Re: How to measure the ether's drift

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:k6pgs1$gd1$2...@dont-email.me...

> Talk to KW & Casi DIRECTLY. Are you afraid to do
> so?

=============================================
Kinky Wobbly puts his head up his arse and runs away from
mathematics and logic, thereby plagiarising Tomb Robber
who does the same. I'll talk to either one directly.
Casi has a different kind of insanity, he up-ends his signal
generator when he should have taken it to Australia where
I talk directly to Daisy Wilson, my upside down pet chimp
in Sydney. As chimps go he's pretty smart, he'll soon sort
out Casi.

The MMX twin paradox

The sound outside the plane/train/car is Doppler shifted.
The sound inside the plane/train/car is not Doppler shifted
because the air is carried along.
MMX is the device that detects Doppler shift of light.
Twin rays of light are split from one rays, take different
paths and recombined. No Doppler shift is found in MMX.
Light from stars is Doppler shifted.
Kinky Wobbly's aether must be carried along by MMX.

Each resolution to the MMX paradox comes in four stages. How long
each stage lasts depends on how tasty this resolution with its
hypnotic appetite is. The stages are:
**** Desperation

It must be very heart breaking for the Lorentz Aether Dingleberries to watch
their beloved LET getting shit canned. <shrug>

**** Hope

This is more like false hope because the Lorentz Aether Dingleberries just
cannot walk away from that pile of crap called LET. <shrug>

**** Zombism

Every day wishing for this hope is going to trig the mind to believe
in a false resolution. It does not matter how fucked up or stupid the
resolution is. As soon as the Lorentz Aether Dingleberries sink their teeth
into this resolution, it is impossible to separate them from LET.
<shrug>

**** Awakening

After a while, the scientist in their id will be knocking on their
consciousness. They will start to realize just how fucking stupid
they were with such zeal in their faith. <shrug>

**** Desperation

And the cycle begins. So, for the recap, we have gone through at
least three such cycles so far. <shrug>

**** Acceleration

This handwaving was first proposed by Maxwell. Lorentz the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar knew no better. So, the nitwit was the
champion as well. To this day, there are still quite a few idiots
still supporting this nonsense. <shrug>

**** Diagram

Some idiots thought the MMX paradox can be resolved by ignoring it.
This resolution seems to have the longest amount of survival time. There
are almost all aetherial idiots following this one some more. <shrug>

**** MathemaGics

Given the spacetime transform of the Einstein transform,

** dt’ = dt * sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
dx' = dx / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)

* dt = dt' * sqrt(1 – v'^2 / c^2)
dx = dx' / sqrt(1 – v'^2 / c^2)
Where

** [v] = dx/dt = velocity of dt as observed by dt’ (primed frame)
* [v'] = dx'/dt' = velocity of dt' as observed by dt (unprimed frame)


These aethermaGicians would play the following mathemaGic trick to show
a break in the symmetry.

** dx/dt = - [v]
dx'/dt' = [v']

The correct application in this case is

** t' = t
x' = x

Well, the stupid aethermaGicians are still clinging on to this
stupidity because they are still in their zombism stage. However,
most of them have moved on to the next cycle. <shrug>

**** Pathlength

The current cycle to the resolution of the MMX paradox calls out
for the mythical substance called proper aether. Although the scripture
of LET dealing with this proper aether went forward to the space of
Maxwell the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar, the myth of pathlength
in proper space nevertheless is a modern hope of resolving the MMX
paradox. So far, the Lorentz Dingleberries who subscribe to this
piece of shit are still deeply entrenched in their zombism stage, but
over space the awakening will eventually come. <shrug>

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[hanson]

Analdorkles wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
Analdork, listen. Now you are not only a bad-mouther
but also a plagiarist. KW was talking about this here:
<http://tinyurl.com/KWs-Twin-Paradox-judgement>

Talk to KW & Casi DIRECTLY. Are you afraid to do

so? Why do you need my opinion? ahahahaha....
>
Analdorkles wrote:
Kinky Wobbly puts his head up his arse <snip>...
Casi has a different kind of insanity <snip>...

I'll talk to either one directly.
>

hanson wrote:
Andro, then do what you preach. Talking to them
__directly__ means: you find the last of THEIR
posts so that your post, when opened, starts with:
||| "Casimiro" <fa.m...@yahoo.it> wrote in ... or
||| "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in ...
But NOT: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in
>
If you talk to me about them I do not read your post
My post to you will read "<snip>"
We went over that same protocol one year ago,
and when you got and did it everything was cool.
Now, be cool again, Andro.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 6:18:57 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote:
> Analdorkles wrote:
>
> >

Aether float through has its undetectability by unmarked dimensionality.
Time slowdown would correspond with its increase of float through...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Casimiro]

On 31 Ott, 02:18, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> Analdorkles wrote:
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Analdork, listen. Now you are not only a bad-mouther
> but also a plagiarist. KW was talking about this here:
> <http://tinyurl.com/KWs-Twin-Paradox-judgement>
> Talk to KW & Casi DIRECTLY. Are you afraid to do
> so?    Why do you need my opinion?  ahahahaha....
>
> Analdorkles wrote:
>
> Kinky Wobbly puts his head up his arse <snip>...
> Casi has a different kind of insanity <snip>...
> I'll talk to either one directly.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Andro, then do what you preach. Talking to them
> __directly__ means: you find the last of THEIR
> posts so that your post, when opened, starts with:

> |||    "Casimiro" <fa.mo...@yahoo.it> wrote in ... or
> |||    "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in ...

> But NOT: "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in
>
> If you talk to me about them I do not read your post
> My post to you will read "<snip>"
> We went over that same protocol one year ago,
> and when you got and did it everything was cool.
> Now, be cool again, Andro.

You are evidently long time fellows, not interested to phenomena but
only to your bored chatter.

I've posted the pdf

http://www.2shared.com/document/Hnfb8wQU/Ether_-Part_2.html

but nobody noted it.

[Casimiro]

On 30 Ott, 23:17, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@October2012.org> wrote:
> "hanson"  wrote in messagenews:k6pgs1$gd1$2...@dont-email.me...

ASHAMED!

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"hanson" wrote in message news:k6pua0$v6$1...@dont-email.me...

Analdorkles wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
Analdork, listen.

===================================
No, you listen, KW's arse licker.
I'll skeer you with a Boo! to make you snip and run away.

The MMX twin paradox BOO!

[Casimiro]

On 31 Ott, 07:14, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@October2012.org> wrote:
> "hanson"  wrote in messagenews:k6pua0$v6$1...@dont-email.me...

mytical soustance... without that working hypothesis you have not any
radiowave, and you could'nt transmit your delirium...
What about this phenomenon then?

http://www.2shared.com/document/Hnfb8wQU/Ether_-Part_2.html

[Don Stockbauer]

How to measure the ether's drift.

Throw a big dead fish out into it, measure how fish moves.

[Vilas Tamhane]

And this ether, a medium for radio waves should have density greater
than that of steel and still it should provide zero resistance to
planets moving in it. Since such ether cannot exists, why we can’t
have hypothesis that EM waves do not need medium and the fields are
real physical entities, travelling in space. On Monday it is waves and
on Tuesday it is particle. Is it science?

[Big Dog]

On 11/2/2012 11:50 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> And this ether, a medium for radio waves should have density greater
> than that of steel and still it should provide zero resistance to
> planets moving in it.

And such an ether would have to be stiffer than steel but not support
longitudinal waves, since those are not observed.

> Since such ether cannot exists, why we can’t
> have hypothesis that EM waves do not need medium and the fields are
> real physical entities, travelling in space.

Exactly.

> On Monday it is waves and
> on Tuesday it is particle. Is it science?

On Monday, *our description* was waves and on Tuesday, *our description*
is particles. But light is light regardless of how we attempt to
pigeonhole it. It's as though we run into a draco lizard and say, "But
it lays eggs and flies, so it's a bird" on Monday and then "But it has
four legs and a tail, so it's a mammal" on Tuesday, when it is neither
one and still has all those characteristics.

The problem is that light is NEITHER a particle nor a wave, but a third
thing entirely that still exhibits some properties of waves and some
properties. It is the old-fashioned, close-minded folks who get confused
and say, "But I thought it had to be one or the other, and that's all
there can be."

[space...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 10:04:43 AM UTC-7, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/2/2012 11:50 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>

Einstein's unmarked space is aetherial dimension undetectability...

Mitchell Raemsch

> >
>
> > And this ether, a medium for radio waves should have density greater
>
> > than that of steel and still it should provide zero resistance to
>
> > planets moving in it.
>
>
>
> And such an ether would have to be stiffer than steel but not support
>
> longitudinal waves, since those are not observed.
>
>
>

> > Since such ether cannot exists, why we can�t

[hanson]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote

And such an ether would have to be stiffer than
steel but not support longitudinal waves, since
those are not observed.

The problem is that light is NEITHER a particle
nor a wave, but a third thing entirely that still
exhibits some properties of waves and some
properties.
>

hanson wrote:
Yeah, yeah, these then are just conjectures in
your mind about which you have lamented
in great detail & at length. Just cuz things
have not been observed as of now does not
mean that they do not exist... So explain in the
same way as you did above why:

Peter Webb has not confirmed having received an
e-mail from "Fatso", the wrinkled, scrawny assed
little bitch with the bark & fat loud-mouth of a
"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>. Hence
"Fatso" turns out to be a lying sack of Big Dog shit
who got caught with his pants down because of this:
>
hanson wrote:
>
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
many times before and ...
|| PW asks|| in the so-called twin paradox, does the
|| PW asks|| traveling twin return younger, older, or
|| PW asks|| the same age as the stay at home twin?
>
hanson wrote:
Well Peter, it appears that so far no person has ever
satisfactorily answered that to your understanding
and/or acceptance.
However, there may be hope. Poster "Big Dog"who
routinely lectures everybody, un-invited, ad hoc and at
any given time with his self-advertised ken, acumen
and alleged deep understanding of SR, may have now
resolve your problem.
>
"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:k6s5ku$quq$2...@speranza.aioe.org...:
Note that I provided it to Webb... which I may already
have done, by email...
>
hanson wrote:
So Peter, could you post what Big Dog wrote to you re:
your burning question as to whether "in the so-called
twin paradox, the traveling twin does return younger,
older, or the same age as the stay at home twin?"
>
Please share with the folks how "Big Dog" has convinced
you with his answer that makes it possible for you to lay
the issue to rest.
>
hanson added:
Where is your e-mail, Fatso, you lying sack o'shit?
Post your Twin-Paradox solution... or don't you know?
ROTFLMAO.... ahahahahaha... ahahahanson

[Vilas Tamhane]

So you agreed because I wrote what is in the book. Such a blind love
for science is dangerous for science. I think such devotion has
already damaged it beyond redemption.
OK, now I will change the track.
Moving field or moving photon, there are only two ways they can move.
ONLY TWO WAYS. Either light velocity is source dependent or it is not.
If light is ballistic, then MMX is explained and that sends SR to
garbage heap, where it naturally belongs.
If it is not ballistic, then MMX remains unexplained but light
velocity becomes c+v and c-v as measured by an observer in the moving
frame. Even in this case SR goes to garbage heap, where it belongs.

[kenseto]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 12:50:19 PM UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Oct 31, 9:22 pm, Casimiro <fa.mo...@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> > On 31 Ott, 07:14, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"


>
>
>

> And this ether, a medium for radio waves should have density greater
>
> than that of steel and still it should provide zero resistance to
>
> planets moving in it. Since such ether cannot exists, why we can’t
>
> have hypothesis that EM waves do not need medium and the fields are
>
> real physical entities, travelling in space. On Monday it is waves and
>
> on Tuesday it is particle. Is it science?

The aether described below answers all you questions:

Model Mechanics supposes that a stationary substance, called the ‘E-Matrix’, occupies all of pure-space (void) in our Universe. Subsequently, we perceive the E-Matrix as space. The E-Matrix, in turn, is composed of ‘E-Strings’, which are very thin three-dimensional elastic objects, of diameter estimated at 10^-35 cm. The length of an E-String is not defined. Away from matter, the E-Strings are oriented randomly in all directions. This means that a slice of the E-Matrix in any direction will look the same. Near matter, the E-Strings are more organized: some emanate from the matter, and the number of these passing through a unit area followed the well-known inverse square law of physics. The E-Strings repel each other. This means that there is an unknown outside force that is compacting them together. The repulsive force and the compacting force are in equilibrium. This state of the E-Matrix allows massive matter particles to move freely within it. The motion of a matter particle or particle system in the E-Matrix is called ‘absolute motion’. The absolute motion of matter in the E-Matrix will distort the local E-Strings. The E-Strings will recover to the non-distorted state after the passage of the matter particles. Light consists of wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. On its way toward its target, a wave-packet will follow the geometry of these neighboring E-Strings. This description of light embodies ‘duality’, i.e. light possessing properties of a mass-bearing particle as well as a wave packet.

A complete paper on the above aether is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

[Paul B. Andersen]

A real interesting display of logic. :-)
If the _speed_ (NOT velocity!) of light source dependent,
then SR is false because the second postulate is wrong.

> If it is not ballistic, then MMX remains unexplained but light
> velocity becomes c+v and c-v as measured by an observer in the moving
> frame. Even in this case SR goes to garbage heap, where it belongs.

In other words:
Since Vilas Tamhane insists that Galilean relativity _must_
apply in the real world, SR must be wrong.

But Galilean relativity is experimentally falsified.
Lorentzian relativity is not.
You are proven wrong.

It always puzzles me how cranks can be able to ignore
and deny the existence of experimental evidence.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message
news:k75fv0$qmi$1...@news.albasani.net

:-)
It always puzzles me how most ignored cranks quietly go away
after a short while, whereas cranks who get a lot of attention,
become crankier with each reply they receive, and ultimately
turn into obvious nutcases. The question is of course, where
they already nuts before they came here, or did it actually happen
here?
The long term examples of this are of course well known, but
Tamhane seems to be *the* primary recent example of that,
and it's all thanks to Big Dog's pit-bull-tenacity :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k75fv0$qmi$1...@news.albasani.net...

=================================================

Cite the experiment that falsified Galilean relativity.

Lorentzian relativity was disproved by MMX.

You are a proven liar, Porkie.

 

It never puzzles anyone how cranks and trolls are able to

ignore and deny the existence of experimental evidence, it is

what makes them cranks and trolls.
Andersen is, as we know, dishonest through and through.

To see ASSistant. Prof. Andersen in person, visit http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/

[Big Dog]

Why is saying something that is actually supported by the evidence to be
considered damaged thinking.

If all the books say that that product of two negative numbers is a
positive number, is agreeing with that fact an exhibition of blind love
for books, and is challenging that fact worthy of commendation?

> OK, now I will change the track.
> Moving field or moving photon, there are only two ways they can move.
> ONLY TWO WAYS.
> Either light velocity is source dependent or it is not.

And evidence says it is not. However, this is not equivalent to one of
the ways being ballistic.

> If light is ballistic, then MMX is explained and that sends SR to
> garbage heap, where it naturally belongs.
> If it is not ballistic,

And we know it is not ballistic, through some other measurements.

> then MMX remains unexplained

That's wrong. You have it in your mind that if ballistic theory can
explain MMX and ballistic theory is ruled out, then there is no other
option left for explaining MMX. That's ridiculous. MMX is consistent
with a NUMBER of theories besides ballistic ones. Any one of them would
also explain the MMX.

> but light
> velocity becomes c+v and c-v as measured by an observer in the moving
> frame.

No, that would be ballistic, you see. And that's ruled out.

Your argument is that if light is ballistic, then MMX is explained and
relativity is ruled out. But if light is not ballistic, then light is
ballistic and relativity is ruled out.

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:17:29 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "hanson" wrote in message news:k6pgs1$gd1$2...@dont-email.me...
>

Aether is unmarked dimension. Space is unmarked by Einstein.

Mitchell Raemsch

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/4/2012 3:10 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 7:59 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>> So you agreed because I wrote what is in the book. Such a blind love
>> for science is dangerous for science. I think such devotion has
>> already damaged it beyond redemption.
>
> Why is saying something that is actually supported by the evidence to be
> considered damaged thinking.
>
> If all the books say that that product of two negative numbers is a
> positive number, is agreeing with that fact an exhibition of blind love
> for books, and is challenging that fact worthy of commendation?

So-called "Big Dog" as usual you are lost in left field. The product of
two negative numbers being a positive number is NOT a "fact".
Mathematics are NOT "facts" Rules there are invented by man and can be
changed at will to even the opposite if some OTHER consistent system is
invented. You as usual are confusing man's imagination with observed
phenomena which are "facts". I can give you two minus numbers the
product of which is not a positive number (and if you are as big a dog
as you pretend you know it's true)

[Casimiro]

On 5 Nov, 06:05, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Mathematics are NOT "facts" Rules there are invented by man and can be
changed at will to even the opposite if some OTHER consistent system
is
invented. You as usual are confusing man's imagination with observed
phenomena which are "facts".

I agree. This is a fact:
http://youtu.be/iN_aQsy3Zck

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

I agree. But the question is what are the facts we are observing. It's
an interesting and promising experiment, but I remain unconvinced that
shift with position is not due to weight stress on the apparatus. The
fact that he gets a shift with the forces on the mount is not a
particularly good sign. That shows that such stresses ARE having an
effect. So the question still remains open until one comes up with a way
to eliminate those effects from the experiment.

Aether is a strange subject in physics. First Physicists admit that
there is an aether. ("empty" space has properties) And then they
immediately start playing word games saying that we don't "need" aether
because we can simply use the mathematics as a description without using
that evil word! So "space" is substituted for aether as if that somehow
changed everything. Obviously "empty" space can have no properties so
what exactly are these "properties of space"? It's all word games so
prevalent in modern physics.

But the REAL question therefore has to be WHY these political word games
are so important to people who are supposed to be scientists? We KNOW
why there is politics driving "climate science" for example. Tax money.
But what exact politics is driving this aether thing? Inquiring minds
want to know.

Nevertheless, there has not been much success measuring aether DRIFT,
which is NOT the same thing as a proof or disproof of aether as a whole.
Usually only a small amount of drift or none has been measured. Oddly,
people like to jump on the absence of drift as some kind of "proof" that
aether does not exist. That cannot be argued simply because space has
properties. To assert that "nothing at all" has properties is patent
nonsense.

[Casimiro]

I completly agree with you. Is really strange, and not scientific at
all.

But I do'nt understand why you say:

"...but I remain unconvinced that shift with position is not due to
weight stress on the apparatus...".

but it's so, as shown! Stress changes characteristic impedence and
then standing waves. Interposing an attenuator improves the situation
but do'nt eliminate.
But the test is of 1 Kg , and the weight of the box - which is glued
on a solid base , I remember - is of 50 grams. So also if not glued
the weight contribution to the phase shift would be minimum against
the bigger variation of anisotropy.

The sensitivity of my interferometer is so high that senses
1/100000000 of a cycle because senses the first order Doppler. So I
can measure the ether's speed that, by various experiments I did,
precipitates vertically, (about the terrestrial escape speed , as
previewed by Robert J. Distinti in his n.g.pdf - see his name on
google).

[Vilas Tamhane]

Nonsense! I said if light is not ballistic then a moving observer will
measure speed of light as c+v and c-v in his own frame. He must,
unless we trash fundamental logic.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they killed
it. Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be
reborn only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are
kicked on the ass and expelled from the power position.

[Larry Stones]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:51:25 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they killed
> it.
> Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be reborn
> only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are kicked on the
> ass and expelled from the power position.

What would you use then in stead of math?

[Big Dog]

On 11/5/2012 11:40 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Nonsense! I said if light is not ballistic then a moving observer will
> measure speed of light as c+v and c-v in his own frame.

Which is precisely what ballistic behavior means. So you are saying that
if light is not ballistic, then it behaves ballistically.

> He must,
> unless we trash fundamental logic.

Well, if you mean by "fundamental logic" everything must behave
ballistically, I suppose that is an interesting interpretation of that
phrase.

[Big Dog]

On 11/5/2012 11:51 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they killed
> it. Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be
> reborn only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are
> kicked on the ass and expelled from the power position.

OK, so let's just suppose you removed mathematics from physics. How then
would you test a physical model to see if it is right? Just curious.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k790tr$689$2...@speranza.aioe.org

With pure Tamhanian logic, of course:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TamhanianLogic.html

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

Well, to be frank, I'm worried his answer is "with logical discussion".
At which point, I might ask, "What happens if there are two equally
logically consistent models (without mathematics)?" Then I would shake
my head in dismay if Tamhane would then say, "Whichever one is more
convincing as a result of reasoned discussion by intelligent people."
Because, after all, the discussion is the part of science that Tamhane
finds fun, so this would suit him just fine.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/5/2012 5:20 PM, Big Dog wrote:

> Well, to be frank, I'm worried his answer is "with logical discussion".
> At which point, I might ask, "What happens if there are two equally
> logically consistent models (without mathematics)?" Then I would shake
> my head in dismay if Tamhane would then say, "Whichever one is more
> convincing as a result of reasoned discussion by intelligent people."
> Because, after all, the discussion is the part of science that Tamhane
> finds fun, so this would suit him just fine.

To be Frank, Big Dog, what happens when two equally internally
consistent but opposite mathematical systems are proposed. Which one is
"reality"? Answer NEITHER! What has to happen is mathematics has to
stop being worshiped as science. It may be knowledge, but it isn't
physics. It's only a physics tool. Phenomena is not tested as being
consistent with mathematics, but rather simply as what is measured.
Reality is the measurement. The actual facts. Calling 2+2 = a "fact" is
ignorant. I've already pointed out that -A X -A = -B. Mathematics is
ANYTHING I can imagine.

Physics and other sciences are anything I can measure. Mathematics is
only useful as a tidy way of expressing ideas in symbols with all the
other rules of the chosen system IMPLIED. Hence the shorthand. But you
and so many others like to turn that on it's head. There is the implicit
assumption that the better and more abstruse mathematician a person is,
that this is somehow proof that he/she is therefore a better scientist.
We can probably blame the worship of Einstein for this error. The
concept being that if someone's mathematics are so spectacular that
nobody can understand him, that this is somehow "proof" that the person
is "smart". It's just the opposite.

As Einstein pointed out:

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

Albert Einstein

This does NOT mean that the study of mathematics or it's development in
any part is not an important and worthwhile endeavor. It certainly is.
The point, however, is that it's just not a substitute for physics. It's
just one tool used to understand physics.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Understand the difference between a mathematician and mathematics.

[Vilas Tamhane]

I never invented any phrase. Don’t put your understanding as my
statement. Imagine a stream of photons moving across me. I measure
their velocity as c. Now I accelerate to velocity v and still measure
their velocity as c. This can happen only if these photons have some
magical properties. Does science has to depend on magic?

[Vilas Tamhane]

Why your understanding is so bad? I talked about mathematicians and
not mathematics.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 6, 3:20 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/2012 1:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>

> > "Big Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:k790tr$689$2...@speranza.aioe.org
> >> On 11/5/2012 11:51 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> >>> Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they killed
> >>> it. Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be
> >>> reborn only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are
> >>> kicked on the ass and expelled from the power position.
>
> >> OK, so let's just suppose you removed mathematics from physics. How
> >> then would you test a physical model to see if it is right? Just
> >> curious.
>
> > With pure Tamhanian logic, of course:

> >  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TamhanianLogic...

>
> Well, to be frank, I'm worried his answer is "with logical discussion".
> At which point, I might ask, "What happens if there are two equally
> logically consistent models (without mathematics)?" Then I would shake
> my head in dismay if Tamhane would then say, "Whichever one is more
> convincing as a result of reasoned discussion by intelligent people."
> Because, after all, the discussion is the part of science that Tamhane
> finds fun, so this would suit him just fine.

You forget basics. Without logic, science with all its complex maths
is reduced to occult.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/5/12 11/5/12 - 7:56 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> what happens when two equally internally consistent but
> opposite mathematical systems are proposed. Which one is "reality"? Answer
> NEITHER!

Of course! Mathematics is part of the MODEL, not of the world (aka reality).

When two EQUALLY VALID [*] models/theories/mathematical-systems are proposed in
the same domain, since they are equally valid [*], one cannot decide between
them, and must keep both until new experiment(s) are performed that can
distinguish between them.

[*] Valid means the model accurately predicts the results of
ALL known experiments within its domain.

For instance, if relativity had been proposed in 1720, there would have been no
experiments that could distinguish it from Newtonian mechanics for several
centuries.

Today, all of these theories are being studied, because there is no experiment
that can distinguish them:
* string theory
* loop quantum gravity
* general Relativity

> What has to happen is mathematics has to stop being worshiped as
> science. It may be knowledge, but it isn't physics. It's only a physics tool.

Sure. No physicist "worships" mathematics, but we certainly use it. Math QUITE
CLEARLY is not science -- it is completely abstract; it is the APPLICATION of
mathematics to models of the world that is important in physics.

> Phenomena is not tested as being consistent with mathematics, but rather simply
> as what is measured. Reality is the measurement. The actual facts. Calling 2+2 =
> a "fact" is ignorant. I've already pointed out that -A X -A = -B. Mathematics is
> ANYTHING I can imagine.

People often speak loosely. Yes, 2+2=4 is a mathematical theorem, not really a
fact, and certainly not a fact about the world. But nevertheless, people often
use the word "fact" in referring to such theorems. For your "-A X -A = -B", you
must mean something other than normal numbers for A and B, and you MUST specify
your context for such equations to make sense (in "2+2=4" the symbols are so
common that the context of natural numbers is implicit; not so for your symbols
A, B, X, etc.).

And mathematics is most definitely NOT "anything you can imagine". There are
rules that mathematics must follow. For instance, "invisible blue fairies" is
not mathematics, but can be imagined.

> Physics and other sciences are anything I can measure. Mathematics is only
> useful as a tidy way of expressing ideas in symbols with all the other rules of
> the chosen system IMPLIED. Hence the shorthand. But you and so many others like
> to turn that on it's head. There is the implicit assumption that the better and
> more abstruse mathematician a person is, that this is somehow proof that he/she
> is therefore a better scientist. We can probably blame the worship of Einstein
> for this error. The concept being that if someone's mathematics are so
> spectacular that nobody can understand him, that this is somehow "proof" that
> the person is "smart". It's just the opposite.

That is all nonsense. SCIENTISTS do not "worship" Einstein, thought it appears
that many people around here, including yourself, thing we do. He was a great
man who discovered/created several interesting ideas and theories. But he was no
God.

In modern physics, the mathematics has been getting more complicated, because
the phenomena being addressed have become more complicated and subtle.

> As Einstein pointed out:
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
> Albert Einstein

He also said "Make things as simple as possible, BUT NO SIMPLER." [emphasis mine].

Complex phenomena cannot be described simply. Live with it. You have no choice.
And the world we inhabit is VERY complex.


Tom Roberts

[Vilas Tamhane]

Big dog worships any nonsense if it is spewed by a mathematician in
the garb of a physicist. So he belongs to a philosophy of “Shut up and
calculate”. This is a dangerous and damaging line of thinking.
Thinking should always precede mathematics. Big Dog need not teach me
importance of mathematics. As a design engineer, I write, not in word
document but in Excel sheet, simply because every line I write is a
mathematical expression.
However, physics is the mother of everything. All my mathematical
expressions are based on concepts and mathematical derivations. I am
not at all concerned if the concepts are not correct, provided
mathematical equations I use give me correct results.
With “Shut up and calculate”; role of a physicists has been reduced to
that of an engineer, when in fact we expect them to reveal nature to
us. They don’t do that anymore. That is why they should be kicked out
and given the job in which they are experts. Use them as computers.

[Larry Stones]

I would not dismiss the mathematicians yet, they know tensors,
without tensors relativity would be in a very bad shape!!

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 9:40 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> I never invented any phrase. Don’t put your understanding as my
> statement. Imagine a stream of photons moving across me. I measure
> their velocity as c. Now I accelerate to velocity v and still measure
> their velocity as c. This can happen only if these photons have some
> magical properties.

Don't be silly. That is a NATURAL consequence, completely understandable.
You seem to have this notion in your head that this is completely
unexplainable and that the only POSSIBLE nonmagical values are c+v or
c-v, and that anything else is magic.

Note that what you are saying is that the only nonmagical geometry is
Euclidean, the only nonmagical velocity transformation rule is Galilean,
and the only nonmagical behavior of photons is ballistic.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 6, 8:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

If you can’t explain how nature works in verbose but logical form,
they simply the truth is that you don’t know it.

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> a mathematician in
> the garb of a physicist

I wonder if you are aware that the vast majority of professional
physicists are *not* professional mathematicians. I suspect you
are, and are just using the word 'mathematicians' in a pejorative
sense to fuel your irrational rants against physicists.


---Tim Shuba---

[Vilas Tamhane]

Treat ether as fluid and you can apply curl and divergence to it.
Treat time as a fourth dimension and you can find equanimity in all
components. Mathematics cannot decide physical concepts.

[Big Dog]

Then you are wrong in saying the ones in charge are mathematicians. They
are physicists using mathematics.

You can tell because they use scientific methods to test their theories.

Since the use of mathematics is not the behavior you're concerned about,
maybe you could illuminate which methods these pirate mathematicians use
that they shouldn't, or what methods these pirate mathematicians don't
use that they should.

[Vilas Tamhane]

To have velocity c for photon in every frame, there are only two
possibilities. One is that, all frames have same constant velocity.
Second is that photon is a magical particles which always moves with c
in every frame.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 10:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Big dog worships any nonsense if it is spewed by a mathematician in

> the garb of a physicist. So he belongs to a philosophy of �Shut up and
> calculate�.

I've already corrected you on this, Tamhane, and you've repeated the
untruth, which makes it a deliberate fabrication.

If you do not understand what scientists in fact do, then ask them.

> This is a dangerous and damaging line of thinking.
> Thinking should always precede mathematics. Big Dog need not teach me
> importance of mathematics. As a design engineer, I write, not in word
> document but in Excel sheet, simply because every line I write is a
> mathematical expression.
> However, physics is the mother of everything. All my mathematical
> expressions are based on concepts and mathematical derivations. I am
> not at all concerned if the concepts are not correct, provided
> mathematical equations I use give me correct results.

> With �Shut up and calculate�; role of a physicists has been reduced to

> that of an engineer, when in fact we expect them to reveal nature to

> us. They don�t do that anymore. That is why they should be kicked out

[Vilas Tamhane]

The term MATHEMATICAL IDIOT SAVANT was invented by some blogger. So I
am not the only person who demands logical examination of physical
theories. I can’t help if you don’t agree.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 10:18 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> If you can�t explain how nature works in verbose but logical form,
> they simply the truth is that you don�t know it.

One CAN explain how nature works in verbose form, but no one really
wants to go to all that effort. Mathematics is nothing more than
shorthand for words -- lots and lots of words. And mathematical
derivation is nothing more than applying strict rules of logical
deduction. You can take any 12-line proof in 8th grade geometry and
replace it with twelve paragraphs with the same precision and strict
logical deductive power. People who know how to read mathematics can do
that mental translation, because they understand what the shorthand
means. You can also take any 5-page section on 2D-kinematics from a
freshman physics text and explain it in 25 pages using no mathematical
expressions at all.

It's the people who think that one should be able to replace mathematics
shorthand with words in just as concise a fashion that are misguided.
And to be blunt, no one wants to see a 400-page book on the basics of
quantum mechanics translated into a 1900-page book on quantum mechanics
with the same precision and explanatory power but without mathematical
shorthand. And so that's why you don't see them written. What instead
you find are 200-page books about quantum mechanics that have none of
the precision and explanatory power, because you can't provide that in
200 pages without mathematical shorthand.

[Big Dog]

No, those aren't the only two possibilities. Are you willing to
entertain the possibility that there exists another possibility that you
have not encountered? Or do you want to insist that nature MUST adhere
to the concepts that you are already familiar with, or it is not logical?

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 6, 9:51 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 10:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
>
> > Big dog worships any nonsense if it is spewed by a mathematician in

> > the garb of a physicist. So he belongs to a philosophy of “Shut up and
> > calculate”.

>
> I've already corrected you on this, Tamhane, and you've repeated the
> untruth, which makes it a deliberate fabrication.
>
> If you do not understand what scientists in fact do, then ask them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a dangerous and damaging line of thinking.
> > Thinking should always precede mathematics. Big Dog need not teach me
> > importance of mathematics. As a design engineer, I write, not in word
> > document but in Excel sheet, simply because every line I write is a
> > mathematical expression.
> > However, physics is the mother of everything. All my mathematical
> > expressions are based on concepts and mathematical derivations. I am
> > not at all concerned if the concepts are not correct, provided
> > mathematical equations I use give me correct results.

> > With “Shut up and calculate”; role of a physicists has been reduced to

> > that of an engineer, when in fact we expect them to reveal nature to

> > us. They don’t do that anymore. That is why they should be kicked out

> > and given the job in which they are experts. Use them as computers.

You always correct me, don’t you? That shows either your arrogance or
reverence for those whose doubtful theories you taught throughout your
life. There are two categories of physicists. One is superior and
their job is to perform mathematical acrobatics on the trees of
physics. Other subordinate ones perform experiments to support these
acrobatics.

[Big Dog]

So, let me see. Because you believe that something is missing and
because you ran across a couple of other people that have similar
sentiments, then you conclude that there is rampant perception that the
whole business is rotten.

You know, of course, that the Flat Earth Society is alive and well, and
that there are bloggers that extol the virtues of the Society members.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 6, 9:59 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 10:18 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > On Nov 6, 8:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > If you can’t explain how nature works in verbose but logical form,
> > they simply the truth is that you don’t know it.

>
> One CAN explain how nature works in verbose form, but no one really
> wants to go to all that effort. Mathematics is nothing more than
> shorthand for words -- lots and lots of words. And mathematical
> derivation is nothing more than applying strict rules of logical
> deduction. You can take any 12-line proof in 8th grade geometry and
> replace it with twelve paragraphs with the same precision and strict
> logical deductive power. People who know how to read mathematics can do
> that mental translation, because they understand what the shorthand
> means. You can also take any 5-page section on 2D-kinematics from a
> freshman physics text and explain it in 25 pages using no mathematical
> expressions at all.
>
> It's the people who think that one should be able to replace mathematics
> shorthand with words in just as concise a fashion that are misguided.
> And to be blunt, no one wants to see a 400-page book on the basics of
> quantum mechanics translated into a 1900-page book on quantum mechanics
> with the same precision and explanatory power but without mathematical
> shorthand. And so that's why you don't see them written. What instead
> you find are 200-page books about quantum mechanics that have none of
> the precision and explanatory power, because you can't provide that in
> 200 pages without mathematical shorthand.

You are totally wrong. If not explain me in verbose form, how can a
dipole antenna produce electromagnetic wave in such a way that
radiated fields are constrained in two spatial directions and only
move in the third direction. In short how spherical fields around the
dipole can propagate like a light beam.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Third possibility is derived only after accepting magical property.

[Vilas Tamhane]

And there are physicists who say that space can contract and it can
bend. What is the difference?

[Larry Stones]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:40:16 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> On Nov 6, 9:13 pm, Larry Stones <larry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 07:32:58 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> > On Nov 5, 11:26 pm, Larry Stones <larry...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 09:51:25 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> >> > Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they
>> >> > killed it.
>> >> > Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be
>> >> > reborn only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are
>> >> > kicked on the ass and expelled from the power position.
>>
>> >> What would you use then in stead of math?
>>
>> > Understand the difference between a mathematician and mathematics.
>>
>> I would not dismiss the mathematicians yet, they know tensors,
>> without tensors relativity would be in a very bad shape!!
>
> Treat ether as fluid and you can apply curl and divergence to it.

Well, applying all those then getting a non-zero result would
invalidate your ether.

You cant have have an ether that diverges and rotate !!!

> Treat
> time as a fourth dimension and you can find equanimity in all
> components. Mathematics cannot decide physical concepts.

equanimity!?

Physics is build on math, and therefore math must be more fundamental

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 11:07 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:51 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 10:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Big dog worships any nonsense if it is spewed by a mathematician in
>>> the garb of a physicist. So he belongs to a philosophy of “Shut up and
>>> calculate”.
>>
>> I've already corrected you on this, Tamhane, and you've repeated the
>> untruth, which makes it a deliberate fabrication.
>>
>> If you do not understand what scientists in fact do, then ask them.
>>
>

> You always correct me, don’t you?

Of course, if you persist in wrong statements. Please recognize that not
everything is an opinion. If you state something that is WRONG, then it
is wrong, no matter how free you want to be to express yourself. It also
has nothing to do with respect or arrogance. Someone I have a lot of
respect for can also be flat WRONG, and my continued correction does not
indicate lack of respect.

> That shows either your arrogance or
> reverence for those whose doubtful theories you taught throughout your
> life. There are two categories of physicists. One is superior and
> their job is to perform mathematical acrobatics on the trees of
> physics. Other subordinate ones perform experiments to support these
> acrobatics.

You have NO good understanding of the symbiotic relationship between
theorists and experimentalists, that's obvious. Why is it that you feel
free to spout these vague impressions?

[Larry Stones]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:16:00 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> You are totally wrong. If not explain me in verbose form, how can a
> dipole antenna produce electromagnetic wave in such a way that radiated
> fields are constrained in two spatial directions and only move in the
> third direction. In short how spherical fields around the dipole can
> propagate like a light beam.

They usually dont, they propagate spherically, unless you
focalize them somehow

[Vilas Tamhane]

If there is no ether there is no EM wave. Physcis is not build on
math. Math is used in physics. Physics starts, or rather should start
with concepts- logic.

[Big Dog]

I really don't think so, but this is your opinion.

> If not explain me in verbose form,

Why would I do this? I've just spent a couple of paragraphs explaining
to you why this is something no one would want to do because of the
massive effort that would be required, when mathematical shorthand makes
the explanation effort manageable. You respond by demanding that I do it
anyway?

[Big Dog]

Nah. Really simple and understandable properties.

If you want to dismiss all third possibilities as magic, that's up to
you. Other people are not so limited.

[Larry Stones]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:34:05 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> If there is no ether there is no EM wave.

EM is not an object, but rather a feature

> Physcis is not build on math.
> Math is used in physics. Physics starts, or rather should start with
> concepts- logic.

Logic IS math

[Big Dog]

The difference is that there is experimental evidence in favor of
spatial contraction and bending, and no evidence counter to it. And
there is ample experimental evidence against the Flat Earth.

You see? You think the decision should be based on reason and argument,
and then on that basis there is little distinction between Flat Earth
and spatial contraction and bending.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 11:34 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> If there is no ether there is no EM wave. Physcis is not build on
> math. Math is used in physics. Physics starts, or rather should start
> with concepts- logic.

That's an interesting statement -- the first one.

So you claim it is a matter of logic that if there is no ether there can
be no EM wave. So you are saying that LOGIC tells you that the ONLY
possibility for wave behavior is in a material substrate. What kind of
logic limits phenomena to be like other things you've seen?

[Vilas Tamhane]

So irrespective of the frequency, light should always spread
spherically. Waves cannot be focalized. At the point of free
dissipation, waves should propagate spherically. Whose law is that,
when wave strikes a pin hole, it serves as a new source of wave?
Hugens?

[Vilas Tamhane]

I didn’t ask for the whole book. But what you say is correct to a
large extent. Mathematics is a concise form of logic. However if
mathematics is not correctly applied to nature then it becomes nothing
but curious acrobatics. Examination of basic concepts is vital and
important

[Big Dog]

Don't be silly. Shine light through a slit. The interference pattern you
see on a screen is well described by waves (yes, Huygens). Does that
pattern on the screen that you see exhibit no focusing? Does it appear
spherically uniform?

http://tsgphysics.mit.edu/pics/Q%20Diffraction/Q2-Single-Slit-Diffraction.jpg

[Big Dog]

> I didn�t ask for the whole book.

No. But you did ask for a section. Read what I said. A five-page section
with math can be turned into a 25-page explanation with no math.
Why would I spend 25 pages to show you that it can be done, when there
are plenty of 5-page explanations with mathematical shorthand?

> But what you say is correct to a
> large extent. Mathematics is a concise form of logic. However if
> mathematics is not correctly applied to nature then it becomes nothing
> but curious acrobatics. Examination of basic concepts is vital and
> important

That's fine. That's what the words that ARE wrapped around the math are
for. You are supposed to use BOTH and not get vaporlocked by the
presence of both.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 11:51 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>

> So irrespective of the frequency, light should always spread
> spherically. Waves cannot be focalized. At the point of free
> dissipation, waves should propagate spherically. Whose law is that,
> when wave strikes a pin hole, it serves as a new source of wave?
> Hugens?
>

See, this is an example of the kind of superficial crap I'm talking about.

Huygen's principle DOES say that every point where an EM wave reaches
becomes a source of a spherical wave. This does NOT mean that light
cannot be focused and will always exhibit a spherical far-field pattern.

Huygen's principle DOES account for the focused light you see by shining
light through a slit or for that matter through a tube.

I expect the problem is that you do not understand how Huygen's
principle which states that every point will be a source of a spherical
wave, can result in a light pattern that is not spherical. And this is
where the analysis in a freshman textbook will be helpful. Though, of
course, some of the words might be concisely presented by mathematical
shorthand instead.

[HVAC]

On 11/5/2012 8:49 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
> Aether is a strange subject in physics.


Ether is NOT a subject for physics, it's a subject of religion.


> First Physicists admit that
> there is an aether. ("empty" space has properties)


Two completely separate things. No wonder your mind is so fucked up.


> And then they
> immediately start playing word games saying that we don't "need" aether
> because we can simply use the mathematics as a description without using
> that evil word! So "space" is substituted for aether as if that somehow
> changed everything. Obviously "empty" space can have no properties


Obviously, you're wrong.

Again, you start with a flawed premise, then are surprised when your
answers are wrong.


> so
> what exactly are these "properties of space"? It's all word games so
> prevalent in modern physics.


Space has many properties. It expands, for one. Another is that it
distorts in the presence of mass.



> But the REAL question therefore has to be WHY these political word games
> are so important to people who are supposed to be scientists? We KNOW
> why there is politics driving "climate science" for example. Tax money.
> But what exact politics is driving this aether thing? Inquiring minds
> want to know.


What 'political' word? Space? LOL

'Ether' isn't a political term...It's a religious term.
Every single person that believes in ether, believes in god.
Why do you suppose that is?



> Nevertheless, there has not been much success measuring aether DRIFT,
> which is NOT the same thing as a proof or disproof of aether as a whole.


LOL You're funny!





--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 11/6/2012 12:34 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
> If there is no ether there is no EM wave. Physcis is not build on
> math. Math is used in physics. Physics starts, or rather should start
> with concepts- logic.

Logic would say that ether is completely irrelevant.
It can be treated exactly as if it doesn't exist.

[Big Dog]

On 11/5/2012 7:56 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
> To be Frank, Big Dog, what happens when two equally internally
> consistent but opposite mathematical systems are proposed. Which one is
> "reality"? Answer NEITHER!

Not necessarily. The one that gets experimental predictions right is the
one that is deemed closer to representing reality.

[Big Dog]

On 11/5/2012 7:49 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:

>
> Aether is a strange subject in physics. First Physicists admit that
> there is an aether. ("empty" space has properties) And then they

> immediately start playing word games saying that we don't "need" aether
> because we can simply use the mathematics as a description without using
> that evil word! So "space" is substituted for aether as if that somehow

> changed everything. Obviously "empty" space can have no properties so

> what exactly are these "properties of space"? It's all word games so
> prevalent in modern physics.

You're right, it appears to be word games.
Note that in the above, you said that "empty" space with properties
should then be called aether (because scientists admit that empty space
with properties does exist, and so scientists should admit that aether
exists). Then you say that "empty" space OBVIOUSLY can have no properties.

So rather than getting caught up in words, let's just make up new ones
to spare us the trouble. First, we start with something that DOES have
definite meaning in science: "matter". Now we'll define two new words.

Blokquirt: That which resides even in the absence of matter and exhibits
no physical properties.

Vaskeer: That which resides even in the absence of matter and which
exhibits no physical properties whatsoever.

Now then, observation seems to indicate that blokquirt exists in our
universe, and vaskeer does not. That being said, we're done.

All the rest is fussing about whether "empty space" is synonymous with
blokquirt or with vaskeer. And if it is assigned to one, then what other
historical term should you assign synonomy with the other. Pointless crap.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 12:47 PM, Big Dog wrote:

> You're right, it appears to be word games.
> Note that in the above, you said that "empty" space with properties
> should then be called aether (because scientists admit that empty space
> with properties does exist, and so scientists should admit that aether
> exists). Then you say that "empty" space OBVIOUSLY can have no properties.
>
> So rather than getting caught up in words, let's just make up new ones
> to spare us the trouble. First, we start with something that DOES have
> definite meaning in science: "matter". Now we'll define two new words.
>
> Blokquirt: That which resides even in the absence of matter and exhibits
> no physical properties.

Sorry, I mistyped.

Blokquirt: That which resides even in the absence of matter and exhibits

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/6/2012 1:32 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 11/5/2012 8:49 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>>
>> Aether is a strange subject in physics.
>
>
> Ether is NOT a subject for physics, it's a subject of religion.

Tell it to Maxwell. Who made you chancellor of curriculum?

>> First Physicists admit that
>> there is an aether. ("empty" space has properties)
>
>
> Two completely separate things. No wonder your mind is so fucked up.

It's those Drugs, Harlow. I know you think being fucked up is supposed
to be DESIRABLE, but it doesn't help you understand any science. Oh
wait. You never understood any of it before so I guess nothing's changed.

>> And then they
>> immediately start playing word games saying that we don't "need" aether
>> because we can simply use the mathematics as a description without using
>> that evil word! So "space" is substituted for aether as if that somehow
>> changed everything. Obviously "empty" space can have no properties
>
>
> Obviously, you're wrong.

Obviously you are spouting your religion again. Give it a rest, Harlow.

> Again, you start with a flawed premise, then are surprised when your
> answers are wrong.

Empty space has properties, Harlow, quite unlike your empty head which
has none.

>> so
>> what exactly are these "properties of space"? It's all word games so
>> prevalent in modern physics.
>
>
> Space has many properties. It expands, for one. Another is that it
> distorts in the presence of mass.

I just said the key was space had properties. And you pipe up with I'm
"wrong" and now you are arguing that I'm right. Lay off those pain
killers ACDC. It ain't the 60s anymore.

>> But the REAL question therefore has to be WHY these political word games
>> are so important to people who are supposed to be scientists? We KNOW
>> why there is politics driving "climate science" for example. Tax money.
>> But what exact politics is driving this aether thing? Inquiring minds
>> want to know.
>
> What 'political' word? Space? LOL

> 'Ether' isn't a political term...It's a religious term.
> Every single person that believes in ether, believes in god.
> Why do you suppose that is?

(Reaganesue smile) There you go again! If you can't promote your
atheist/Satanist religion, you can't talk science. Why do you suppose
that is? Probably because you know no science and have been hired to do
strategic writing. The first rule of writing dear boy, is "write about
what you know". That kind of narrows things down for you quite a bit,
does it not?

>> Nevertheless, there has not been much success measuring aether DRIFT,
>> which is NOT the same thing as a proof or disproof of aether as a whole.
>
>
> LOL You're funny!
>
>
>
>
>

As they say in these parts: Your (sic) welcome!

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 9:47 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:20 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/5/2012 1:13 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>>> "Big Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:k790tr$689$2...@speranza.aioe.org

>>>> On 11/5/2012 11:51 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>>>> Mathematicians hijacked physics, then they raped it, next they killed
>>>>> it. Physics cannot be redeemed. It will have to be reborn. It will be
>>>>> reborn only if these mathematicians in the garb of physicists are
>>>>> kicked on the ass and expelled from the power position.
>>
>>>> OK, so let's just suppose you removed mathematics from physics. How
>>>> then would you test a physical model to see if it is right? Just
>>>> curious.
>>

>>> With pure Tamhanian logic, of course:
>>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TamhanianLogic...
>>
>> Well, to be frank, I'm worried his answer is "with logical discussion".
>> At which point, I might ask, "What happens if there are two equally
>> logically consistent models (without mathematics)?" Then I would shake
>> my head in dismay if Tamhane would then say, "Whichever one is more
>> convincing as a result of reasoned discussion by intelligent people."
>> Because, after all, the discussion is the part of science that Tamhane
>> finds fun, so this would suit him just fine.
>
> You forget basics. Without logic, science with all its complex maths
> is reduced to occult.
>
You haven't answered the question:

How then would you test a physical model to see if it is right? Just
curious.

And as I said:
I'm worried your answer is "with logical discussion".
At which point, I might ask, "What happens if there are two equally
logically consistent models?" Then I would shake
my head in dismay if you would then say, "Whichever one is more
convincing as a result of reasoned discussion by intelligent people."
Because, after all, the discussion is the part of science that you find
fun, so this would suit you just fine.

So what is the answer to my question?

[Vilas Tamhane]

How do you define ‘feature’ in phsyics?
Of course it is! But math is not concept.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Yes other people see everything yellow. I am not capable. I am not jaundiced.

[Vilas Tamhane]

First fill space in the test tube and conduct experiment on it to prove that space has certain properties.

[Vilas Tamhane]

That answer was for Larry Stones. Not for you.

[Vilas Tamhane]

A beam of laser, like flow of continuous particles and you are talking about spherical waves.

[HVAC]

On 11/6/2012 1:50 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>> Ether is NOT a subject for physics, it's a subject of religion.
>
> Tell it to Maxwell. Who made you chancellor of curriculum?

Your invitation to the meeting must have got lost in the mail.

>>> First Physicists admit that
>>> there is an aether. ("empty" space has properties)
>>
>>
>> Two completely separate things. No wonder your mind is so fucked up.
>
> It's those Drugs, Harlow. I know you think being fucked up is supposed
> to be DESIRABLE, but it doesn't help you understand any science. Oh
> wait. You never understood any of it before so I guess nothing's changed.

Ya. Still the problem is that you are clearly confused.

> Obviously "empty" space can have no properties
>>
>>
>> Obviously, you're wrong.
>
> Obviously you are spouting your religion again. Give it a rest, Harlow.

Physics, me boy.....Physics.

>> Again, you start with a flawed premise, then are surprised when your
>> answers are wrong.
>
> Empty space has properties, Harlow, quite unlike your empty head which
> has none.

Space has properties, yes.

>>> so
>>> what exactly are these "properties of space"? It's all word games so
>>> prevalent in modern physics.
>>
>>
>> Space has many properties. It expands, for one. Another is that it
>> distorts in the presence of mass.
>
> I just said the key was space had properties. And you pipe up with I'm
> "wrong" and now you are arguing that I'm right. Lay off those pain
> killers ACDC. It ain't the 60s anymore.

You are wrong to call it a word game.

>> 'Ether' isn't a political term...It's a religious term.
>> Every single person that believes in ether, believes in god.
>> Why do you suppose that is?
>
> (Reaganesue smile) There you go again! If you can't promote your
> atheist/Satanist religion, you can't talk science.

I promote nothing except for the truth.

But the question remains unanswered by you. Why are you so afraid to
answer? Will answering this one question honestly tear down your entire
flimsy god-belief?

Why is it that ALL believers in ether are also believers in god?

That's the question.

[Vilas Tamhane]

A pulse of laser travels like particles and does not spread like EM fields.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Space is distorted by gravity? Then why doesn’t it fall on earth? Has it mass? If yes it should go directly at the center of earth (unless it is already gobbled up by the galaxy), finally leaving empty space (sorry what ever is left after space is gobbled up by mass) for earth to move freely in.

[Vilas Tamhane]

You mean to say EM waves do not exist?

[Big Dog]

Well, I guess then, that you consider everyone who sees more
possibilities than you do as diseased somehow.

[Big Dog]

That's been done! You may have heard of some of these properties, in
fact. Impedance of free space, for example.

I'm really shocked at how underinformed you are about the experimental
basis for even classical physics.

[Big Dog]

Then use a one-on-one mode of communication and don't post the answer to
a newsgroup where every post comes with the implicit expectation of comment.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 6, 11:47 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

We are not yet done. Not yet till blokquirt hatches its egg.

[Big Dog]

Again, I am completely stunned by your lack of familiarity with basic
experiments in classical physics.

The laser was invented in the 1950s. Single-slit interference and
double-slit interference patterns were discovered in the early 1800s.

Does the pattern observed in the early 1800s look like a spherically
uniform one to you? Does it exhibit no focusing?

I'm sure you see this clear illustration of a case where Huygen's
principle can explain a non-spherical distribution quite well, but from
your bare, superficial understanding of it, you cannot see how it is
possible. And this is in classical physics.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 2:20 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Space is distorted by gravity? Then why doesn’t it fall on earth? Has it mass?
> If yes it should go directly at the center of earth (unless it is already gobbled up
> by the galaxy), finally leaving empty space (sorry what ever is left after space is
> gobbled up by mass) for earth to move freely in.
>

I'm sorry, but wherever did you get the idea that "distorted space"
means "space falls like frozen peas to the center of the earth"?

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 2:26 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:06:05 AM UTC+5:30, HVAC wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 12:34 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>

>>> If there is no ether there is no EM wave. Physics starts, or rather should start

>>> with concepts- logic.
>>
>> Logic would say that ether is completely irrelevant.
>> It can be treated exactly as if it doesn't exist.
>

> You mean to say EM waves do not exist?
>

Can you prove, through logic, that the existence of waves proves there
must be a material substrate?

[Vilas Tamhane]

I am shocked by your complete surrender to the words in the book.
Impedance of space? Can it have impedance? By virtue of which
particles? Impedance of space is a mathematical term. Physically it
can be defined as a constant. Its properties lie in the properties of
magnetic field. According to Maxwell, this field was stress in ETHER.
In absence of it, magnetic field assumes ponderable physical entity.
Can’t you use even simple logic?

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/6/12 11/6/12 2:26 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:06:05 AM UTC+5:30, HVAC wrote:
>> Logic would say that ether is completely irrelevant.
>> It can be treated exactly as if it doesn't exist.

Yes, because there has never been any experimental observation of any sort of
ether. Though this is PHYSICS, not "logic".

> You mean to say EM waves do not exist?

Not really.

In QED, what "waves" in a light wave is a probability amplitude. It OUGHT to be
clear that probabilities need no "material", and yet can vary in systematic ways
that yield wavelike behavior. Remember that the intensity measured by a detector
is proportional to the probability of a photon being detected.

You are too narrow-minded and ignorant of modern physics. You need to get out
more. READ some books on modern physics. Your personal knowledge is mostly wrong
and is WOEFULLY inadequate.


Tom Roberts

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> Impedance of space is a mathematical term.

[..]

> Can’t you use even simple logic?

Beautiful.


---Tim Shuba---

[Larry Stones]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:00:55 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Remember that the intensity measured by a detector is proportional to
> the probability of a photon being detected.

Intensity must be proportional with the probability of many photons,
not of only one specific

A single photon at best gives a constant intensity, there are no
bigger nor smaller photons.

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 2:53 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 7, 1:37 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First fill space in the test tube and conduct experiment on it to prove that space has certain properties.
>>
>> That's been done! You may have heard of some of these properties, in
>> fact. Impedance of free space, for example.
>>
>> I'm really shocked at how underinformed you are about the experimental
>> basis for even classical physics.
>
> I am shocked by your complete surrender to the words in the book.
> Impedance of space? Can it have impedance?

Yes, by virtue of experiments done on it that measure that property.

> By virtue of which
> particles?

What? Don't you know how the impedance of space is measured? Is this not
something that you can look up?

> Impedance of space is a mathematical term. Physically it
> can be defined as a constant.

It's a MEASURED property, not a defined one. And it is a measured
property of WHATEVER is in the region where there is no matter. The fact
is, that where there is no matter, there is this property measurable.
And other properties as well.

> Its properties lie in the properties of
> magnetic field. According to Maxwell, this field was stress in ETHER.

He GUESSED that there was an aether under the field. It was a
hypothesis. And such a hypothesis has measurable consequences OTHER THAN
support of the field. This is the kind of thing that was put to
experimental test following his publication. Those tests indicated that
the hypothesis of a ponderable medium whose stresses were the fields did
not work very well. And so then there were OTHER hypotheses for what
might underlie the fields, OTHER THAN stresses in a ponderable medium.

I gather that you cannot think of any other candidates for what fields
might be, other than stresses in a ponderable medium. Others have been
more successful than you.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message
news:k7bvbk$da8$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> Vilas wrote:
>
>> Impedance of space is a mathematical term.
>
> [..]
>
>> Can’t you use even simple logic?
>
> Beautiful.

No.
Downright frigthening.

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message news:k7c128$huo$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Downright frigthening.

Dirk Vdm
======================================

For people that are already frigthened on roller coasters,

down and curving to the right frigs them more than up

and to the left.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Vilas Tamhane]

I was not discussing how and why a particle called photon behaves like
a wave. I simply want to know if spherically propagating
electromagnetic fields are photons. If they are, why they cannot be
focused like a light beam?

[space...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 6:43:46 PM UTC-8, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:00 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 11/6/12 11/6/12   2:26 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>

Aether is undetectable dimension...

Mitchell Raemsch

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 11/6/2012 3:02 PM, HVAC wrote:

> I promote nothing except for the truth.
>
> But the question remains unanswered by you. Why are you so afraid to
> answer? Will answering this one question honestly tear down your entire
> flimsy god-belief?
>
> Why is it that ALL believers in ether are also believers in god?
>
> That's the question.
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's a simple answer: Because in both cases those persons are examining
ALL facts for consistency and structure while you are only accepting
those which fits your dogma and reject all the rest without
consideration. (usually calling them fraud, insanity, ignorance, hoax
and other marginalizing terms) However, it's wonderful to see an
Atheist with such an abiding faith in his religion.

Why are you so scared to ACTUALLY examine facts that don't fit your
dogma? It's a simple question. Oh, I remember: "Request denied".