Disappointing...

[Aetherist]

I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.

They had/have the potential to provide a forum for worldwise
discussions on substanative physics topics. What I think
however is that anything that anyone perceives as have any
value or potential is witheld for fear of 'losing out' on
any future benefits stemming from said ideas/concepts. So,
what's left? Well we can boil it down into general classes,

1. Defenders of the Faith... These can alway be identified
by "You're an idiot", "Learn some physics", "You'd know
better IF you understood...", ... etc., along with
generally demeaning any who dares question the status
quo. They clasically also resort to name calling like
"physics basher", "fool", ... etc.

2. Zealots... These are identifiable by one critical parameter,
namely parroting the same idea regardless of anything
said to them in response to their mantra. There exists
a fine line between a fringe science poster and a zealot
and the distingushing factor is, a zealot is not restricted
to fringe or contra ideas, and, a fringe science proponent
will recognize and accept rational counters while the zealot
will not. A zealot distingushing characteristic is that they
will repeat the very same mantra usually word for word
regardless of ANY response given them.

3. Whatabe Teachers... These are distingushed by their
propensity to try to 'teach' posters the error of their ways

4. Parrots... These are identifable by posting rote articles
and links and never providing any other substantive input

5. Fringe Science Posters... Anyone who poster an idea or
concept that is considered to run counter to estabished
and accepted concepts. Many fringe science posters are
also zealots but, so are some whom post in agreement to
accepted ideas.

In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
it the torrent of turds...

[HardySpicer]

1.Bullshit
2.Read more
= 3 Idiot

(as Uncle Al would say)

[John Gogo]

On the contrary, on my part- I learn so much here as a hobbyist- every
day there is new information out there- as opposed to pre-internet-
which was like the dark ages for me- not being part of the
establishment.

[hanson]

Paul Stowe, the US-Submariner aka"Aetherist"

hanson wrote:
Yo, listen, Mate. To believe in anything that kike rect-Al Schwartz
posted is lunacy. All he ever did was to steal and plagiarize
from ideas and works of others. So, re-evaluate your notion.
Till then, Paul, thanks for the laughs.... hahahahahanson

[eric gisse]

HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7d288d53-6bb1-4e01-abb2-
223c99...@qb4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 4, 12:29 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I guess after nearly 17 years [...]

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahah

[Sam Wormley]

Modern physics has no need for an aether, Paul. Relativity
and the quantum mechanics works just fine without aether.

[hanson]

"John Gogo" wrote:
On the contrary, on my part- I learn so much here as a
hobbyist- every day there is new information out there- as
opposed to pre-internet- which was like the dark ages for
me- not being part of the establishment.
>

hanson wrote:
Yo, Gogo, what you just said is profound. It not only
applies to physics, but across the entire spectrum
of human endeavors. -- Just look what it did for the
political scene.. Arab Spring etc... The same thing
is happening now in the fields of science... The
changes to come will be enormous... Will it be good
or bad?... Depends on the beholder...Time will tell....
ahahahahanson

[Aetherist]

"I dream of a new age of curiosity. We have the technical
means for it; the desire is there; the things to be known
are infinite; the people who can employ themselves at this
task exist. Why do we suffer? From too little, from channels
that are too narrow, skinpy, quasi-monopolistic, insufficient'
There is no point in addopting the protectionist attitude. to
prevent 'bad' information from invading and suffocating the
'good'. Rather, we must multiply the paths and the possibility
of comings and goings."

Micheal Foucault...

From the preamble of a new book, "Physics on the Fringe"

This is the mentality required & rare to non-existent in
these here groups...

[mpc755]

On Mar 3, 11:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    Modern physics has no need for an aether, Paul. Relativity
>    and the quantum mechanics works just fine without aether.

Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity. Explain
what occurs physically in nature to cause the observed behaviors in a
double slit experiment. Explain why dark matter is left behind after
galaxy clusters collide. Can't can you? So by fine, you mean physics
doesn't care to understand what occurs physically in nature?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"Astronomers using data from NASA's Hubble Telescope have observed
what appears to be a clump of dark matter left behind from a wreck
between massive clusters of galaxies. The result could challenge
current theories about dark matter that predict galaxies should be
anchored to the invisible substance even during the shock of a
collision."

""This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the
University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the
results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is
not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going
on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the
current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The results is not a puzzle.

What NASA's Hubble Telescope has detected, which is incorrectly
described as dark matter left behind, is aether.

""We know of maybe six examples of high-speed galaxy cluster
collisions where the dark matter has been mapped," Jee said. "But the
Bullet Cluster and Abell 520 are the two that show the clearest
evidence of recent mergers, and they are inconsistent with each other.
No single theory explains the different behavior of dark matter in
those two collisions. We need more examples.""

Aether displacement explains the behavior of the aether in those two
collisions.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Dark matter does not travel with matter. Matter moves through and
displaces the aether.

[hanson]

"Aetherist" <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qgu5l75ubgvi5cdlu...@4ax.com...

Aetherist Paul Stowe wrote:
> "I dream of a new age of curiosity. We have the technical
> means for it; the desire is there; the things to be known
> are infinite; the people who can employ themselves at this
> task exist. Why do we suffer? From too little, from channels
> that are too narrow, skinpy, quasi-monopolistic, insufficient'
> There is no point in addopting the protectionist attitude. to
> prevent 'bad' information from invading and suffocating the
> 'good'. Rather, we must multiply the paths and the possibility

> of comings and goings." --- Micheal Foucault... ---

> From the preamble of a new book, "Physics on the Fringe"

> --- This is the mentality required & rare to non-existent in
> these here groups...
>
hanson wrote:
IOW, you want the future's nuggets to be served to
your already refined and stamped into gold coins?...
>
Look at the entertaining shows on History/Discovery
called "Gold Rush" and see which and how much
dirt these dudes have to sift thru, to get a few specks
of gold... No different in s.p. nor in any other field of
human endeavors... You must have lived a sheltered
life... missing all the fun with/in & during the fuck-ups!
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

[Aetherist]

No Hanson, there a saying "wish in one hand and .... in the
other, and see which one get full first"... I want nothing
anymore. I'm stating an observation based upon a rather long
history in these here parts. If I were to 'wish' for something
it would be a maturity & civility as well as actual reasoned
discussions. But I have no delusions about that happening.

>Look at the entertaining shows on History/Discovery
>called "Gold Rush" and see which and how much
>dirt these dudes have to sift thru, to get a few specks
>of gold... No different in s.p. nor in any other field of
>human endeavors... You must have lived a sheltered
>life... missing all the fun with/in & during the fuck-ups!
>ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

You really think I've had a sheltered life? I've stuck it out
here longer that 98% of posters and probably presented more
substantive original material than any person here every has.
In fact, to date, I haven't seen any original substantive
material from any mainstream proponent here, ever.

You may think it funny, not I

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Hey Sam, nobody mentioned Aether but YOU! Since you are the one of the
major sewers contributing turds to the river of shit, it's no surprise
you are off in your usual modes. which are:

1. Defending the Faith. The dogma of the Faith says Aether does not
exist. Therefore you must be there to defend it! Doesn't matter it's not
the subject under discussion.

2. Zealots. You of course fit this bill too, by constantly repeating
your AGW lies over and over in spite of pointedly having scientific
papers from peer reviewed journals shoved up your ass. You simply ignore
them and repeat the political message one more time.

3. Wannabe teachers. I guess your foto "classes" don't quite do it for
you, eh? So instead you try to "educate" which is actually a political
indoctrination every noob here trying to get them to blindly accept the
most blatant of illogical word salad claptrap. Sorry, Sam, you ain't no
"real" professor!

4. And here you really shine with your constant links to pillars of
scientific "research" such as Scientific American, Physics Today and
other propaganda organs for various science-oriented political groups
with an agenda.

The only thing you DO NOT qualify for is number 5. Nope, no fringe
science out of you! You'll NEVER accept even the SLIGHTEST adjustment in
your traditional physics UNLESS it has been given total approval by
those in authority. No new ideas coming out of you! You may change your
stories but ONLY if the latest freshman physics textbook has already
changed the dogma giving you tacit approval to defend the new faith.

In Short, "Sam Wormley" The problem with USENET and it's total lack of
any usefulness to provide spirited intellectual discussions is due to
YOU personally and the myriad others who act just like you.

All HAIL Uncle Al!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/3/2012 6:29 PM, Aetherist wrote:
> I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
> was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.
>
> They had/have the potential to provide a forum for worldwise
> discussions on substanative physics topics. What I think
> however is that anything that anyone perceives as have any
> value or potential is witheld for fear of 'losing out' on
> any future benefits stemming from said ideas/concepts.

> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
> that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
> it the torrent of turds...

So ask yourself the question: WHY are there no real discussions in these
newsgroups? I believe you will find the answer in politics.

Free speech is always a danger to politics. That's why a press must be
tightly controlled. In science it has become worse and worse. Why?
because as secret science advances it becomes more and more essential to
prevent not only the leakage of what is known but also the accidental
discovery by talented amateurs or other "outsiders".

The bottom line therefore, is one political agenda after another
descends upon USENET. The standard topics considered "off limits" in
establishment journals are ALSO enforced here. Of course, here nobody
can be fired for discussing the "wrong" topic or have their posts thrown
in the trash the way a journal "editor" can. So different techniques
must be used. These techniques are quite advanced and come from places
like SRI, Tavistock Institute, and plain old ordinary political savvy
that all professional politicians live and breathe.

The most perfect example of what I speak can be seen in ANY UFO group.
It is virtually impossible to hold any reasonably intelligent discussion
there of ANY type. As soon as a discussion turns reasonable, the
debunkers, the ridiculers, the shills, and the fun-makers all descend
and with professional accuracy denigrate any reasonable debates and
quickly highjack all threads deftly turning the subject matter in "safe"
directions. The usual "safe" direction is toward discussions of the
wearing of tinfoil helmets.

These science groups are very similar, and techniques (and even some of
the people) are the same, but just not quite as extreme.

So what is the answer? I've said this before, and it's clear that
moderated private forums are needed to strip all political activity from
discussions. The problem there is that server space costs money. So as
usual he who pays the piper calls the tune. If your forum (like say
physics forums) depends on people for support who also have an agenda
then very quickly "moderation" turns into censorship as it has in the
Physics Forums or Wikipedia. As the ACLU proved in their stand on the
2nd amendment, when the choice comes down to money from your supporters
vs taking a moral, reasonable, logical, defensible stand for your
principles... Money wins over principles each time.

So Wiki supports all the current political causes, and the Nazis in
Physics Forums ban you for life for even SUGGESTING that a line in a
freshman physics text could involve wrong thinking. And USENET continues
to be a river of shit.

And I presume it'll stay that way until some donor with a pile of money
grows a pair and decides to go with morality over profit. Until then,
keep your hip boots on.

[oriel36]

On Mar 4, 6:33 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You really think I've had a sheltered life?  I've stuck it out
> here longer that 98% of posters and probably presented more
> substantive original material than any person here every has.
> In fact, to date, I haven't seen any original substantive
> material from any mainstream proponent here, ever.
>
> You may think it funny, not I

Obviously you weren't here when any chance of a discussion
disintegrated -

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/bab029969159e4a8

Not to worry,the problem was that Isaac rejected an 'aether' and not
the guys in the early 20th century who dumped an aether back on Newton
only to reject it all over again,you couldn't make this stuff up ! -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Newton,Optics 1704

So,aether has nothing whatsoever to do with Newton's absolute/relative
space or motion and as far as I know,empiricists just don't want to
know what Newton was actually up to,they want to go on some non-
geometric spiel and then go on a handwringing exercise as to how
Albert was right or wrong. Forget it guys,it is about
consistency,holding an argument and having a wide enough view to
support or reject it and that I have not seen.

In the end you get what you pay for,take shortcuts and distort every
known astronomical method and insight and you end up with a bunch of
technical non sequiturs passed off as intellectual elitism.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 02:08:45 -0500, "BJA...@teranews.com"
<be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2012 6:29 PM, Aetherist wrote:
>> I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
>> was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.
>>
>> They had/have the potential to provide a forum for worldwise
>> discussions on substanative physics topics. What I think
>> however is that anything that anyone perceives as have any
>> value or potential is witheld for fear of 'losing out' on
>> any future benefits stemming from said ideas/concepts.
>
>> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
>> that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
>> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
>> it the torrent of turds...
>
>So ask yourself the question: WHY are there no real discussions in these
>newsgroups? I believe you will find the answer in politics.

That's because you're a wackjob; to you, everything is politics.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

o6a5l7dgb5ror317i...@4ax.com

6. Aether addicts.

>
> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
> that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
> it the torrent of turds...

If you don't like the stench of the river, then why the hell have
you been tormenting yourself in it for 17 years?

Dirk Vdm

[mpc755]

The following statement by Newton is referring to the state of
displacement of the aether.

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass,
crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow
denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of
light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve
lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the
Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space
between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not
grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of
those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the
bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the
medium towards the rarer?"

What is incorrect about the above statement is Newton discussing the
density of the aether. The aether is, or behaves similar to, a
superfluid with properties of a solid; an incompressible fluid.

[mpc755]

On Mar 4, 4:51 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>
> 6. Aether addicts.

[Aetherist]

And this is not covered in #5 above???

Ether smells soooo...sweet. ;)

>> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
>> that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
>> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
>> it the torrent of turds...
>
>If you don't like the stench of the river, then why the hell have
>you been tormenting yourself in it for 17 years?

What I don't like is the lack of content Dinky. I don't
see you contributing to that so the question is also,
why are YOU still here???

>

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in message

ep67l7999u3hb64ke...@4ax.com

Substance abuse is not related to fringe science.

>
> Ether smells soooo...sweet. ;)
>
>
> > > In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
> > > that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
> > > cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
> > > it the torrent of turds...
> >
> > If you don't like the stench of the river, then why the hell have
> > you been tormenting yourself in it for 17 years?
>
> What I don't like is the lack of content Dinky. I don't
> see you contributing to that so the question is also,
> why are YOU still here???

Look around.
And, obviously unlike you, I enjoy it.

Dirk Vdm

[PD]

> This is the mentality required& rare to non-existent in
> these here groups...

I tend to agree with you that the groups are not very interesting these
days.

But the shortcomings do not have to do so much with the lack of new
ideas, but the lack of new ideas SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATED. I would
have no problem with new ideas put forward on this group. However, new
ideas is not enough to distinguish science from philosophy or, for that
matter, poetical musings.

New ideas should be put to the VERY SAME thresholds that all scientific
ideas are challenged with:
- What are the new measurable predictions of this idea?
- Is this idea consistent with observations known and understood to date?
- Is this idea really distinct (in a *scientific* way) from already
examined models, whether accepted or not?
- How do you calculate any behavior in this model?

There are far too many people here who seriously believe that the bare
idea should be supported before demonstration of any of these metrics.
Those who do, completely fail to understand what science is about, in my
opinion.

[Aetherist]

What is Scientifically Investigated?

>I would have no problem with new ideas put forward on this group. However,
>new ideas is not enough to distinguish science from philosophy or, for that
>matter, poetical musings.
>
>New ideas should be put to the VERY SAME thresholds that all scientific
>ideas are challenged with:
>- What are the new measurable predictions of this idea?

Check, been there, done that...

>- Is this idea consistent with observations known and understood to date?

Check been there, done that...

>- Is this idea really distinct (in a *scientific* way) from already
>examined models, whether accepted or not?

Why does that matter? Basing a new formulation on an already
existing model is still new...

>- How do you calculate any behavior in this model?

Been there, done that!

>There are far too many people here who seriously believe that the bare
>idea should be supported before demonstration of any of these metrics.
>Those who do, completely fail to understand what science is about, in my
>opinion.

IMO ideas should 'supported' or rejected before there exists some
solid sound foundation for it. It's stage one of the process...

[xxein]

xxein: Somewhat correct. But Uncle Al was as guilty of all this as
anyone. Sorry but I don't miss him.

We had some seemingly scholarly posters here way back then. They were
mostly zealot-parrots though. At that time, I was still formulating a
logical physic. I made and posted mistakes. But during that period I
also solidified that logic to constrain the ideas of a physic. In my
view, the popular theories of making a physics were being outdated.
They all used the same old beliefs of how they thought things were.
The rule ignoring exceptions.

It's hard to explain to anyone in your 5 categories above. I was only
thinking logically.

You can't help but to think these guys are idiots nowadays. All
declarations with no logical explanations?

I've learned how to sift through experiments and observations to find
a common physical logic. Even through to the extremes of predicted
happenings thought from those theories. It seems to me as if nobody
has a clue beyond an abstract mathematical model.

I have mathematical models too. Just not the same symbolic math
representations. I have them and proved them. Now the evidence of
that resides in a jumble of papers that I couldn't readily find. But
I keep this one handy. A really simplified math to judge speed from
an observation of frequency.

Suppose you are in a so-called empty space and had two identical
clocks. You send one out at .2c. There is a lot of math and physical
theory you have to go through to measure that it is actually going out
at .2c. How about a shortcut using a different theory? Measure its
frequency compared to your 1:1. Call its frequency f'. f'^2-1/f'^2+1
is its velocity compared to yours in terms of c. That's relative.
But it is in full accordance with the addition of velocities. How
amusing. A math from nowhere.

Actually, it can be derived from Lorentz or Einstein if you avoid
using the common symbolisms of those maths. I tricked my brother
(some 16 yrs ago) into providing that math. He was strictly
Einsteinian. I asked him to do some strict math transforming f' into
v/c. He does not know or believe what he did to this day.

So? You want to talk?

[John Gogo]

On Mar 3, 10:31 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

Before the internet, discussing physics with experts or otherwise was
always met with disinterest.

[oriel36]

Draw the conclusion,if he utterly rejects an aether on one hand and
discusses it on the other,you are not supposed to opt for one or the
other but rather note the inconsistency.We do actually live in the
21st century and are not bound by erratic assertions of 350 years ago
or even 100 years ago.

In drawing down the rotation of fluid compositions where they are
exposed to observers, such as differential rotation seen in all stars
and planets,for the purposes of explaining plate tectonics or crustal
evolution/motion,it is difficult finding investigators who assert that
the Earth cannot be exempt from the principles of differential
rotation and fluid dynamics.I have noted before that for whatever
reason the inner planets have fluid compositions whereas the outer
planets are comprised of gas so there is something going on there,it
treats planetary and stellar attributes in 21st century terms rather
than trying to squeeze all conceptions into the flawed and limited
ideologies of the early 20th century or the more disruptive late 17th.

Why not just discuss viscosity as it applies to visible phenomenon and
tangible effects and attributes as opposed to conjectured attributes
of space ?.You raised the same excerpt before and can't seem to take
the wider view that Isaac is not permitted to take two opposing views
no more than anyone here is and I have watched men cut themselves to
pieces trying to maintain a dilemma -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/4/2012 2:44 AM, Bill Snyder wrote:

> That's because you're a wackjob; to you, everything is politics.

Ladies and Gentlemen! We now have the PERFECT example of what I was
talking about! Allow me to introduce you to one of the USENET turds.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/4/2012 3:33 PM, PD wrote:

> I tend to agree with you that the groups are not very interesting these
> days.
>
> But the shortcomings do not have to do so much with the lack of new
> ideas, but the lack of new ideas SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATED. I would
> have no problem with new ideas put forward on this group. However, new
> ideas is not enough to distinguish science from philosophy or, for that
> matter, poetical musings.

But the problem is that all science is based upon experimental results.
Nobody here on usenet is in a position to provide such results. Thus,
the utility of this space is automatically reduced to philosophy,
speculation, and even poetical musings.

But is that somehow not also useful? The problem, as I've pointed out is
that even these are not permitted and are derailed by dogmatic
assertions of establishment concepts without allowing ANY even
hypothetical discussions of other philosophies. Usually (as you yourself
have amply demonstrated) any speculation quickly degenerates into great
discussions over semantics and how many angels can stand on the head of
a pin.

Example: I said waves cannot propagate in "nothing at all". You say, yes
they can. I say waves imply certain phenomena BEYOND the wave equation
which implies a forward transmission of energy by SOMETHING from one
point to the next point. And you reply, well, I just don't know how
PHYSICISTS use these words! That ends even a discussion of philosophy!

What has happened is there is NO willingness to discuss any of these
topics in an open-minded way. What happens if I say I saw a UFO? Any
open minded discussion? Nope. What if I say I observed psychic
phenomena? Any open-minded discussion of the data? Nope only
name-calling and religious pronouncements.

There is quite a difference between saying that this or that doesn't
seem to support your data and ad hominem attacks suggesting the person
posting the information is insane. Ad hominem is a POLITICAL methodology
not a Scientific one. And as you saw above I was even attacked in an ad
hominem manner for even suggesting this OBVIOUS fact!

So long as this remains a political-religious group, there won't be any
science discussions here. Uncle Al as usual hit the nail right on the
head.

[PD]

See below.

>
>> I would have no problem with new ideas put forward on this group. However,
>> new ideas is not enough to distinguish science from philosophy or, for that
>> matter, poetical musings.
>>
>> New ideas should be put to the VERY SAME thresholds that all scientific
>> ideas are challenged with:
>> - What are the new measurable predictions of this idea?
>
> Check, been there, done that...
>
>> - Is this idea consistent with observations known and understood to date?
>
> Check been there, done that...

Yes, you've made some predictions.

>
>> - Is this idea really distinct (in a *scientific* way) from already
>> examined models, whether accepted or not?
>
> Why does that matter? Basing a new formulation on an already
> existing model is still new...

Does it have predictions different than previous aether models?

>
>> - How do you calculate any behavior in this model?
>
> Been there, done that!

Yes, you've done that.

So.... why have you not published?

>
>> There are far too many people here who seriously believe that the bare
>> idea should be supported before demonstration of any of these metrics.
>> Those who do, completely fail to understand what science is about, in my
>> opinion.
>
> IMO ideas should 'supported' or rejected before there exists some
> solid sound foundation for it. It's stage one of the process...

That's your opinion.

>

[PD]

On 3/5/2012 1:50 AM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 3:33 PM, PD wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree with you that the groups are not very interesting these
>> days.
>>
>> But the shortcomings do not have to do so much with the lack of new
>> ideas, but the lack of new ideas SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATED. I would
>> have no problem with new ideas put forward on this group. However, new
>> ideas is not enough to distinguish science from philosophy or, for that
>> matter, poetical musings.
>
> But the problem is that all science is based upon experimental results.

Yes.

> Nobody here on usenet is in a position to provide such results.

I don't think that's really true. You have access to the same libraries
that scientists have. They just spend the effort that you decline to
make. This is what makes the difference between a vocation and a hobby.

> Thus,
> the utility of this space is automatically reduced to philosophy,
> speculation, and even poetical musings.

Not "automatically". Not even necessarily. Willfully, yes.
This is what has made this group less interesting scientifically. It is
reduced to nonscientific philosophy, speculation, politics, and poetry.

>
> But is that somehow not also useful? The problem, as I've pointed out is
> that even these are not permitted and are derailed by dogmatic
> assertions of establishment concepts without allowing ANY even
> hypothetical discussions of other philosophies. Usually (as you yourself
> have amply demonstrated) any speculation quickly degenerates into great
> discussions over semantics and how many angels can stand on the head of
> a pin.

I just don't think it's science or even of interest to science. I'm all
for making a discussion group for such things, alt.philosophy.nature or
sci.physics.pseudo. IMO, science groups are for discussing scientific
activity and for proposing ideas scientifically.

>
> Example: I said waves cannot propagate in "nothing at all". You say, yes
> they can. I say waves imply certain phenomena BEYOND the wave equation
> which implies a forward transmission of energy by SOMETHING from one
> point to the next point. And you reply, well, I just don't know how
> PHYSICISTS use these words! That ends even a discussion of philosophy!

While I'm sympathetic, language is important. For example, some people
have claimed that "vacuum" BY DEFINITION means bearing no physical
properties whatsoever. However, this is a FACTUAL error, because that
definition simply is not in play for physicists; vacuum as it is
understood by physicists DOES have physical properties, and so levying a
claim that it cannot BY DEFINITION is simply off target. A disagreement
here simply means that there is insufficient common language by which to
proceed.

>
> What has happened is there is NO willingness to discuss any of these
> topics in an open-minded way. What happens if I say I saw a UFO? Any
> open minded discussion? Nope. What if I say I observed psychic
> phenomena? Any open-minded discussion of the data? Nope only
> name-calling and religious pronouncements.

Here is a perfect example of application of the scientific metrics I
referred to. Are the observations of UFOs reproducible? Is the quantity
or some measurable parameters regarding the observation predictable by
some model? If not, then simple unusual observations don't really count
as science. There is no scientific model that precludes or predicts the
observation of fairies -- proposing one and then comparing the
predictions of such a model against observations of fairies WOULD be
science.

>
> There is quite a difference between saying that this or that doesn't
> seem to support your data and ad hominem attacks suggesting the person
> posting the information is insane. Ad hominem is a POLITICAL methodology
> not a Scientific one. And as you saw above I was even attacked in an ad
> hominem manner for even suggesting this OBVIOUS fact!
>
> So long as this remains a political-religious group, there won't be any
> science discussions here. Uncle Al as usual hit the nail right on the head.

I agree. Note that I believe that the claims of observations of psychic
phenomena are about as scientifically valuable as claims of observations
of supernatural miracles. THOSE, without the kind of scientifically
defensible work behind it as I mentioned above, are indeed religious or
political ramblings.

[Alen]

Original, true ideas are not that easy to come by. But let
us say you have found one, and post it here. Will you get
the ng equivalent of a tickertape parade? Not likely - nobody
will want to recognise that it is true, and everyone will think
that they have found fault with it. If people suspect that it
might really be true, they will resist such a suspicion and
will mostly just feel insulted and threatened, and regard you
as arrogant.

The best thing to do is put your truth on a website and use
the ng to advertise it. Then somebody, somewhere may
eventually think objectively about it, and you may obtain
a recognition of its truth posthumously, haha!!

Alen

[PD]

On 3/5/2012 3:59 AM, Alen wrote:

>
> Original, true ideas are not that easy to come by. But let
> us say you have found one, and post it here. Will you get
> the ng equivalent of a tickertape parade? Not likely - nobody
> will want to recognise that it is true, and everyone will think
> that they have found fault with it. If people suspect that it
> might really be true, they will resist such a suspicion and
> will mostly just feel insulted and threatened, and regard you
> as arrogant.
>
> The best thing to do is put your truth on a website and use
> the ng to advertise it. Then somebody, somewhere may
> eventually think objectively about it, and you may obtain
> a recognition of its truth posthumously, haha!!

Let's get one expectation straight from the outset. If you believe that
a scientific idea can be inspected and its truth evaluated by LOOKING at
it, then you have confused science and philosophy. No decent scientific
idea can be judged to be correct just by looking at it -- NONE. It is
*essential* to the activity of science that a scientific hypothesis
requires observational test by comparison of new and distinguishing
predictions against real measurements. Without this step, no idea can be
judged true or not. And in fact, what gets frequently called out on this
group is that this step is MISSING, and so it is premature to even call
it a scientific idea. There are a number of hobbyists (you included)
that sniff that this seems somehow unfair; and that this requirement
translates to being "arrogant" or lacking "objectively thinking" about it.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 3/4/2012 12:29 AM, Aetherist wrote:
> I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
> was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.

Uncle AL was/is a fool. A parrot.

> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
> that's a sad commentary on all posters here.

You mean that you cannot see the difference between a real discussion
and an obsolete one. If you could, you would be the author of a new
theory or interpretation.

> As Uncle Al
> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
> it the torrent of turds...

Whatever Uncle Al put, he suffered from the same problem as you.
What happened to HIS Pet Theory ? Silence. Except for the computers
models and the money wasted on it, nothing.

Uncle Al was unable to have a discussion, as he knew already everything,
and everything he knew was of course, correct. It was the definition of
correct, the fact that he accepted it.
His mind was so closed, no one could open the bonnet to repair it.

And the shouting... everyone that said something he could not understand
or fit in his limited paradigm was an idiot.

He even claimed he would have a Nobel soon....

The idiot.

Uwe Hayek.

[mpc755]

> http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&siz...

'Missing dark matter located - Inter-galactic space is filled with
dark matter'
http://www.ipmu.jp/node/1222

"Galaxies have no definite "edges", the new research concludes.
Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to
their nearby galaxies; the inter-galactic space is not empty but
filled with dark matter."

It's called aether and it has mass.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment, the aether.

The ripple is a gravitational wave.

[Bill Snyder]

You already did.

[Alen]

You think that people such as myself don't grasp
the significance of evidence, but there is something
more to it than that. If hypothesis A is accepted on
the basis of experimental support of various kinds, and
hypothesis B is also consistent with the same evidence,
the question I ask is, why should B require NEW evidence
just because hypothesis A was suggested and
accepted first? The reverse would be the case if
hypothesis B had been suggested first, since both conform
to the same evidence. Such a situation is not very
scientific in my opinion. Theory A is THE theory only
because it was chronologically discovered before
theory B

Alen

[mpc755]

Did you know dark matter clumps in the center of galaxies. Oh wait,
experimental evidence shows that not to be correct. Did you know dark
matter is evenly distributed throughout galaxies?

Did you know dark matter travels with matter and even when galaxy
clusters collide the dark matter continues to travel with the matter?
Oh wait, experimental evidence shows that not to be correct. Dark
matter is 'left behind' after galaxy clusters collide. Did you know
that some dark matter is 'sticky' like two snowballs which have
collided?

Did you know a particle exists in an infinite number of universes
simultaneously?

All of the absolutely absurd ridiculous nonsense in physics today all
in order to maintain the religious dogma and deny all of the
experimental evidence which supports the correct understanding aether
has mass; matter moves through and displaces the it.

Dark matter is not 'left behind' after galaxy clusters collide. The
aether was there all the time.

[alie...@gmail.com]

There's also the constant bickering generated by (the supposed
original purpose of scientific newsgroups) posting info about somebody
else's work to get it out to a wider audience for replication and
verification.

A good example would be flap over the recent demonstrations of
orbital angular momentum in the microwave part of the EM spectrum by
Thide et. al. IMO their use of a cut-and-twisted "satellite dish" is
brilliant; it's blatantly a macroscopic embodiment of the same
principles at play in the spiral phase plates and pitchfork holograms
etc. used in OAM optics. Some people with a superficial grasp of EM
dismiss it as "mere" polarization or as equivalent to MIMO
technological "antenna tricks", which it is not. It isn't exactly new
physics (except they've demonstrated free-space propagation at long
range), but a demonstration of a new range of technological
applications of the physics.

Thide's claims are *already verified* by the optical work; there's
no real need to verify the physics. There is a real need to broaden
the work into other parts of the spectrum and other applications
though, I'd like to see radio astronomers give it a whirl (so to
speak) to see if extra information about the universe can be gained
from existing antennas (and arrays of them). I'd like to see those
investigating parity to take a look at the OAM of light emitted in
parity (non/)conservation experiments. Can metamaterials exploit this
effect?

I'd like to see some modification of Thide's work; can the OAM of a
photon beam be dynamically varied by altering the "depth" of the gap
in the antenna reflector? If the OAM of light is quantized, are there
gap distances which will not radiate because they are "between"
quantized values?

Good times.


Mark L. Fergerson

[PD]

On 3/5/2012 8:32 AM, Alen wrote:

>
> You think that people such as myself don't grasp
> the significance of evidence, but there is something
> more to it than that. If hypothesis A is accepted on
> the basis of experimental support of various kinds, and
> hypothesis B is also consistent with the same evidence,
> the question I ask is, why should B require NEW evidence
> just because hypothesis A was suggested and
> accepted first? The reverse would be the case if
> hypothesis B had been suggested first, since both conform
> to the same evidence. Such a situation is not very
> scientific in my opinion. Theory A is THE theory only
> because it was chronologically discovered before
> theory B

I know of no cases - repeat, NO cases - where two physically distinct
models have had the identical prediction scope. Historically, any two
treatments or models with identical predictions have always been found
to be formally equivalent -- that is, you can do some mathematical
formalism to turn one into the other, and there is no new physical
information that is found. An example of that is the difference between
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Though one might be easier to use
in some circumstances, there is nothing *physically* distinct between them.

On the other hand, when one model is said to be better than its
predecessor, it is ALWAYS true that you can find differences in the
prediction set between the two models. And the basis for "better"
directly translates into better match with experiment.

There is no value attributed to a model that is not physically distinct
from another model except for being, say, "easier to visualize".

[PD]

I would like to see more of this kind of post, yes.

[mpc755]

On Mar 5, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

So you can remain delusional and think physics has a freakin' clue as
to what occurs physically in nature?

Did you know dark matter clumps in the center of galaxies. Oh wait,
experimental evidence shows that not to be correct. Did you know dark
matter is evenly distributed throughout galaxies?

Did you know dark matter travels with matter and even when galaxy
clusters collide the dark matter continues to travel with the matter?
Oh wait, experimental evidence shows that not to be correct. Dark
matter is 'left behind' after galaxy clusters collide. Did you know
that some dark matter is 'sticky' like two snowballs which have
collided?

Did you know a particle exists in an infinite number of universes
simultaneously?

All of the absolutely absurd ridiculous nonsense in physics today all
in order to maintain the religious dogma and deny all of the
experimental evidence which supports the correct understanding aether

has mass; matter moves through and displaces it.

[john]

My very first post here, in 1995,
Uncle Al was the first to reply.
In total scoff mode.

I have a computer programmer friend who
has an eidic memory. With that memory,
he believes himself to be very intelligent,
and tested with an extremely high IQ.

But I have seen him make errors of judgement
based on his total refusal to accord any
weight to advice given to him by others.
He feels he is the smartest of them all,
and so ends up being a figure of amusement
to all his acquaintances.

Intelligence is not just book-learning ability.

john

[oriel36]

You are way behind the times,what happens now is that Wikipedia acts
like an ad hoc peer review process supplemented by the Usenet which
acts to safeguard priority and I have had some experience of this
myself.Wikipedia is more like the original Philosophical Transactions
but more fluid and I have no objections whatsoever to this emerging
process.In 2005 when I first proposed differential rotation as
responsible for both the spherical deviation of the planet and crustal/
evolution and motion,the only game in town was 'convection cells',a
brief check of the Wikipedia history for late 2005 demonstrates
that,in 2012 the rotational dynamics of the Earth is now on the
ascendant so it can be cross-checked with Usenet history to define
priority.

It is sort of a peer review process for the intelligent rather than
the rubberstamping process that gets many of these people and their
jobs and their reputations,for what they are.It is slightly sordid in
that those who are entrenched in opposition to a concept,rotational
dynamics/evolutionary geology as an example,morph into proponents and
may even try to lecture the person who came up with the idea in the
first place !.

Brave new world,same old hacks.

[ti...@physics.uq.edu.au]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:23:19 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> I'd like to see some modification of Thide's work; can the OAM of a
> photon beam be dynamically varied by altering the "depth" of the gap
> in the antenna reflector? If the OAM of light is quantized, are there
> gap distances which will not radiate because they are "between"
> quantized values?

It will radiate, but not in a single OAM mode. Put the gap distance at 1.5*wavelength (so, a phase difference of 6*pi), and you get almost all of the radiation in a 3*hbar per photon mode. Put the gap at 1.25, and you'll get mostly a superposition of 2.5 and 3 (and other modes will be in there, too). So radiating into multiple OAM channels at once.

[oriel36]

Oh I have a soft spot for this invisible stuff and could probably sell
you a container load of it at cut price !.They were once more fun with
it and especially an entire galaxy made of the stuff -

"A dark galaxy is an area in the universe containing a large amount of
mass that rotates like a galaxy, but contains no stars."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-05i.html

I mean,the very definition of a galaxy is that it is comprised of a
collection of stars in rotation !.

What's next,a dark matter planet !, maybe a dark matter person which
is defined as an area containing mass but no person otherwise known as
the invisible man !.

[mpc755]

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double

slit experiment; the aether.

[oriel36]

Suit yourself,you can call it the Mexican Wave if you like,you are no
nearer or further to the ideological picture Isaac was presenting and
unfortunately the audience for that is very small,in fact,it involves
just myself marveling at the way Isaac tried to bridge the gap between
astronomical principles,methods and insights on one side and
experimental sciences on the other.

It is like watching a farmer wish for rain in one field and sunshine
in the adjacent field,caught between a matter of choices and you would
have both, you want the galaxies to fly apart via 'big bang' on one
hand but you also want them to collide on the other and so begins a
headache inducing spiel whereas investigators just observe that
galaxies collide which almost demonstrates the logical consistency of
the 'big bang' in creating an illogical picture.No offence,it is not
that I couldn't compete,I simply comment on the absurdities of 'big
bang' leaving me free to take more stable approaches such as why
galaxies look like hurricanes and then draw loose analogies like the
original empiricists did before it went sideways with Newton -

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/v2/?page_id=9

With all galaxies flying apart like an explosion in a pizza parlor via
'big bang' ideology there is no chance to work with a background which
is more conducive to galactic evolution and motion.It is a matter of
restraint,not lunging at a conclusion but finding comparative grounds
for investigation just as they did centuries ago when they noted that
continental landmass seemed to fit like a jigsaw.of course it is moe
complicated,but nevertheless the spirit of the thing that counts.

[mpc755]

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a
preferred axis"

The Universe spins around a preferred axis because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet; analogous to the polar
jet of a black hole.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
above, '1st Stars' is where the increase in pressure caused by the
aether continually being emitted into the Universal jet causes the
aether to condense into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local
Universe, we exist in.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

The following is an image analogous of the Universal spin.

http://i.space.com/images/i/612/i02/040817_quasar_illo_02.jpg?1292259454

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into the
Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Statistical means we will have to discover the the truth with our
minds or what Einstein called the intuition that never fails.
How else are we going to see the model of the atom but
soley with evidence and the mind...
Truth leads the way in the mind. That is the way "away" from the
doubt...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Aetherist]

... indeed.

[Aetherist]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:26:24 +0100, Uwe Hayek <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On 3/4/2012 12:29 AM, Aetherist wrote:
>> I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
>> was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.
>
>Uncle AL was/is a fool. A parrot.

Let's be clear here, I was quoting something he said NOT! endorsing
him.

>> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
>> that's a sad commentary on all posters here.
>
>You mean that you cannot see the difference between a real discussion
>and an obsolete one. If you could, you would be the author of a new
>theory or interpretation.

Would I? How? I think my views are more old school than
anything radiacally new.

>> As Uncle Al
>> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
>> it the torrent of turds...
>
>Whatever Uncle Al put, he suffered from the same problem as you.
>What happened to HIS Pet Theory ? Silence. Except for the computers
>models and the money wasted on it, nothing.

My ideas have found some acceptance. I was invited to contribute
papers for publication based upon postings here. How many here
can say this?

>Uncle Al was unable to have a discussion, as he knew already everything,
>and everything he knew was of course, correct. It was the definition of
>correct, the fact that he accepted it.
>His mind was so closed, no one could open the bonnet to repair it.

Again, I was not nor would I, endorse Uncle Al.

>And the shouting... everyone that said something he could not understand
>or fit in his limited paradigm was an idiot.
>
>He even claimed he would have a Nobel soon....
>
>The idiot.

Arrogant yes, idiot, no. That derisive term is the most misused
one used here. Look up the formal definition of a true idiot.

[Aetherist]

I guess that would depend upon one's view of those preexisting models.

I'd say Planck's constant was an inherent part of those previous
models, you might not.

>>> - How do you calculate any behavior in this model?
>>
>> Been there, done that!
>
>Yes, you've done that.
>
>So.... why have you not published?

It's not my 'day job' it a passion, a hobby, sonmething I like to
do. It's like a great jigsaw puzzle. As Feynman said, its all
in the pleasure of figuring things out. And I have published
some aspects such as the gravitational drag equation and induction
heating equation. I dislike battling with would be publishers
over terminology. Hell, I can't even communicate here well enough
to clearly get ideas across and since they are certainly of the
fringe variety you really think there is a snowball's chance in hell
of that?

>>> There are far too many people here who seriously believe that the bare
>>> idea should be supported before demonstration of any of these metrics.
>>> Those who do, completely fail to understand what science is about, in my
>>> opinion.
>>
>> IMO ideas should 'supported' or rejected before there exists some
>> solid sound foundation for it. It's stage one of the process...
>
>That's your opinion.

Ideas are just that, the ah hah moment. They must then be fushed out
by connections to reality. Those certainly can be with experiments
but also with logic. Both are necessary components. And yeah, I guess
IMO...

[RLW]

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 01:59:39 -0800, Alen wrote:

> But let us say you have found [an original idea], and post it here. Will
> you get the ng equivalent of a tickertape parade? ... everyone will

> think that they have found fault with it.

Whoa.

There are a few here who will dismiss an idea just for the sake of
contradicting someone, and many others who will do so purely for the sheer
joy of tossing a bit of salad.

But most of the criticism of new ideas presented here is that they couched
in such vague terms that they can't make verifiable predictions, essential
for recognition by science as proper subject matter, let alone as "true".

Such ideas would be welcomed in a fantasy and science fiction group, well,
on some of them, but in a science group? Uncle Al answered that one.

--
RLW

[mpc755]

So, in 'science' dark matter clumps in the center of galaxies until it
doesn't. In 'science' dark matter travels with matter until it
doesn't. In 'science' theories don't fail, they just continually
change to support the experimental evidence which caused them to fail.

If 'science' would like a theory which won't have to change every time
there is new experimental evidence then 'science' should understand
aether displacement correctly explains the physics of nature.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 3/5/2012 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:

> You are way behind the times,what happens now is that Wikipedia acts
> like an ad hoc peer review process supplemented by the Usenet which
> acts to safeguard priority and I have had some experience of this
> myself.Wikipedia is more like the original Philosophical Transactions
> but more fluid and I have no objections whatsoever to this emerging
> process.In 2005 when I first proposed differential rotation as
> responsible for both the spherical deviation of the planet and crustal/
> evolution and motion,the only game in town was 'convection cells',a
> brief check of the Wikipedia history for late 2005 demonstrates
> that,in 2012 the rotational dynamics of the Earth is now on the
> ascendant so it can be cross-checked with Usenet history to define
> priority.

I agree that this is true SOMETIMES. However when it comes to a free
press, Wikipedia is no longer free. The process you describe does indeed
exist and works to a degree. However, Wikipedia has also come under
political influence. So if a given topic admits of any political aspects
we see the "editors" carefully censoring articles to keep them in line
with approved dogma. Obviously such actions totally destroy the utility
of Wikipedia as a review mechanism.

> It is sort of a peer review process for the intelligent rather than
> the rubberstamping process that gets many of these people and their
> jobs and their reputations,for what they are.It is slightly sordid in
> that those who are entrenched in opposition to a concept,rotational
> dynamics/evolutionary geology as an example,morph into proponents and
> may even try to lecture the person who came up with the idea in the
> first place !.

Exactly correct. I recall many debates with "authorities" over the
theory of uniformity. They argued against it tooth and nail. Volcanoes?
Asteroids? are you kidding? There is only gentle rain wearing down
mountains! But soon the establishment shifted and every one of these
clowns swore up and down to my face that they never said what they said!
And in more recent times, a paragraph on this subject almost identical
to the one you wrote above, in the physics forums "lounge" got me banned
for life as a "crackpot". The river of shit flows not just in USENET.

> Brave new world,same old hacks.

Different day, same shit.

[xxein]

xxein: Cut the crap, farm boy. Respond to the statement. You sound
like Rush Limpburger twisting food shopping into a politically
motivated satanic disease. (BTW. Saw Rush going to the airport
driving a car made by a company that made Nazi Panzer tanks. It shows
you how he thinks.)

The poster's statement might be better expressed as questions. Gm/r^2
= g. What causes this to happen? Why does G exist? How does G
exist. Does G physically exist? What is the cause of G?

How many explanations of G exist that still conform to the same
measured evidence of a G? Is G the product of some hidden physical
functions? If so, what are they?

Re-read your response. Describe everything around or inside of a
black hole. Does G continue to exist everywhere? Can you directly
measure G or is it indirectly inferred like lightspeed? Does it have
a limitation somewhere around a BH?

What is a physical distinction if you don't know the physic of it?
And, of course, you think you understand a physic through some belief
you prefer. The bandwagon belief protects your intellectual
integrity? Catholics know God better than Jews or Muslims? Just a
belief.

You would have made a fine Hitler youth.

[Alen]

It may be true that one theory is likely to eventually
support evidence differently from another, but that may
not initially be clear, and certainly not during the process
of discovery. Taking an absolutely rigid position therefore
means you will never be the one to discover anything new.

Alen

[oriel36]

On Mar 6, 4:54 am, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 11:52 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > You are way behind the times,what happens now is that Wikipedia acts
> > like an ad hoc peer review process supplemented by the Usenet which
> > acts to safeguard priority and I have had some experience of this
> > myself.Wikipedia is more like the original Philosophical Transactions
> > but more fluid and I have no objections whatsoever to this emerging
> > process.In 2005 when I first proposed differential rotation as
> > responsible for both the spherical deviation of the planet and crustal/
> > evolution and motion,the only game in town was 'convection cells',a
> > brief check of the Wikipedia history for late 2005 demonstrates
> > that,in 2012 the rotational dynamics of the Earth is now on the
> > ascendant so it can be cross-checked with Usenet history to define
> > priority.
>
> I agree that this is true SOMETIMES. However when it comes to a free
> press, Wikipedia is no longer free. The process you describe does indeed
> exist and works to a degree. However, Wikipedia has also come under
> political influence. So if a given topic admits of any political aspects
> we see the "editors" carefully censoring articles to keep them in line
> with approved dogma. Obviously such actions totally destroy the utility
> of Wikipedia as a review mechanism.

Well yes,politics is certainly present however the articles are
written for the wider population so the restraints are placed by Wiki
readers coming in and calling a contrived passage unintelligible
whereas if the writers of the articles were writing for themselves no
such objection would be made.I do not think that Wikipedia will go the
same self-serving way as the Philosophical Transactions did however
for a short time it does appear to adapt to new ideas.In the matter of
rotational dynamics and plate tectonics they literally threw the
kitchen sink at it rather than approach the matter in a more
structured way,somehow they can cobble together enough references to
make it appear that the idea arose out of mainstream investigation
rather than individual effort. Even if attribution is non-existent in
Wikipedia,priority becomes a personal thing and I can live with that
for who has the time to go through the Usenet to demonstrate
priority ?.Definitely an interesting setup and certainly Wikipedia has
the feel of an unofficial peer review process which has actually more
weight than the rubberstamping process as insights generally come from
people who are less professionally constrained and have a more
intimate feel for a topic,this is not to say that every original view
has merit,only that when some idea resonates outside the current
mainstream view it can find itself within it quicker.

> > It is sort of a peer review process for the intelligent rather than
> > the rubberstamping process that gets many of these people and their
> > jobs and their reputations,for what they are.It is slightly sordid in
> > that those who are entrenched in opposition to a concept,rotational
> > dynamics/evolutionary geology as an example,morph into proponents and
> > may even try to lecture the person who came up with the idea in the
> > first place !.
>
> Exactly correct. I recall many debates with "authorities" over the
> theory of uniformity. They argued against it tooth and nail. Volcanoes?
> Asteroids? are you kidding? There is only gentle rain wearing down
> mountains! But soon the establishment shifted and every one of these
> clowns swore up and down to my face that they never said what they said!
>   And in more recent times, a paragraph on this subject almost identical
> to the one you wrote above, in the physics forums "lounge" got me banned
> for life as a "crackpot".  The river of shit flows not just in USENET.
>

The unmoderated Usenet is an unruly place yet it provides a level
playing ground for everyone as opposed to the 'moderated' forums which
are pretty much for the intellectually timid.In a way I have to
congratulate the mainstream guys here and even though it looks like a
race to the bottom sometimes,work generally gets done and it is no
longer a matter of trickle down physics or astronomy,concepts which
once looked solid are being reduced to a molten state and being
reworked as cracks appear in the original proposals.We have the Usenet
to thank for that.

[hanson]

Klein/Stein aka "xxein" <xx...@att.net> wrote:

Paul Draper PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 8:32 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>
Alen wrote:
> > You think that people such as myself don't grasp
> > the significance of evidence, but there is something
> > more to it than that. If hypothesis A is accepted on
> > the basis of experimental support of various kinds, and
> > hypothesis B is also consistent with the same evidence,
> > the question I ask is, why should B require NEW evidence
> > just because hypothesis A was suggested and
> > accepted first? The reverse would be the case if
> > hypothesis B had been suggested first, since both conform
> > to the same evidence. Such a situation is not very
> > scientific in my opinion. Theory A is THE theory only
> > because it was chronologically discovered before
> > theory B
>

Paul Draper wrote:
> I know of no cases - repeat, NO cases - where two physically distinct
> models have had the identical prediction scope. Historically, any two
> treatments or models with identical predictions have always been found
> to be formally equivalent -- that is, you can do some mathematical
> formalism to turn one into the other, and there is no new physical
> information that is found. An example of that is the difference between
> Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Though one might be easier to use
> in some circumstances, there is nothing *physically* distinct between
> them.
>
> On the other hand, when one model is said to be better than its
> predecessor, it is ALWAYS true that you can find differences in the
> prediction set between the two models. And the basis for "better"
> directly translates into better match with experiment.
>
> There is no value attributed to a model that is not physically distinct
> from another model except for being, say, "easier to visualize".

Klein wrote:
xxein: Cut the crap, farm boy. Respond to the statement. You sound
like Rush Limpburger twisting food shopping into a politically
motivated satanic disease. (BTW. Saw Rush going to the airport
driving a car made by a company that made Nazi Panzer tanks.
It shows you how he thinks.)

The poster's statement might be better expressed as questions. Gm/r^2
= g. What causes this to happen? Why does G exist? How does G
exist. Does G physically exist? What is the cause of G?

How many explanations of G exist that still conform to the same
measured evidence of a G? Is G the product of some hidden physical
functions? If so, what are they?

Re-read your response. Describe everything around or inside of a
black hole. Does G continue to exist everywhere? Can you directly
measure G or is it indirectly inferred like lightspeed? Does it have
a limitation somewhere around a BH?

What is a physical distinction if you don't know the physic of it?
And, of course, you think you understand a physic through some belief
you prefer. The bandwagon belief protects your intellectual
integrity? Catholics know God better than Jews or Muslims? Just a
belief.

Paul Draper, You would have made a fine Hitler youth.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... LOL & ROTFLMAO.... AHAHAHA...
Klein, were you a Sturmbannfuehrer in the HJ-Division
that you recognize Paul Drapers true calling?... ahahaha...
May that be as is, you, Klein, have raised a set of
interesting questions to which I hope that Paul will have
some equally interesting answers... well, opinions.....
Thanks form the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahahahanson

[PD]

There is if you get serious about it and work on the skills you claim
you lack to polish a paper and get it published. Others have done it.

[PD]

I beg to differ. Usually one of the drivers of a new theory is being
able to make predictions that are different than the prevailing theory.
An example might be data that are unexplained in the prevailing theory.
Another might be a deeper scope, so that the reach of the replacement
theory's predictions is broader than that of the prevailing theory.

Bottom line is that scientists don't float their ideas publicly until
they discover where their idea makes unique predictions.

[mpc755]

On Mar 6, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bottom line is that scientists don't float their ideas publicly until
> they discover where their idea makes unique predictions.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html

"The team proposed numerous explanations for the findings, but each is
unsettling for astronomers. In one scenario, which would have
staggering implications, some dark matter may be what astronomers call
"sticky." Like two snowballs smashing together, normal matter slams
together during a collision and slows down. However, dark matter blobs
are thought to pass through each other during an encounter without
slowing down. This scenario proposes that some dark matter interacts
with itself and stays behind during an encounter."

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.

Dark matter does not travel with matter. Matter moves through and
displaces the aether.

Dark matter is not left behind after galaxy clusters collide. Aether

[Vern]

I just check in from time to time to see if there's anything new, but
I agree with you, the discussions are less informative than they used
to be. The NPA group has grown and there is a lot of good discussion
there (something known as the discrete field model (DFM)). I've also
been reading Harold Aspden's works. His electric ether offers
solutions to the fundamental problems of a mechanical ether for
gravity and quantum effects.

Vern

[Aetherist]

Yeah I miss many, Ray Tomes, Jim Carr, Ross Tessien, Pete Brown, and even
Simon Clark ;) They, at least, discussed 'physics'. Others were loss
to mortality, Petr Beckmann, Tom Van Flandern, Franz Heymann ... etc.

What is NPA?

Regards,

>Vern

[hanson]

Paul Stowe the Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.
>>>
Vern <vtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with you, the discussions are less informative

than they used to be. [But] arold Aspden's electric ether

offers solutions to the fundamental problems of a
mechanical ether for gravity and quantum effects.
>

Paul Stowe wrote:
Yeah I miss many. They, at least, discussed 'physics'.
>
hanson wrote:
Vern, Aspden was the Patent attorney for IBM and his
stuff goes back to the 1970, the Lattice theory IIRC
interesting though.
>
Paul, listen, .... ahahaha... yeah, you also missed this
one. Start discussing it with poste xxein:

>
Aetherist Paul Stowe wrote:
> I guess after nearly 17 years here I'll finally say it, Uncle Al
> was/is right, there exists no redeeming qualities to these groups.

> <snip>

> In general, there are NO! real discussion occuring here and
> that's a sad commentary on all posters here. As Uncle Al
> cudely put it, "It's a river of shit" with VERY few gems
> it the torrent of turds...

Klein/Stein wrote:
xxein: Somewhat correct. But Uncle Al was as guilty of all this as
anyone. Sorry but I don't miss him.

We had some seemingly scholarly posters here way back then. They were
mostly zealot-parrots though. At that time, I was still formulating a
logical physic. I made and posted mistakes. But during that period I
also solidified that logic to constrain the ideas of a physic. In my
view, the popular theories of making a physics were being outdated.
They all used the same old beliefs of how they thought things were.
The rule ignoring exceptions.

It's hard to explain to anyone in your 5 categories above. I was only
thinking logically.

You can't help but to think these guys are idiots nowadays. All
declarations with no logical explanations?

I've learned how to sift through experiments and observations to find
a common physical logic. Even through to the extremes of predicted
happenings thought from those theories. It seems to me as if nobody
has a clue beyond an abstract mathematical model.

I have mathematical models too. Just not the same symbolic math
representations. I have them and proved them. Now the evidence of
that resides in a jumble of papers that I couldn't readily find. But
I keep this one handy. A really simplified math to judge speed from
an observation of frequency.

Suppose you are in a so-called empty space and had two identical
clocks. You send one out at .2c. There is a lot of math and physical
theory you have to go through to measure that it is actually going out
at .2c. How about a shortcut using a different theory? Measure its
frequency compared to your 1:1. Call its frequency f'. f'^2-1/f'^2+1
is its velocity compared to yours in terms of c. That's relative.
But it is in full accordance with the addition of velocities. How
amusing. A math from nowhere.

Actually, it can be derived from Lorentz or Einstein if you avoid
using the common symbolisms of those maths. I tricked my brother
(some 16 yrs ago) into providing that math. He was strictly
Einsteinian. I asked him to do some strict math transforming f' into
v/c. He does not know or believe what he did to this day.

So? You want to talk, Paul Stowe?
>
hanson wrote:
Since Stowe has not responded let me goad you guys
further on, over this rather intriguing issue.
>
Obviously, if the value of f' in your Klein's ratio of
(f'^2-1/f'^2+1) is very low, say,
>
if f'= 0, then v/c= f'^2-1/f'^2+1 = -1/1 = -1
meaning v = -c... and saying, for instance, that a
material object that has no frequency
associated with, goes away with the speed
of light, or disappears, or is invisible?... ahaha...
>
if f'= 1, then v/c= f'^2-1/f'^2+1 = 0/1 = 0
meaning v = 0... and that then an associated material
object is fixed and stands still, immobile... ahaha...
>
only for it to make a directional turn-about
>
if f'= 1.225 (sqrt(3/2), then v/c= f'^2-1/f'^2+1 = 1/5
meaning v = 0.2 c... as given in your example
and...
>
if f'= 2, then v/c= f'^2-1/f'^2+1 = 3/5
meaning v = 0.6 c... etc.. and ...
if f'= 4, then v/c= f'^2-1/f'^2+1 = 15/17
meaning that v get closer and closer to c... and
>
if f'= big, like in the visible light range
then v/c becomes f'^2/f'^2 = 1.
cuz the (1)s become negligible vanishing tails..
and v is always c, v = c .. & hence the associated
material object, when visible in the sunlight, moves
away with c and disappears before it can be seen...
ahahaha...
>
IOW, as can be seen, and as is usual, when treating
physical realities with the games of mathematical logic,
everything becomes possible... as exampled in the crap
of SR/GR... ahahahaha... wherein, also as usual, physical
limitations and restrictions are swept under the rug....
>
So, just like in your frequency ratio game of whatever that
is a ponderable manifestation of, has no influence onto v/c,
whatever that v/c is applied to... barring some very very low
frequency events, which you have not identified as to what
they physically may be.
>
Case in point, the example of your v = 0.2 c is associated
with your ratio of f' being 1.225 (sqrt(3/2), which can be
seen where... in what physical example?
>
Furthermore, as a matter of real world practicality
and technological feasibility what earthly object with
a mass of, say, a few grams (be that your missing
foreskin or one of Einstein's Dingleberries or
an AK47 bullet, or Albert's the train) has ever
been seen accelerated to a speeed of
0.2 c which is 60'000 km/sec or 13'4123'326 mph...
13 and a half million miles per hour?
>
Now, let Stowe talk about your mysterious insight
Till then, thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Study once the sociological underpinnings of how
those "Transforms" came about. ... Everything
associated with that will then become very clear to you.
Einstein, who grew up in the midst of that mind set,
fell into that trap. He was never able to get himself out
of the hole he dug for himself.
>
That SR/GR pit was/is kept alive to this very day
by the Zio lobby which teaches that "Jewish shit
don't stink... They have convinced many goys and
Yiddisher streetcorner performers alike... ahahaha...
Read how the eminet Jewish scholar Harold Wallace
Rosenthal sees the issue:
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>

The master/liar/plagiarizer of SR/GR, Einstein said
one full generation, 33 years later, after riding high on
the Zionist wake, and after the Zios offered Einstein
to be the 1st President of Israel.... and then just
a year before he folded his relativity tent, closed his
umbrella, kicked the bucket and finally puffed and bit
the grass, Einstein wrote, in 1954 to his Jewish friend
Besso:
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
< http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein >
>
So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what most
enlightened folks have suspected for a long time, if not
outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====
>

[Vern]

On Mar 10, 3:35 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> What is NPA?

It's a group in the yahoogroups venue. Officially titled
"NPA_Dissidents: Natural Philosophy Alliance Dissidents." It's been
around for quite awhile. They have a conference every year with
submitted papers, etc. IMO, the Discrete Field Model (DFM),
championed by a Peter Jackson and discussed regularly in that group,
is a big step in the right direction. Below is a link to one of
Peter's papers.

http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

Vern

[mpc755]

"The model also resolves wave particle duality, explaining how the
'photon' waves from Lena Hau's Harvard lab accelerate instantly back
to 'c' using zero energy. Again both are correct. Now we have a
background medium, pressure fluctuation waves can travel through it,
disturbances condensing and reabsorbing 'photon' concentrations of
energy."

The background medium pressure fluctuation waves are aether
displacement waves.

"Both clocks slowed, but the rate was dependent on their absolute
velocity through space, i.e. the speed of the aeroplane plus or minus
the speed of rotation of the planet. The initial conclusion was not
consistent with SR so it was given a new 'slant'. But it was fully
consistent with a quantum field 'cloud' entrained and moving with the
planet within its shock zone."

The quantum field 'cloud' entrained and moving with the planet within
its shock zone is the state of displacement of the aether.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual
representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the
aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a
superfluid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to
determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would
still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.

The superfluid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is
in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the
superfluid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same
state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about
its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and
the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the aether.