Aether Exists Or Not?, Discussions on Movement through Space

Zephir

QUOTE: "The advantage of the nested honeycomb structure of Aether foam is, you can choose every bubble of your personal preference as the primitive cell for the further description."

That is what I call the disadvantage of the AWT - because then one have to accept a physical world with principles like: Infinity - Continuation -

and this free choice of any recurcive bubble is in my eyes such an oversimplification that AWT ends up in one sentence - "everything is recursive" - then what why how ?- give me a lttle more.

Do you think we can ignore the Informational part, and if no - then how do you see that information is playing in your AWT-world.

I think that the 3D Pixel Universe is a better name than your proposed "Blue Cross Universe" model? Or the "Pair of Cherries Universe" model? Unfortunately I have no good suggestions to a better name for your AWT - model.

Zephir, lets be honest. The modelling of the planets we have observed. Modelling electrons orbits around atoms? not so easy to observe.

Macroscopically, yeah, we can observe and draw conclusions there. But till we can observe all particles exactly, lest stick to working maths.

[NB: My first post, I'm not a scientist, just a sceptic ]

* From what I understand of the 'process physics' approach, the 'foam' is always and everywhere simplifying itself such that the net effect is an eternal movement in the direction of small-wards. Amongst other things, this would account for gravitationally attraction.
[NB: I tried to put some relevant links in here but it was denied me, which wasted a good bit of my time an all! IE, to stuff at Flinders University, to Chapter 8 of something by a Webster Kerr, to articles about Dayton Miller's work]

* In this version of aether and space-time foam, 'particles' are faults or knotty tangles in the fabric [STS] of space time. In other words particles are regions of space-time where the structure of the small-wards flow has become recursive via a topological knot of some sort. This leads to the idea that the small-wards flow may have some characteristics of a vortex.

The dimensions of the nodes and connections in this space-time fabric are randomly variable down to a minimum size of the Planck length.

* My own preferred conception of all this [in thought pictures] is that the basic structure of space-time is connections between nodes whereby each connection is simply two faces [I call them 'Janus'] each of which is part of a node [or 'quorum' because there must be at least three such links]. These two faces are simply the same thing with no dimension or internal distance/structure apart from the two faces and the distance between them externally is the number of nodes/quorums that must be traversed to go externally from one to the other. Our three or four [5, 6, 7, ?] dimensions are just emergent properties of there being unlimited numbers of links and nodes.

* From what I have read on the Net, Dallas's contention of no aether is not properly demonstrated. If the true facts about Dayton Miller's measurements are simply being ignored, that is a scandal.

A Paradox. I think you need 50 posts before you can post links, though people who post ads here seem to get around it.


Science is now about cronyism and certain people like Hawking can say any rubbish and it is instantly accepted as fact while others come up with more realistic theories and they are ignored.

Kaneda? If Zephire's Aether exists what could it be made of? Perhaps an more apt question would be could it's composition be propagated. Plenty of people are thinking in terms of a vaccum having some sort of substance to be a medium for the propagation of whatever, however if that `some sort of substance' could be sent, given/imparted with motion what would that mean? Could it mean that the speed of light between stellar objects would increase beyond 186282 miles per second?

Kaneda

QUOTE: "Science is now about cronyism and certain people like Hawking can say any rubbish and it is instantly accepted as fact while others come up with more realistic theories and they are ignored."

Do you think that the 3D Pixel Universe is a totally unrealistic theory?

You are hardly an authority on the matters of science which you feel competent to speak on.

Unsupported claims by kaneda (November 7-8, 2006)
Not guaranteed complete

Astronomy
The Sun
Facts

While the very rough point that the sun is not losing matter fast enough to force young-Earth creationism is valid, only one number listed is even close to correct.
Solar mass = 1.988×10^30 kg = 1.988×10^12 metric tons ≈ 2.2×10^27 short tons (10 times smaller than quoted)
The Sun does radiates away energy at a rate of about 4.7x10^6 short tons per second. But the solar wind is currently about 2x10^6 short tons per second.
Taking the 4.7x10^6 tons per second times 4.6 billion years is closer to 7x10^23 tons, or 0.0003 Solar masses.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99441.htm
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plas...res/node68.html
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/astrorpp.pdf
The Earth-Moon System
There is a side of the moon in perpetual sunshine.

Actually, there may be very small areas of the moon in near perpetual sunshine, but the vast majority of the lunar surface sees the Sun rise and set once per lunar month. The Apollo missions were timed to arrive so that each of the whole missions takes place during the local lunar morning. The closeness of the sun to the lunar horizon ruined many an Apollo photograph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...4/ixportal.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/dark_side.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar_resources/do.../Flo_%20Csm.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/f...?AS17-141-21628

Cosmology
The Big Bang Model
Vacuum Energy is essential to the Big Bang Model

Actually, QED vacuum energy is essential to the explanation of the Casimir effect.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/6
We don't yet have a GR expectation value of vacuum energy, but it has been suggested as a possible explanation for the non-zero cosmological constant.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
The Big Bang started at a particular point

Actually, the Big Bang Model does not involve a point-like singularity, but an origin at singular densities.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#HOLE
The Big Bang Model is topologically similar to a conventional explosion, having center and edge

This is not the Big Bang model.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
The Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) Big Bang model is unlikely.

Actually, the ΛCDM Big Bang model is strongly supported. Big Bang from isotropic Hubble flow, Λ from supernova observations, CDM from gravitational lensing observations, and ΛCDM from the microwave background radiation and general acceptance of General Relativity. When all of these observations are combined.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
All Big Bang Models are unlikely

Unsupported.
Cosmic Microwave Radiation is distorted starlight.

Contradicted by observation. Unsupported by physics.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html
Claims of stars older than 13.9 billion years puts the Big Bang theory at risk

While the discrepancy of the observations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3732157.stm) needs to be resolved, it is at least as likely that the stellar age estimate is faulty.
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0312015
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403071
Indeed, the age estimates of globular clusters is sensitive to a great number of uncertainties.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503408
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506161
And currently there is no clear disagreement.

It's impossible that a 10+ billion stellar mass black hole formed in the first billion years of the universe, therefore the Big Bang theory is wrong.

Early reports of the mass of Q0906+6930 were over estimated by about an order of magnitude.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607581


General Relativity
Close Orbits of Compact Objects
A stable, close orbit of black holes is possible as long as the event horizons don't actually touch.

Black holes or neutron stars which are just a few radii from each other radiate quite a lot of gravitational radiation, so that they will inspiral and collide.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/astro10/finalreview.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0737-3039
Fate of collapsing objects
There is no reason to believe that the fate of matter in a black hole is singular in density.

Actually, that is exactly the topic of the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems. Given certain initial conditions, the formation of an event horizon guarantees the formation of a singularity.
Survivability of entering a black hole.
It's not possible to survive because of the high interior temperature

Unsupported. Possibly talking about the engineering challenge of the blue-sheet.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9611025

Unsupported. Contradictory.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1029
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...es/fall_in.html

Naming
A black hole is synonymous with singularity

A singularity is a feature of all solutions of GR which lead to a black hole, but not all singularities of GR are associated with black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Newtonian Theory
Rigid Body Kinematics
An inelastic, off-center collision between two initially irrotational objects will result in a final state which is irrotational.

Actually, in the absence of torques the conservation of angular momentum demands that the final composite state be in a state of rotation.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/labman1/angu-mom.htm
http://www.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladn...ov_17_1999.html

Psychology
Suicide Forensics
Suicides almost always leave a note.

Actually, depending on group the ratio is between 20% and 60%, with somewhere between 25% and 40% being a general average.
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/...t-1075346.shtml
http://www.suicide.org/new-hampshire-teen-suicide-notes.html
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4459.html

HAWKING SAYS: GR PREDICTS ITS OWN DOWNFALL BY PREDICTING SINGULARITIES.

HE NEVER SOLVES THE PROBLEM BUT GOES ON TELLING EVERYONE THAT BLACK HOLES EXIST.

NOTICE THE CONTRADICTION?

HAWKING IS IN IT BECAUSE HE IS POPULAR. IN EVERY OTHER WAY HE IS A LOSER.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

We are forgetting the original topic.MMexperiment is the only relevant thing perhaps.

[removed]

Nick. I don't know why you waste your time trying to explain this to losers like rpigpenner and AlphaCrapolic. Both are far too dim to understand, even when you use small words.



rpigpenner and AlphaCrapolic, fresh from their trailers and deciding who does first shift at McDonalds today :

Supported claims by rpigpenner that he did not copy from a text book....





That's all folks!

I'm not saying you didn't copy the figure of 4 million tons per second from a web site. I'm saying you didn't understand it.
1) You flip back and forth between sites written in Imperial and Metric units, where there is about a 10% difference in definition of a ton.
2) The sites you copy from only discuss the mass loss attributed to one source, the emitted solar luminosity. There may be, and actually are, other mass loss mechanisms, including the solar wind.
3) When you use the numbers, you multiply 4 million tons per second by 4.6 billion years and neglect that a year is about 1/30th billion seconds, thus having a gross math mistake.
4) You don't link to any of your source material, conveying an unjustifiable confidence in your numbers.
5) You were the one that issued this blanket judgment in this thread:

So I applied the standard of your neighbors:

You clearly expect your writings on almost any subject to be "instantly accepted as fact" but when I do the "more realistic" step of trying to verify your numbers and calculations from reliable sources and calculators, you call me coward and post a negative feedback. You clearly don't care about facts or professionalism or basic concepts of fairness which are important to all civil debate.

"The Moon is a sphere so any part of it is a side." To state the argument is to refute it.

I disagree. I would phrase it better as "Only idiots ignore evidence when making proclamations." I have shown you my evidence.

You wrote "A singularity is a mathematical name for a black hole." which is not the case. I linked to pages where there are gravitational singularities described which are not associated with black holes, and the mathematical definition of singularity doesn't even require that we are talking about physics let alone black holes.

Yes, but the alternative explanations give predictions other that what is observed, so all but the most ignorant trailer trash will reject the alternative explanations as inconsistent.

Unclear antecedent. I guess we are on your "mist" idea. I'm not saying it's impossible that photons would be scattered and lose energy, I'm saying that observation of the clear images of distant galaxies shows that they aren't being scattered. They are losing energy by some mechanism that keeps them coherent and the "mist" model doesn't explain that. The mainstream theory that GR explains Hubble redshift predicts that supernovae sequences in distant galaxies will be time-dilated compared to nearby supernovae. This is also observed.

I first ask you to explain which star you are looking at, and then point out by random chance some small percentage of stars would have gone supernova or GRB in that timeframe and that the observational results are indistinguishable from contamination through such a remnant.

As was pointed out on another thread by AlphaNumeric, I have no B.S. Please try to be more clear in the future.

That's not how you rubbish a theorem in mathematical physics. You have to rubbish the logic or the assumptions.

Again, your debating skills are showing poorly. Where I said "unsupported" you were making claims that should have a factual foundation, but you supplied none, and I found contrary information. That's the definition of "unsupported."

Coward am I? I was not party to your decision to stop responding to my posts, and now you are foresworn. Rather than coward, I am experimentally testing some hypotheses:
1) If kaneda says he will not debate any more, does he stop responding to posts? No.
2) If kaneda asks for a demonstration of where he was in error, is that what he wants? No.
3) If kaneda claims that Hawking's ideas are "instantly accepted" as fact, does that mean kaneda wants us to challenge his previous posts where he said unsupportable things and wanted them "instantly accepted" as fact? No.
4) Is kaneda capable of professional debate? Inconclusive. But the evidence shows this is not his preferred tactic when confronted with evidence.

Yes, thanks "DJ" -- But how have I erred in responding to your post of less than 24 hours? In what manner is my posting more "cretinous" than yours, kaneda? I simply apply the standard with which you judge Hawking to your own writing.

I thought that picture was myself and Euler? Can't you come up with any new insults?

Your lack of science is becoming more and more apparent Kaneda. You don't even bother trying to defend your claims with evidence, you just launch into insults about anyone who disagrees with you must work at McDonalds.

I guess it must make you feel really stupid to keep being corrected by a bunch of McDonalds employees.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Jun 18 2007, 06:55 PM

And again you accuse others of taking your actions. I do not cite or mention typos in debates. People who resort to such tactics usually do so since their claims have no merit or they are unable to rationally defend their claims.

You on the other hand do mention typos as a way to not only “gain points” but to malign others and on at least one occasion cited typos as a sign of illiteracy.
Link

And using your own established standard that typos are a sign of illiteracy, you appear illiterate.

It is Happiness, not Happyness.

So what’s next? Are you going to make the claim that all those you castigated in these posts are the same person again or are you going back to ignoring us again?

And nothing you have posted here, the castigations or questionable physics claims as illustrates by your betters, have change your appearance as a poser. Again, one click to prove me wrong.

And more claims of stalking? Again, all one has to do is look at the feedback you have left for me and the feedback I have left for you. You continue to post one odd and juvenile negative after another against me and I have yet to post anything but positive for you. And why are you posting negatives against a person you claim to be ignoring?

So tell me again who is stalking who?

This post has been edited by GeneSplicer on Jun 19 2007, 02:12 AM