 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2004my gravity theory - Web Link
Hi all, I've decided to produce a Web Page version of my gravity theory. This is an excerpt from my book ("Meme" - Sean Sinjin) and I hope you find this informative enough. Comments, criticism, and petty jabs are most welcome. http://www.BetterHuman.org/BetterHuman/Gravity%20Web%20Excerpt.htm kind regards, Sean Sinjin > Hi all, > > I've decided to produce a Web Page version of my gravity theory. It is crap. > It is crap. Hi Varney, thanks for the feedback. Is there something in particular you don't like about it? Do you have any questions? It can be rather difficult to digest at first but I'll be glad to assist you. kind regards, Sean > It is crap. Hi Varney, thanks for the feedback. Is there something in particular you don't like about it? Do you have any questions? It can be rather difficult to digest at first but I'll be glad to assist you. kind regards, Sean >>It is crap. > > Hi Varney, thanks for the feedback. You are welcome. > Is there something in particular > you don't like about it? Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well.... yes; The writing is shoddy, the web design sucks, as does the grammar. The ideas presented are pathetic. > Do you have any questions? Yes. How can you spew such crap with a straight face? > It can be rather > difficult to digest That is the main definition of "crap". > at first but I'll be glad to assist you. > kind regards, > Sean >Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are >unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well.... The reason the postulates are unsupported probably stems from the fact that this is a very unique and new version of 'ether' theory, and it will take some time to wrap your mind around it. The results do not differ with empirical reality, since objects in my reality are brought together in precisely the same manner as we observe in GR. Is there something specific you could identify where my model fails to accommodate observed reality? >yes; The writing is shoddy, the web design sucks, as does the grammar. >The ideas presented are pathetic. I will confess to not being the best writer in the world, but my message is not meant to be enthralling and entertaining as it is to demonstrate my model. I think you'll find my work no more heart-stopping than a host of other informationally oriented papers. The Web page also falls under the category of utilitarian rather than an eye-grabber. I'm simply trying to transmit information. As for the ideas being pathetic, again, I ask for more meaningful information to justify this. You seem very passionate and insulted by even the suggestion of my theory and seeing that I am intending no harm, I am curious to discover how someone could possibly manifest this powerful of a reaction to so innocent a theory? > Yes. How can you spew such crap with a straight face? You're obviously very disturbed at what I wrote and for that I'm sorry; I didn't mean to offend you and I can tell that I've really gotten inside your head and pressed your sensitivity buttons. If you can tell me exactly how my gravity theory can cause you so much pain, I'd be glad to re-word it into a non-offensive manner. If you would be willing to perhaps give it another look over and try to see that I'm really not trying to hurt anyone, and that all that is contained in my theory is specifically a model that explains gravity and no more, you may come to understand that my model really does accommodate all observations. >That is the main definition of "crap". Thanks again for your feedback Sean > >Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are > >unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well.... > > The reason the postulates are unsupported probably stems from the fact > that this is a very unique and new version of 'ether' theory, and it > will take some time to wrap your mind around it. The reason is exactly as Varney said - it is crap unsupported by one shred of evidence eg you wrote 'For a moment let's take a seeming tangent and talk about space, referring to outer space, ether (also spelled, "Aether"), that 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 the way of the crank and crackpot. You need go no further than this to know it is rubbish of the first order. 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/. Bill The results do not > differ with empirical reality, since objects in my reality are brought > together in precisely the same manner as we observe in GR. Is there [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Sean 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. I will however state that the observations of gravity and magnetism tend to support the existence of my ether model. 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. If you have truly read my article, you would understand that my proposal for ether is quite adapted to fit current observations. 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. 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. > 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? > 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, 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. kind regards, Sean > Hi Bill, thanks for your feedback, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 > > >Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are > > >unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well.... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bill Had a couple of minutes to spare and read more of the junk. The author wrote: 'One endearing new quality we'll introduce is homogeneity, or a lack of particles.'. 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 (Conceptual Development of 20th Century Field Theories - Tian Yu Cao - page 30-40). 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. Bill > The results do not > > differ with empirical reality, since objects in my reality are brought [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > > > Sean 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 > Hi Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Michelson-Morley was attempting to test the existence of from the > simple fact that an elastic model doesn't flow. They were not attempting to verify any particular model of the anther. But that is not the point - the point was your statement - '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' is false - the 19th century conception of the anther made no such assumptions. Could it be you have no idea what you are talking about? If you doubt what I am saying please point me to the reference that claims Michelson-Morley were trying to detect 'a fluid, sea-like' anther. Indeed as the cited reference shows the anther was considered an elastic medium not a fluid. > >> I will > >> however state that the observations of gravity and magnetism tend to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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) It does not, for example, account for Pound-Rebeka experiment or the GPS satletite corretions that every day show how goosd a theory GR is. (1). > > My evidence > >is that assuming SR (which implies the non existence of an aether [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My version of ether also fits SR POR EM, and anything else that you > want to throw at it. (1) > 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. I think it is obvious you do no know enough physics to see your ideas are nonsense eg (1). > >it leads to Maxwell's equations. It is well known that aether theories > >exist but all known viable ones are, so far, are experimentally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > properties to explain gravity and magnetism, without disrupting other > currently accepted theories. Untrue - (1). > >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 am dismayed you consider stating falsehoods such as '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' is the correct way to approach scientific discourse. > I ignorantly thought I was going > to be enriched by this exposure, The problem is you are obviously ignorant of basic facts and think your fantasies are relevant - they are not. > 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. Why people like you state falsehoods then get upset when people point out that is what they are is beyond me. > 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. It is rubbish of the first order not even capable of accounting for the most basic of modern experiments. > 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. So what goes on in your head is more important than what experiments show? > 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. It makes no sense at all because it can not account for well known basic facts. > 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. You are obviously delusional - post back when you theory can account for the Pound-Rebeka experiment. Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped. Bill >>Other than the fact that there is no math, the postulates are >>unsupported and the results differ with empirical reality.... well.... > > The reason the postulates are unsupported probably stems from the fact > that this is a very unique and new version of 'ether' theory, You mean "crap". > and it > will take some time to wrap your mind around it. Cranks like you always say the same things. Try being original. > The results do not > differ with empirical reality, Sure they do. > since objects in my reality You are a crackpot. Your "reality" is therefore highly non-eulcidian. > are brought > together in precisely the same manner as we observe in GR. Is there > something specific you could identify where my model fails to > accommodate observed reality? For the same reasons I would not pick the corn from a turd, I shall refrain from specifying the flaws in your "theory". >>yes; The writing is shoddy, the web design sucks, as does the grammar. > >>The ideas presented are pathetic. > > I will confess to not being the best writer in the world In your case it is both the message and the medium. >, but my > message is not meant to be enthralling and entertaining as it is to > demonstrate my model. You demonstrated that it is crap. Good for you! > I think you'll find my work no more > heart-stopping than a host of other informationally oriented papers. > The Web page also falls under the category of utilitarian rather than > an eye-grabber. I'm simply trying to transmit information. You shannonized it fairly well I might point out. > As for the ideas being pathetic, again, I ask for more meaningful > information to justify this. Would you learn anything from specifics? I doubt it, so I will not waste my time. You seem very passionate and insulted by > even the suggestion of my theory and seeing that I am intending no > harm You have sh.t on s.p.rel's doorstep. >, I am curious to discover how someone could possibly manifest this > powerful of a reaction to so innocent a theory? Stupidity make me ill, thus my reaction to you. >>Yes. How can you spew such crap with a straight face? > > You're obviously very disturbed at what I wrote and for that I'm sorry; You are sorry. However, this is about your crap theory. You asked for an opinion and received one from a person who has far more expertise in physics and science than you could ever hope to obtain. You should be grateful that I spent the modicum of time needed to proclaim your theory "crap". What you do with that information is up to you. > I didn't mean to offend you and I can tell that I've really gotten > inside your head and pressed your sensitivity buttons. If you can tell > me exactly how my gravity theory can cause you so much pain Your stupidity is painful to others who know better. It is agonizing to think that you are a member of the human race. Not to mention depressing. >, I'd be > glad to re-word it into a non-offensive manner. Save yourself the effort and simply dump the page and go back to flipping burritos at Taco Bell, where you shine! > If you would be > willing to perhaps give it another look over and try to see that I'm [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sean Make up you mind... crackpot. Either thank me for pointing out that your theories are crap, or rant and rave. But please... choose one and stick with it. *smirk* > You mean "crap". > Cranks like you always say the same things. Try being original. I don't know how I can use any of this. >> The results do not >> differ with empirical reality, >Sure they do. how? > You are a crackpot. Your "reality" is therefore highly non-eulcidian. I don't understand this >For the same reasons I would not pick the corn from a turd, I shall >refrain from specifying the flaws in your "theory". This makes it difficult to believe that you even read my document. Is your sole purpose here to slander me with no premise whatsoever? I can't understand whY? > In your case it is both the message and the medium. I can't use this > You demonstrated that it is crap. Good for you! or this > You shannonized it fairly well I might point out. ?? Is that the Irish river you speak of? Don't know that word. >Would you learn anything from specifics? I doubt it, so I will not waste >my time. What do you call all of this? > You have sh.t on s.p.rel's doorstep. Astounding >Stupidity make me ill, thus my reaction to you. Simply amazing >You are sorry. However, this is about your crap theory. You asked for >an opinion and received one from a person who has far more expertise in >physics and science than you could ever hope to obtain. You should be Could you perhaps share some of that expertise such that I may gain from your knowledge? Or is it simply your intention to perpetually verbally disembowel me for absolutely no reason other than I submitted an idea on gravity? What is the full punishment that you feel I am deserved of? >grateful that I spent the modicum of time needed to proclaim your theory >"crap". What you do with that information is up to you. Can't use this >Your stupidity is painful to others who know better. It is agonizing to >think that you are a member of the human race. Not to mention depressing. So, I should die then? Am I finally getting your message? Should all people that come up with novel ideas be condemned? >Save yourself the effort and simply dump the page and go back to >flipping burritos at Taco Bell, where you shine! can't use this >Make up you mind... crackpot. Either thank me for pointing out that your >theories are crap, or rant and rave. But please... choose one and stick >with it. *smirk* Wonderful. Are you remotely aware that this conversation will be locked in history until the end of time for all future people to see? I beg you to have a shred of compassion, not for me, but for yourself. You obviously have some difficulty relating to people, perhaps even suffer from social ostracism for whatever reason. I do offer my sympathies to you because you must be a very lonely person, and there is no greater form of torture than to be rejected by your fellow man. If I can offer one piece of advice, you have to learn to love yourself before other people can see a reason to love you. Start there, and the rest will fall into place. good luck my brother, Sean >>You mean "crap". > >>Cranks like you always say the same things. Try being original. > > I don't know how I can use any of this. That is your problem... not mine. >>>The results do not >>>differ with empirical reality, > >>Sure they do. > > how? See prior posts on this point. >>You are a crackpot. Your "reality" is therefore highly non-eulcidian. > > I don't understand this Of course not. The subtlety is beyond your grasp. Let me rephrase this in words that you can understand (perhaps). Your "reality" is therefore highly non-eulcidian = you have a warped sense of reality. >>For the same reasons I would not pick the corn from a turd, I shall >>refrain from specifying the flaws in your "theory". > > This makes it difficult to believe that you even read my document. What is hard to believe is that I wasted the 30 seconds reading your drivel past the first paragraph. But the is not nearly as unbelievable as your stupidity. > Is > your sole purpose here to slander me with no premise whatsoever? I > can't understand whY? It is not surprising that you have difficulty understanding things. For instance, how am I slandering you over a non-vocal medium such as Usenet? >>In your case it is both the message and the medium. > > I can't use this That is your problem... not mine. >>You demonstrated that it is crap. Good for you! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ?? Is that the Irish river you speak of? Don't know that word. Ever hear of google? www.google.com www.google.com "shannonized" www.google.com "shannonizer" http://www.nightgarden.com/shannon.htm Look up information entropy... not that it will help you in the slightest. >>Would you learn anything from specifics? I doubt it, so I will not > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you call all of this? Fun. Torturing crackpots such as yourself is a nice stress reliever. >>You have sh.t on s.p.rel's doorstep. > > Astounding Not really. You were so full of crap that you had plenty to spare for s.p.rel. >>Stupidity make me ill, thus my reaction to you. > > Simply amazing Aw sucks... you flatter me. >>You are sorry. However, this is about your crap theory. You asked for >>an opinion and received one from a person who has far more expertise [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Could you perhaps share some of that expertise such that I may gain > from your knowledge? You would not gain any knowledge. You are a crackpot. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. You are beyond hope of a cure. > Or is it simply your intention to perpetually > verbally disembowel me for absolutely no reason other than I submitted > an idea on gravity? Entropy will win. Read about the 2nd law and find out that there is no such thing as perpetual... save perhaps your stupidity. However, for musing on the thermodynamics of stupidity, check out the following. http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/NegInt.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/CompactifiedDementia.html > What is the full punishment that you feel I am > deserved of? Castration, unless you have already sullied the gene pool. >>grateful that I spent the modicum of time needed to proclaim your > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can't use this QED. >>Your stupidity is painful to others who know better. It is agonizing > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, I should die then? Sure... why not? > Am I finally getting your message? Should all > people that come up with novel ideas be condemned? Are you really that arrogant to think that you are novel in your ignorance? >>Save yourself the effort and simply dump the page and go back to >>flipping burritos at Taco Bell, where you shine! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wonderful. Are you remotely aware that this conversation will be > locked in history until the end of time for all future people to see? Yup. And you will therefore be known as a moronic crackpot for that period of time. You have left your mark! > I beg you to have a shred of compassion, not for me, but for yourself. > You obviously have some difficulty relating to people, perhaps even > suffer from social ostracism for whatever reason. You are a man of many talents. You are equally talented at spewing crap on psychology as you are in physics. Bravo! > I do offer my > sympathies to you because you must be a very lonely person, and there > is no greater form of torture than to be rejected by your fellow man. Quit projecting. *smirk* > If I can offer one piece of advice, you have to learn to love yourself > before other people can see a reason to love you. Start there, and the > rest will fall into place. > > good luck my brother, > Sean I don't recall having a slug as a brother.... >I don't recall having a slug as a brother.... Peace my friend. I wish you no ill intent. Sean >>I don't recall having a slug as a brother.... > > Peace my friend. I wish you no ill intent. Look up the term "friend". I don't make friends with idiots such as yourself. > > You mean "crap". > > > Cranks like you always say the same things. Try being original. > > I don't know how I can use any of this. You can at least try to get your facts straight. I cited a reference that showed your historical assumption about aether theories were incorrect. One thing you could do is get a copy of the book - The Conceptual Development of 20th Century Field Theories by Tian Yu Cao. It is available from Amazon discounted to $45.00 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521634202/qid=1103677263/sr=8-1/r ef=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2954932-6765600?v=glance&s=books&n=507846. You time could be much better spent studying its contents than writing up you misconceptions. All the later does is reinforce them - the former exposes you to the facts. Bill > >> The results do not > >> differ with empirical reality, [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > good luck my brother, > Sean The sources I had described the Michelson-Morley experiment as one that would try to detect the flow of ether. I think this is the full extent of my description of 'one' of the more popular ether theories of the time. Other than that I do not endeavor to describe any other properties of any other traditional ether theories whatsoever. Having said that, I fail to see how I could possibly have got it wrong, especially in the light that virtually all ether theories have been accepted as wrong? Did I get something wrong wrong? Perhaps your resources differ from mine. In any event, I didn't set out to teach the full gambit of discounted ether theories of a time past, I'm simply identifying why ether theories are largely unpopular, and then addressing those issues with my version of ether. What I'm interested in is if you can understand what I am proposing for a model. You don't have to agree with it, but can you understand it? Can you see how my model works? Thanks for the feedback, Sean > The sources I had described the Michelson-Morley experiment as one that > would try to detect the flow of ether. Reference and context please. > I think this is the full extent > of my description of 'one' of the more popular ether theories of the > time. Basically you read some account that you iterpreted as saying they were looking for a fluid like aether. Now unless you can actually back it up with a reference then I think we will all be better off sticking to the facts as detialed in my cited reference. The fact is the aether was ocnsidered an elastic medium not a sea like fluid. > Other than that I do not endeavor to describe any other > properties of any other traditional ether theories whatsoever. Having > said that, I fail to see how I could possibly have got it wrong, > especially in the light that virtually all ether theories have been > accepted as wrong? That is an easy one - simply post a quote and context where it stated the aether was consdered a sea like fluid. > Did I get something wrong wrong? Did I get something right right or just tright? Is this a core idea or something that is more flexible? Mind telling us which of your ideas we are to take seriously and which may be wrong but not wrong wrong? > Perhaps your > resources differ from mine. My reference is a scholarly work baked up by cited references - your statements are not baked up by anything. > In any event, I didn't set out to teach > the full gambit of discounted ether theories of a time past, I'm simply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have to agree with it, but can you understand it? Can you see how my > model works? I do not see how you model works because it is unable to account for experiments such as the classic Pound-Rebeka experiment. Bill > Thanks for the feedback, > Sean >> The sources I had described the Michelson-Morley experiment as one that >> would try to detect the flow of ether. >Reference and context please. They are lost on me now, but are irrelevant to support my theory, which is what I wish to focus on >Basically you read some account that you iterpreted as saying they were >looking for a fluid like aether. Now unless you can actually back it up >with a reference then I think we will all be better off sticking to the >facts as detialed in my cited reference. The fact is the aether was >ocnsidered an elastic medium not a sea like fluid. The experiment details measuring the speed of light as the Earth rotates around the sun. It was expected to produce variances in the speed of light due to the hypothesized flow of ether. >I do not see how you model works because it is unable to account for >experiments such as the classic Pound-Rebeka experiment. I cannot find a single reference to this experiment on the Net. I am fairly certain however that my model will accommodate it. thanks for your input, Sean > >> The sources I had described the Michelson-Morley experiment as one > that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > rotates around the sun. It was expected to produce variances in the > speed of light due to the hypothesized flow of ether. Yes due to an aether wind which in no way depends on the structure of the aether - it would occur in your proposal just as much as in any aether proposal. Indeed how you get around the fact is was not detected would make very interesting reading. > >I do not see how you model works because it is unable to account for > >experiments such as the classic Pound-Rebeka experiment. > > I cannot find a single reference to this experiment on the Net. I am > fairly certain however that my model will accommodate it. > thanks for your input, You obviously did not look too hard http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=pound+rebka+experiment&spell=1 or did the fact I spelt Rebeka wrong throw you? - it should be Rebka When I keyed it into Google it corrected it automatically. How your theory accounts for the difference in clock rates is eagerly awaited. Bill/. > Sean Hi Bill, >Yes due to an aether wind which in no way depends on the structure of the >aether - it would occur in your proposal just as much as in any aether >proposal. Indeed how you get around the fact is was not detected would make >very interesting reading. My ether does not have portions that flow relative to itself as a whole, as our atmosphere or oceans would. My ether is more like a transparent, rubber blob, essentially windless. The particles in my universe are entirely composed of twisted ether, much like a loop in a rope. The loop's 'shape' can move freely through the rope (ether), completely oblivious to the fact that the rope (ether) flows through it as the particle moves. The reason this movement through ether is undetectable is due to ether's perfect homogeneity (particleless), rendering it perfectly frictionless, and hence impossible to sense. This is why I refer to it as the barrier between metaphysical and phyical, because it may never be more than a concept. So you see, my ether has no more properties than what is necessary to support and interrelate the current observations. There is nothing more to be found. >How your theory accounts for the difference in clock rates is eagerly >awaited. The Rebka experiments seems to prove the relationship between timeflow and gravity, please correct me if I'm wrong. My model exactly mimics the results of timeflow that GR purports, whether this observation is the result of a gravity field, or velocity-based. The common weakness that my model and GR share is that they do not truly 'explain' this phenomenon, but that they only calculate and predict it. I have my own ideas as to the 'why' but in the past 10 years of thinking about it, I have yet to come up with something that sits well with me. As such, I have only incorporated the observations of time flow, and not attempted to explain it. My model however, does not in any way change GR's math. This has been very productive for me Bill, thanks for your time, Sean > Hi Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > My ether does not have <SNIP> >>How your theory accounts for the difference in clock rates is eagerly >>awaited. > > The Rebka experiments seems to prove the relationship between timeflow > and gravity, please correct me if I'm wrong. Why? You wont learn from the corrections. You are a crackpot, and thus immune to correction. Go away, crackpot. Haven't heard from you for a while Varney. Can I assume that you're finally trying to understand my theory? Sean > Hi Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > universe are entirely composed of twisted ether, much like a loop in a > rope. As you go to great pains to demonstrate in your model the twists are like a loop in the rope - the rope flows through the loop thus the loop must have a velocity relative to the rope ie changes its position on the rope. This change in position relative to the rope (in you case the aether) creates an aether wind exactly as in any aether theory it must. > The loop's 'shape' can move freely through the rope (ether), > completely oblivious to the fact that the rope (ether) flows through it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interrelate the current observations. There is nothing more to be > found. It does not matter how you cut it and dice it in your model the twists have motion relative to your aether. > >How your theory accounts for the difference in clock rates is eagerly > >awaited. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the results of timeflow that GR purports, whether this observation is > the result of a gravity field, or velocity-based. Your model has gravity being caused by a stress in the underlying aether. Now how does this stress affect clocks? - because that is what the Pound-Rebka exponent shows - gravity affects the timing rate of clicks and GR predict that for weak fields like those found on earth space in unaffected - only the time component ie the g00 term on the metric is affected for first order effects. > The common weakness > that my model and GR share is that they do not truly 'explain' this > phenomenon, but that they only calculate and predict it. You have done no calculation or made any predictions. BTW as a matter of principle science is not concerned about turtle all the way down type explanations - in every theory something is assumed - in GR the assumption is gravity and space-time curvature are one and the same. If you think that does or does not explain gravity is a philosophical use not something science worries about. > I have my own > ideas as to the 'why' but in the past 10 years of thinking about it, I > have yet to come up with something that sits well with me. As such, I > have only incorporated the observations of time flow, and not attempted > to explain it. My model however, does not in any way change GR's math. It is incompatible with many basic facts - the Pound-Rebka experiment is simply one of them. Bill > This has been very productive for me Bill, thanks for your time, > > Sean Hi Bill, >velocity relative to the rope ie changes its position on the rope. This >change in position relative to the rope (in you case the aether) creates an >aether wind exactly as in any aether theory it must. That would be the same as saying when you drive in a car and stick your head out the window, that you feel the 'wind' blow. My definition of wind is not 'caused' by the observer, the wind that I was trying to dispel the notion of is free-flowing within the ether itself, independant of the observers. You cannot 'stir' my version of ether, much like a transparent rubber blob cannot be stirred. >Your model has gravity being caused by a stress in the underlying aether. >Now how does this stress affect clocks? I cannot explain it any more than GR can, I can only provide a mathematical model that exactly parallels GR to predict it. I do have some theories that I'm still trying to suss out in my brain but they still don't feel quite right and so I'm withholding them until the 'time' is right. >Pound-Rebka exponent shows - gravity affects the timing rate of clicks and >GR predict that for weak fields like those found on earth space in >unaffected - only the time component ie the g00 term on the metric is >affected for first order effects. Once again, my model accommodates this by simple integration of observations. There is an intrinsic relationship between the strength of gravity and the rate of time. GR says time pertubation is caused by gravity, but I say the existence of particles causes a gravity field, which consequently warps timeflow. Why it warps time, I'm still working on, but my model can use the existing GR math to calculate it. >explanations - in every theory something is assumed - in GR the assumption >is gravity and space-time curvature are one and the same. If you think that >does or does not explain gravity is a philosophical use not something >science worries about. I'm simply trying to provide the construct that can support all the observations. I support the fact as well that gravity and time flow are intrinsically co-dependant. What else can I say? GR doesn't explain 'why' gravity exists, it merely describes the conditions and math for predicting it. You can mathematically predict how a curveball will travel through the atmosphere, but I'm trying to describe why it curves. >It is incompatible with many basic facts - the Pound-Rebka experiment is >simply one of them. My model does accommodate it by design because it incorporates the relationship between gravity and velocity-based time dilation. Why do you believe my model doesn't do this? thanks for the feedback, this is great! Sean > Hi Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > independant of the observers. You cannot 'stir' my version of ether, > much like a transparent rubber blob cannot be stirred. Semantic juggling will not change facts - if matter is like a twist or knot in your aether then when they move an aether wind exists for them. > >Your model has gravity being caused by a stress in the underlying > aether. > >Now how does this stress affect clocks? > > I cannot explain it any more than GR can, I can only provide a > mathematical model that exactly parallels GR to predict it. GR. explains it as space-time curvature. Now how does your model explain it? > I do have > some theories that I'm still trying to suss out in my brain but they > still don't feel quite right and so I'm withholding them until the > 'time' is right. I suggest until you can answer the simple query above then you should refrain form making statements like 'I cannot explain it any more than GER. can' - to do that you would need to explain it at least as well - you obviously have not done so. > >Pound-Rebka exponent shows - gravity affects the timing rate of clicks > and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Once again, my model accommodates this by simple integration of > observations. Come again - semantic cobbly gook does not qualify. > There is an intrinsic relationship between the strength > of gravity and the rate of time. In GR. that is because gravity is space-time curvature. In your theory gravity is a stress in an aether - no link to how it affects clocks provided. > GR says time pertubation is caused by > gravity, but I say the existence of particles causes a gravity field, > which consequently warps timeflow. So basically what you are saying is that my theory has no mechanism for how gravity affects clocks so I will simply postulate it does. This is called an ad-hoc hyposthosis and is generally frowned upon in science because virtually any theory can be bought into agreement with observation by making enough ad-hoc hypothesis. Any one who has given the matter any thought realizes such methods are not science - in science theories need to deduce effects from premises not add them as they go along. > Why it warps time, I'm still > working on, but my model can use the existing GR math to calculate it. It can not because you have not specified how it warps space-time ie you have not provided any link between your aether and space-time curvature. As explained above accommodating it by ad-hoc hypothesis is not science - to be blunt such methods are the last resort of those who do not see their ideas are wrong. This is what happened with the Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction - it was realized it was an ad hoc hyposthosis and as such is not good science. You are simply doing the same but much worse. > >explanations - in every theory something is assumed - in GR the > assumption [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > observations. I support the fact as well that gravity and time flow > are intrinsically co-dependant. What else can I say? You can detail the link between your ideas and space-time curvature ie the exact mechanism this aether of yours causes space-time to be curved. > GR doesn't > explain 'why' gravity exists, it merely describes the conditions and > math for predicting it. It does explain why gravity exists - you simply do not understand the theory well enough to see it. The reason has to do with the idea of no prior geometry (ie nature does not single out any particular geometry) - not with an aether. At your level of expertise the following is the best source I can refer you to - http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/. Basically if the universe did not set a geometry in stone then it must be dynamic. A mathematical analysis of this leads to the idea the metric must be a dynamical variable. When this idea is incorporated into lagrangian field theory then GR is the inevitable result. Another reason has to do with the principle of general invariance - but the reasoning here is a bit subtle - I will need to refer you to a reference - Gravitation and Space-time by Ohanian and Ruffini - Chapter 7. Other reasons exist as well - such as it is the inevitable consequence of spin 2 particles coupling to matter. Indeed string theorists claim the fact their theory predicts spin 2 particles shows it has already made on prediction - the existence of gravity. > You can mathematically predict how a curveball > will travel through the atmosphere, but I'm trying to describe why it > curves. And failing miserably. > >It is incompatible with many basic facts - the Pound-Rebka experiment > is > >simply one of them. > > My model does accommodate it by design because it incorporates the > relationship between gravity and velocity-based time dilation. Mind detailing that relation and exactly how clocks stationary in a gravitational field are affected? > Why do > you believe my model doesn't do this? Because you have provided no detail other than claims it does. Bill > thanks for the feedback, this is great! > > Sean Synchronize two atomic clocks. Drive one away and compare the time it takes for a signal to travel one way with the time of a round trip. If always exactly half, no matter what direction, either the experiment is stationary to the aether (impossible with orbital motion), or there is no aether. It defies common sense and is impossible in euclidean space. >always exactly half, no matter what direction, either the experiment is >stationary to the aether (impossible with orbital motion), or there is >no aether. It defies common sense and is impossible in euclidean space. My model of ether is perfectly homogenous (particleless) and so no matter what velocity you may perceive yourself to be moving at, you will always be both stationary and moving at infinite speed relative to ether because at all speeds, your speed relative to my ether is undetectable. In this sense, it leaves you with a very relativistic medium in which all persisting GR SR, etc. theories remain unaffected. The only advent of my ether is that it provides a construct from which particles can be formed, and from which their related forces (gravity, magentism) can be predicted. One of the big misconceptions that continues to circulate with my ether theory is that it has properties of other historical versions of ether. Perhaps it was a mistake to introduce it under the term 'ether', but I've already taken that step and I hope to be able to distinguish my version from them. Please understand, my ether 'does not' have a detectable velocity relative to anything, it is simply pure, virtually metaphysical. thanks, Sean > >always exactly half, no matter what direction, either the experiment > is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ether because at all speeds, your speed relative to my ether is > undetectable. It does not matter how much semantic gibberish you surround your ideas with if particles are a loop or knot in an aether and they move with respect to the aether as you claim then relative to them the aether is moving. If you do not see that then I am afraid you have no hope. But to be frank that is obvious anyway. Bill In this sense, it leaves you with a very relativistic > medium in which all persisting GR SR, etc. theories remain unaffected. > The only advent of my ether is that it provides a construct from which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thanks, > Sean >It does not matter how much semantic gibberish you surround your ideas with >if particles are a loop or knot in an aether and they move with respect to >the aether as you claim then relative to them the aether is moving. If you >do not see that then I am afraid you have no hope. But to be frank that is >obvious anyway. Hi Bill, Thanks again for your feedback. Let me state it yet again, what makes my ether unique from the contemporary understanding of ether is that there is no concept of 'moving relative to it'. This is the part that I think you continue to struggle with. You keep insisting that ether 'must' have relative motion, when I'm trying to introduce a model that doesn't. This is what makes my version the borderline between the physical and metaphysical. Maybe if you just give one more attempt at trying to understand what makes my model different, you may finally see why my model can explain gravity and magnetism, whilst still supporting GR SR, etc. First thing though, you need to let go of your insistence in adding the property of 'flow' to my version of ether. I would ask that if it is possible for you, to please genuinely read my theories in a truly subjective manner, such that the full essence of my ether is understood prior to prejudicially embellishing it with properties that I do not describe. many thanks, Sean > >It does not matter how much semantic gibberish you surround your ideas > with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > my ether unique from the contemporary understanding of ether is that > there is no concept of 'moving relative to it'. That is simply absurd. You go to great pains to explain it is like a loop in a rope - if the loop moves on the rope it has velocity relative to the rope. If you claim 2+2 = 5 and I give detailed reasoning why it is 4 and refuse to see it then I have no choice but to say people have read what I have had to say, what you have had to say and can form their own opinion. > This is the part that > I think you continue to struggle with. No - it is the part that shows you can not think. > You keep insisting that ether > 'must' have relative motion, when I'm trying to introduce a model that > doesn't. That is becuae it is obvious it does have vleocity. > This is what makes my version the borderline between the > physical and metaphysical. No - that is what makes you ideas incoherent junk. Wishing to introduce terms like 'metaphysical is for the purpose of giving you wiggle room when you are actual pinned down by something concrete. > Maybe if you just give one more attempt at > trying to understand what makes my model different, you may finally see > why my model can explain gravity and magnetism, whilst still supporting > GR SR, etc. First thing though, you need to let go of your insistence > in adding the property of 'flow' to my version of ether. You mean I need to let go of what logic forces onto me? > I would ask > that if it is possible for you, to please genuinely read my theories in > a truly subjective manner, such that the full essence of my ether is > understood prior to prejudicially embellishing it with properties that > I do not describe. You mean you want me to ignore reason? Remember what I said about 2+2. Bill > many thanks, > Sean > > Thanks again for your feedback. Let me state it yet again, what makes > > my ether unique from the contemporary understanding of ether is that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a rope - if the loop moves on the rope it has velocity relative to the > rope. That is the analogy I'm using to describe how the particle is formed, and to explain that the particle is nothing more than contorted ether, but the analogy fails to describe how there is no relative motion. The analogy is not perfect. The perfect analogy would require something that shares the exact same properties of ether, of which nothing other than ether exists and so I'm forced to combine parts of many different analogies in order to build the composite property set of my ether. Your discomfort with my freedom to give my version of ether this property of non-velocity, fortunately, does not in any way invalidate its qualification for my model. > No - it is the part that shows you can not think. > No - that is what makes you ideas incoherent junk. I don't see how these statements help your case. I believe I've shown you a phenomenal degree of respect in the face of constant hostility, can I please ask the same of you? My sincerest apologies, but my tolerance for diminutives is waning and I do not wish to dismiss our correspondence on so fickle a matter. I do believe there is much to be gained by continuing our deliberations, but I will require a minimum of respect in the future in order to warrant a response. > Wishing to introduce > terms like 'metaphysical is for the purpose of giving you wiggle room when > you are actual pinned down by something concrete. Perhaps this property of ether is the missing link between mathematics and reality. I've read many theories that were much more extravagant and baseless (string theory, gravitons) that persist with a large following even today. I think the simple property of a velocityless medium is a quite reasonable proposal. I'm sorry you feel otherwise. Sean > > > Thanks again for your feedback. Let me state it yet again, what > makes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and to explain that the particle is nothing more than contorted ether, > but the analogy fails to describe how there is no relative motion. Let me get this straight. You claim something eg particles are like a knot in an aether - when it is pointed out to you this implies they have a velocity relative to an aether and such has never bee detected you say this is part of my theory that I wish to ignore. Anyone can see what you a proposing is not a theory it is rubbish; and obvious rubbish at that. >The > analogy is not perfect. The perfect analogy would require something [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > gained by continuing our deliberations, but I will require a minimum of > respect in the future in order to warrant a response. Agreed - end of discussions. But that does not mean whenever you post I will not point out the obvious deficiencies in your ideas - I will simply not spend the already far too much time I have spent on it. > > Wishing to introduce > > terms like 'metaphysical is for the purpose of giving you wiggle room [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > following even today. I think the simple property of a velocityless > medium is a quite reasonable proposal. I'm sorry you feel otherwise. Sean exactly how much mathematics do you know? Can you derive the small field low velocity approximation to ds2 = guvdxudxv? I suggest if you do not understand mathematics, and you posts suggest you do not, then you are not in a position to make such comments. Bill > Sean > Let me get this straight. You claim something eg particles are like a knot > in an aether - when it is pointed out to you this implies they have a > velocity relative to an aether Once again you are imposing your definition of ether upon my model. My ether does not have relative velocity, which means a particle is both simultaneously at rest, and at infinite speed relative to it. The reason my ether has this property is due to its perfect homogeneity (particlenessless), which is unparalleled in all other known aspects of nature, and therefore difficult to comprehend intuitively, or sufficiently analogize. > Agreed - end of discussions. But that does not mean whenever you post I > will not point out the obvious deficiencies in your ideas - I will simply > not spend the already far too much time I have spent on it. I do appreciate your constructive feedback. > Sean exactly how much mathematics do you know? Can you derive the small > field low velocity approximation to ds2 = guvdxudxv? I know mathematics very well. thanks again Bill, Sean > > Let me get this straight. You claim something eg particles are like > a knot [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > field low velocity approximation to ds2 = guvdxudxv? > I know mathematics very well. Then why did you not carry out the simple exercise I asked? I suspect what you classify as knowing very well and what others would classify it as are two different things. That is the reason I chose it - it is not something you can look up easily unless you understand it well enough to do it in the first place. I am waiting - can you solve the simple problem? Sean I believe I can safely say you know nothing of mathematics past basic calculus and probably not even that - the problem I gave requires nothing more than that - other than an understanding of the terms used GR - a theory you believe your theory is fully in accord with so you should be intimately familiar with the terminology. Yet you are willing to say theories that make use of such are calculations and do not have actual physical content. It is obvious you are simply some deluded crackpot. Bill > thanks again Bill, > Sean >>>The sources I had described the Michelson-Morley experiment as one > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I cannot find a single reference to this experiment on the Net. Perhaps because you are a crackpot. > I am > fairly certain however that my model will accommodate it. Your model does not accommodate reality, much less the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. There is not math in your theory, and thus it cannot make predictions, much less encompass what is already known. Go away, crackpot. > It is crap. Hi Varney, thanks for the feedback. Is there something in particular you don't like about it? Do you have any questions? It can be rather difficult to digest at first but I'll be glad to assist you. kind regards, Sean > It is crap. Hi Varney, thanks for the feedback. Is there something in particular you don't like about it? Do you have any questions? It can be rather difficult to digest at first but I'll be glad to assist you. kind regards, Sean mister Sean Sinjin I can only see drawings in your theory why should I belive that your drawings are nicere and more appropiate then mine drawings and then others drawings? You may believe what you want. The reason I put up the web page was to see if anybody could understand my theory. Sean why, you dont? I do believe that my theory is correct, yes. Sean > I do believe that my theory is correct, yes. > > Sean I can see now that your theory is correct , may I be co-author to your theory, just put my name beside yours then lets publish it you know, if we are more then one authors then it have more chance to pass through, I can send you my drawings if you wish, but I think is better to stik with yours, then we know what we do thank you in advance >I can see now that your theory is correct , may I be co-author to your >theory, just put my name beside yours then lets publish it Hi Notch, Thanks for the generous offer, but I am already published. You can get my book from Amazon.com ("Meme" by Sean Sinjin). In it you will find how my ether explains magnetism, its relationship to gravity, and a bunch of other stuff like how time dilation is responsible for the property of mass, why light speed is relative, why the speed of light is what it is, etc., and much more. Meme also describes the birth of the universe, how the seeds of life were spawned from nucleotides, how life evolves, how humans came to be, how everything we do has an instinctual premise, how we created the concept of a god in order to appease our intellectually-magnified fears, how to break-free from ethereal addiction (the virtual narcotic), what the future holds in store for the universe (this part is simply awesome), and how to find the true meaning of happiness in all of this. Whew! Ok, enough of a sales pitch. thanks, Sean What was the link again? I have a theory of my own - that in a multiverse, universes exert force on each other, which explains the missing dark matter. --- > >I can see now that your theory is correct , may I be co-author to your > >theory, just put my name beside yours then lets publish it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > thanks, > Sean is your theory explained by means of pictures too? maybe we three are talking about the same theory, that's why I'll propose, if you dont mind, that we two should be attached as co-authors of the theory regards :) why not? Yes, its explainable best by pictures & if there is math, it will be topology. --- > is your theory explained by means of pictures too? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > regards I too feel that diagrams and analogies are much more efficient at conveying concepts than cold mathematics. It's a tough sell to some of the self-proclaimed physists in this forum though. I've always admired Einstein's ability to describe his theories to the layperson. The ability to communicate with and teach anybody, is a sign of true genius. Sean > I too feel that diagrams and analogies are much more efficient at > conveying concepts than cold mathematics. It's a tough sell to some of > the self-proclaimed physists in this forum though. I've always admired > Einstein's ability to describe his theories to the layperson. The > ability to communicate with and teach anybody, is a sign of true > genius. Can you show us where your theory correctly predicts 1. The bending of light around a massive body. 2. The anomalous precession of the appahelia of planets (in particular Mercury). 3. The gravitational red shift. Please show all the work and leave out no steps. Bob Kolker My theory simplifies to general relativity for those aspects. So for the answers to this, see GR. --- > > I too feel that diagrams and analogies are much more efficient at > > conveying concepts than cold mathematics. It's a tough sell to some of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bob Kolker Hi Bob, To address your points: 1. The bending of light around a massive body. Imagine you had two large square sheets (3 feet squared) of thin rubber, A and B. Grease the top of sheet A. Place a baseball on top of it. Grease the bottom of sheet B and lay it on top of A so that the baseball is sandwiched between them. Now suspend your rubber mat sandwich by exerting outward force on all the edges, such that the baseball is only in contact at its top and bottom, and there's a little bit of room around its middle, between the sheets. Now, from one edge of the sheets, shoot a BB pellet inbetween the sheets such that its trajectory passes just beside the baseball. What you should see is the course of the BB holds true until the 'pressure' of the rubber subsides somewhat in the presence of the baseball, at which point it will be diverted somewhat by the imbalance, until its momentum takes it out of the baseballs influence, where the BB will continue on in its new trajectory. This is similar to how my ether produces this effect. In the presence of relatively stretched ether (near the baseball), photons are 'pinched' towards the center of that region by the greater ether pressure outside of its course. 2. The anomalous precession of the appahelia of planets (in particular Mercury). I have nothing more to offer than what GR does. There is an intrinsic relationship between time and gravity that my ether incorporates and predicts (because it uses the same math as GR), but does no more to truly explain it than GR. I don't believe there is an explanation for time dilation that we are capable of intuitively comprehending, it never having perceptibly influenced our evolution until the last century, and hence we have no genetically-supported brain constructs to facilitate this understanding. We are probably bound to simply accepting that this relationship exists. Ether however, I believe has enough parallels in our physical world to be encapsulated by our intuitions to some degree. 3. Th |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message