprehend even very trivial connections. Has some meaning to explain the Pythagoras formula to the dog on the street? Has some meaning to keep the discussion about it with him after then?

I don't think so. The mental problem of yours simply is, you're not trying to understand the AWT, just to refute. But you cannot refute the theory, until you don't understand it. This means, you should be able to derive something by AWT and to demonstrate, the reality is different. Without such derivation you cannot prove anything about it.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Jun 1 2007, 11:14 PM

Seems like Zephir is wrong...

Again...

What seems, it's a dream....

I'm not trying to disprove anything.

On the contrary. I'm trying to understand AWT, but you posts make that difficult.

For example...

"The mental problem of yours simply is, you're not trying to understand the AWT... ... But you cannot refute the theory, until you don't understand it."

By your own words I am in the perfect position to refute AWT.

The only thing I have ever asked of you is to clarify a few points, that might have served to convince me.

You don't know me.
You don't get to judge me.

What you do not realize is that I'm a fan of at least one Ether theory that I've seen (but it's not AWT).

And once again with the personal insults. Comparing my mental faculties to that of a dog.

How do you expect to convince anyone that AWT is as accurate as you claim it to be, when as soon as someone (in your opinion) fails to understand your AWT, you start insulting them, and comparing them to canines.

Nobody wins a debate by insults - except maybe politicians.

Are you a politician?