The Absolute Reference Frame
jdawe
unified, continuous and motionless.
So, in other words, 'absolute' is just another 'matter word' which
means relative is the opposite 'energy word'.
Energy is the relative frame of reference because it is microcosmic,
separated, discrete, and motion.
However, there is a problem with the absolute frame of reference that
is matter.
Inconjunction with being:
macrocosmic, unified, continuous and motionless.
Matter is also:
dark, invisible, undetectable and massless.
Which means that if we are going to take advantage of it being the
absolute frame then we must bind it together with energy which is
also:
bright, visible, detectable and mass.
However, again we have a problem, because energy is also separated and
variable.
Which means that when it binds together with the absolute continuous
macrocosmic matter it will not only act to make it visible and
detectable but also act to break it up and make it variable!
Which of course means it can no longer be used as the absolute frame
of reference!
-Josh.
7
> Matter is the 'absolute' frame of reference because it is macrocosmic,
> unified, continuous and motionless.
prove it.
Byron Forbes
email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com says...
Space is both the "absolute reference frame" and the Ground Zero
aether.
"Space has particles of diameter = 0, Mass = 0 and waves with
energy = 0.
All upward aethers shear relative to space.
Matter is an aether.
hanson
>
"Byron Forbes" <ho...@tpg.com.au> who is one
of Einstein's many illegitimate descendants, wrote:
Matter is the 'absolute' frame of reference because
it is macrocosmic, unified, continuous and motionless.
Space is both the "absolute reference frame" and the
Ground Zero aether.
"Space has particles of diameter = 0, Mass = 0
and waves with energy = 0.
All upward aethers shear relative to space.
Matter is an aether.
> --
>
hanson wrote:
No doubt, Byron, you are of the same mold as was
Albert Einstein, your kacksacking deadbeat-Grandfatha
in absentia, who was arrested for wife-beating, twice:
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
... but Einstein made up for it by giving you the seed
for your grand & splendid harvest above when he said:
|||AE||| "the velocity of light in our theory (SR) plays the
|||AE||| part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
It may have taken 2 generations, but Albert's works
seem to have come to fruition with/in your seminal
post above. Congratulations & keep'em coming.
Thanks for the laughs.... hahahaha... ahahahanson
7
Prove it.
There is speculation space itself is spinning.
mpc755
The Universe is spinning because the Universe is, or the local Universe
we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
There is also directionality associated with galaxy clusters which can
not be explained by the Big Bang. This is also evidence of the Universal
jet.
It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
HVAC
>
>
> The Universe is spinning because the Universe is, or the local Universe
> we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>
> There is also directionality associated with galaxy clusters which can
> not be explained by the Big Bang. This is also evidence of the Universal
> jet.
>
> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
And how did the 'big ongoing' begin?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
saul...@cox.net
Saul Levy
Byron Forbes
email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com says...
That's a contradiction in terms. There are many of these in GR
because it's broken from the 2nd postulate onwards! :)
GR is the no aether theory that exists merely because the aether is
yet to be defined.
Aetherist
Sorry Byron but SR & GR are not broken. SR's mathematics is not
wrong it does not and cannot tell you how or why nature behaves
that way. It is but an empty shell, treat it accordingly. If you
really want to know what causes SR's behavior you have to look
into the physical cause of the contraction and follow the actual
ray paths thru the system.
As for GR it is, by definition a hydrodynamical expression and thus
that tell you all you really need to know about what it nature is.
> GR is the no aether theory that exists merely because the aether is
>yet to be defined.
Maxwell did a very good job of this way back in 1860-61...
Paul Stowe
eric gisse
news:953r37ts2ru8kh2g3...@4ax.com:
GR is not a theory of hydrodynamics. Mostly because there's a lack of
fluid flow.
mpc755
> On 8/6/2011 8:25 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Universe is spinning because the Universe is, or the local Universe
>> we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>>
>> There is also directionality associated with galaxy clusters which can
>> not be explained by the Big Bang. This is also evidence of the Universal
>> jet.
>>
>> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
>
>
>
> And how did the 'big ongoing' begin?
>
As far as we know, it has always existed as is. That does not mean the
Universe is stagnate. It means there is no evidence that the Universe,
or the local Universe we exist in, was ever in a different form then the
Universal jet we have evidence of.
mpc755
>
>
> That's a contradiction in terms. There are many of these in GR
> because it's broken from the 2nd postulate onwards! :)
>
> GR is the no aether theory that exists merely because the aether is
> yet to be defined.
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
HVAC
>
>>>
>>> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
>>
>>
>>
>> And how did the 'big ongoing' begin?
>>
>
> As far as we know, it has always existed as is. That does not mean the
> Universe is stagnate. It means there is no evidence that the Universe,
> or the local Universe we exist in, was ever in a different form then the
> Universal jet we have evidence of.
So how did the jet begin?
mpc755
> On 8/6/2011 6:44 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And how did the 'big ongoing' begin?
>>>
>>
>> As far as we know, it has always existed as is. That does not mean the
>> Universe is stagnate. It means there is no evidence that the Universe,
>> or the local Universe we exist in, was ever in a different form then the
>> Universal jet we have evidence of.
>
>
> So how did the jet begin?
>
There is zero evidence the Universal jet ever had a beginning.
HVAC
THAT'S your religion.
mpc755
> On 8/7/2011 7:41 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And how did the 'big ongoing' begin?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as we know, it has always existed as is. That does not mean the
>>>> Universe is stagnate. It means there is no evidence that the Universe,
>>>> or the local Universe we exist in, was ever in a different form then
>>>> the
>>>> Universal jet we have evidence of.
>>>
>>>
>>> So how did the jet begin?
>>>
>>
>> There is zero evidence the Universal jet ever had a beginning.
>
>
>
>
> THAT'S your religion.
>
>
That is the opposite religion. That is basing our understanding of the
Universe on the physical evidence. That is what you are supposed to do
in physics.
There is zero evidence of there being anything other than the Universal
jet. There is zero evidence of there ever being anything other than the
Universal jet being in the state it exists in.
If there is ever PHYSICAL evidence of there being something other than
the Universal jet as it presently exists THEN we modify our
understanding of what occurs physically in nature.
saul...@cox.net
Saul Levy
saul...@cox.net
YOU ARE VERY FAR GONE!
Saul Levy
HVAC
>
>>>>
>>>> So how did the jet begin?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is zero evidence the Universal jet ever had a beginning.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> THAT'S your religion.
>>
>>
>
> That is the opposite religion.
No. The Jet is your god.
"Is now and will always be, Jet without end, amen".
mpc755
> On 8/7/2011 8:48 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So how did the jet begin?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is zero evidence the Universal jet ever had a beginning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> THAT'S your religion.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is the opposite religion.
>
>
> No. The Jet is your god.
>
>
> "Is now and will always be, Jet without end, amen".
>
How physics used to work and how it is supposed to work is you look at
the physical evidence and you understand what occurs physically in
nature based on the physical evidence.
The Universe has been detected to spin. There are galaxy clusters that
are moving directionally that can not be explained by the Big Bang.
Both the spin of the Universe and the directionality of the moving
galaxy clusters are evidence the Universe is a jet.
There is zero evidence the Universal jet had a beginning. There is zero
evidence the Universal jet existed in any other state then it presently
does.
You can make assumptions based on how the black holes form and have
polar jets. However, that is all that is; assumptions. Assumptions are
why physics today has no idea what occurs physically in nature. Physics
today insists on making stuff up and then having that stuff become dogma
which must be adhered to regardless of what other physical evidence
there is which shows the dogma to be incorrect.
The Big Bang is evidence of the absurdity in physics today. There is
ZERO evidence there was a Big Bang. The Big Bang is made up nonsense.
However, since it is accepted dogma it must be adhered to.
Since when has physics consisted of so many individuals who are
incapable of thinking for themselves?
AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the Universe has always existed in the Universal jet
state it presently does.
That means, UNTIL THERE IS EVIDENCE WHICH SUGGESTS OTHERWISE, the
Universal jet has always existed in the state it presently does.
HVAC
>
>>
>>
>> No. The Jet is your god.
>>
>>
>> "Is now and will always be, Jet without end, amen".
>>
>
> How physics used to work and how it is supposed to work is you look at
> the physical evidence and you understand what occurs physically in
> nature based on the physical evidence.
No. Physics begins with observations.
Then, theorizing.
Then begins the long, arduous task of prediction and falsification.
Religious kooks like you want to skip over the work part and just
move on to a conclusion. This is why you fail. I suggest that you
re-think your position.
> The Universe has been detected to spin.
Really? Who detected this? Where can I see peer reviewed articles?
> There are galaxy clusters that
> are moving directionally that can not be explained by the Big Bang.
So what?
> Both the spin of the Universe and the directionality of the moving
> galaxy clusters are evidence the Universe is a jet.
There you go again... Jumping to conclusions.
> There is zero evidence the Universal jet had a beginning. There is zero
> evidence the Universal jet existed in any other state then it presently
> does.
I'll go you one better, there is zero evidence for this 'jet' period.
> The Big Bang is evidence of the absurdity in physics today. There is
> ZERO evidence there was a Big Bang. The Big Bang is made up nonsense.
> However, since it is accepted dogma it must be adhered to.
The big bang is accepted among 99% of physicists. The 1% remaining are
considered kooks. If YOU were a physicist, you would be considered a
kook.
mpc755
>
>
> No. Physics begins with observations.
>
The Universe is observed to spin around an axis which can not be
explained by the Big Bang.
'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.
The Universe is observed to contain galaxy clusters which are moving
directionally which can not be explained by the Big Bang.
'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. Analogous to the polar jet of a
black hole.
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 aether condenses 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
Q. What is it called when you insist on believing in something which is
not supported by the observed evidence?
A. Dogma.
The Big Bang is dogma.
Dark flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the
Universal jet.
Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and
propagating through the Universal jet.
saul...@cox.net
YOU PROVE ME RIGHT AGAIN!
ALL THE WACKO NUTJOBS ARE COMING OUT FROM UNDER THEIR ROCKS!
2012's COMING VERY SOON NOW!
Saul Levy
Ben Kaufman
(piggy backing) It also caused a big bang on my kook meter and now I have to get
the needle straightened.
mpc755
>>
>>
>> The big bang is accepted among 99% of physicists. The 1% remaining are
>> considered kooks. If YOU were a physicist, you would be considered a
>> kook.
>
> (piggy backing) It also caused a big bang on my kook meter and now I have to get
> the needle straightened.
>
The Universe is observed to spin around an axis which can not be
explained by the Big Bang.
The Universe is observed to contain galaxy clusters which are moving
directionally which can not be explained by the Big Bang.
Q. What is it called when you insist on believing in something which is
not supported by the observed evidence?
A. Dogma.
The Big Bang is dogma.
'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. Analogous to the polar jet of a
black hole.
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 aether condenses 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 flow is the aether emitted into and propagating through the
Universal jet.
Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and
propagating through the Universal jet.
It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
PD
>
> The Universe is observed to spin around an axis which can not be
> explained by the Big Bang.
>
> The Universe is observed to contain galaxy clusters which are moving
> directionally which can not be explained by the Big Bang.
>
> Q. What is it called when you insist on believing in something which is
> not supported by the observed evidence?
>
> A. Dogma.
>
> The Big Bang is dogma.
>
Woah, back up. You've got something confused here.
There is a BIG difference between something that is observed that a
theory did not predict, and something that is observed that is counter
to what a theory predicts. These are not the same at all.
Biochemistry has no explanation (yet) for paranoid schizophrenia.
However, the presence of paranoid schizophrenia does not then imply that
biochemical understanding is wrong.
A theory is falsified when it makes a DEFINITE PREDICTION of something
that MUST be observed in nature, but is in fact ruled out by
observation; or when it makes a definite prediction that something
CANNOT happen, but in fact is observed to happen.
A theory is NOT falsified by the presence of an observation that a
theory says nothing about, or that a theory has no explanation for.
Back to 7th grade for the basics of science for you.
mpc755
All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
HVAC
>
>>
>> A theory is NOT falsified by the presence of an observation that a
>> theory says nothing about, or that a theory has no explanation for.
>>
>> Back to 7th grade for the basics of science for you.
>
> All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
> we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
Just another kook with an internet connection and
an axe to grind.
See: Brad Guth.
mpc755
> On 8/8/2011 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A theory is NOT falsified by the presence of an observation that a
>>> theory says nothing about, or that a theory has no explanation for.
>>>
>>> Back to 7th grade for the basics of science for you.
>>
>> All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
>> we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>
>
>
>
> Just another kook with an internet connection and
> an axe to grind.
>
> See: Brad Guth.
>
>
The Universe is observed to spin around an axis which can not be
explained by the Big Bang.
The Universe is observed to contain galaxy clusters which are moving
directionally which can not be explained by the Big Bang.
Q. What is it called when you insist on believing in something which is
not supported by the observed evidence?
A. Dogma.
The Big Bang is dogma.
'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. Analogous to the polar jet of a
black hole.
The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.
PD
> PD wrote:
>> Woah, back up. You've got something confused here.
>>
>> There is a BIG difference between something that is observed that a
>> theory did not predict, and something that is observed that is counter
>> to what a theory predicts. These are not the same at all.
>>
>> Biochemistry has no explanation (yet) for paranoid schizophrenia.
>> However, the presence of paranoid schizophrenia does not then imply that
>> biochemical understanding is wrong.
>>
>> A theory is falsified when it makes a DEFINITE PREDICTION of something
>> that MUST be observed in nature, but is in fact ruled out by
>> observation; or when it makes a definite prediction that something
>> CANNOT happen, but in fact is observed to happen.
>>
>> A theory is NOT falsified by the presence of an observation that a
>> theory says nothing about, or that a theory has no explanation for.
>>
>> Back to 7th grade for the basics of science for you.
>
> All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
> we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
Well then you've got an interesting situation, because all the evidence
is compatible with (where that means what I've described above) Big Bang
Cosmology as well. That is, there isn't one definite prediction of Big
Bang Cosmology that is in conflict with observation at this point.
Furthermore, as we've discussed, since your "explanation" provides no
definite, quantitative, testable predictions (of the sort that Big Bang
Cosmology *does* provide), then what you think of as an explanation is
as useful as the Invisible Gnome theory. Invisible Gnomes are a
perfectly plausible explanation for everything from headaches to
electrostatic repulsion. There is not one thing that cannot be explained
by the actions of Invisible Gnomes, to the same degree that you've
explained anything with your "explanation".
PD
> On 8/8/2011 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>> All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
>> we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>
>
>
>
> Just another kook with an internet connection and
> an axe to grind.
>
> See: Brad Guth.
>
Different axe, though. Guth believes the neo-fascist, black-helicopter,
trilateral commission of science is out to suppress free thinkers who
want usenet to be the science forum of the liberated.
Cavedon just doesn't believe anything that doesn't fit his
bonehead-simple view of nature, doesn't care if it works as long as he
thinks it's absurd, and doesn't care that his doesn't even try to work
as long as it doesn't seem absurd to him. He has absolutely no interest
in how science evaluates scientific theories -- all that matters to him
is whether he thinks it's absurd or not.
mpc755
The Universe is observed to spin around an axis which can not be
explained by the Big Bang.
The Universe is observed to contain galaxy clusters which are moving
directionally which can not be explained by the Big Bang.
Q. What is it called when you insist on believing in something which is
not supported by the observed evidence?
A. Dogma.
The Big Bang is dogma.
'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. Analogous to the polar jet of a
black hole.
The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet.
mpc755
Why do you insist on limiting you understand of what occurs physically
in nature?
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587
'For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to
make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new
systems ought to behave."'
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is
the state of displacement of the ether.
A particle physically displaces the aether. A moving particle has an
associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the
particle enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. As the aether wave
exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a
single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave
interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be
a loss of coherence of the associated aether wave, there is no wave
interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.
What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether of relativity.
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 9:21 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2011 10:01 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All of the evidence is evidence the Universe is, or the local Universe
>>>> we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just another kook with an internet connection and
>>> an axe to grind.
>>>
>>> See: Brad Guth.
>>>
>>
>> Different axe, though. Guth believes the neo-fascist, black-helicopter,
>> trilateral commission of science is out to suppress free thinkers who
>> want usenet to be the science forum of the liberated.
>>
>> Cavedon just doesn't believe anything that doesn't fit his
>> bonehead-simple view of nature, doesn't care if it works as long as he
>> thinks it's absurd, and doesn't care that his doesn't even try to work
>> as long as it doesn't seem absurd to him. He has absolutely no interest
>> in how science evaluates scientific theories -- all that matters to him
>> is whether he thinks it's absurd or not.
>
> Why do you insist on limiting you understand of what occurs physically
> in nature?
>
I don't. All I insist on is that suggested alternatives satisfy minimum
requirements for a scientific model before being seriously considered.
That includes making specific, quantitative, testable predictions that
distinguish it from other competing models. Once that has been
satisfied, then there are no limits whatsoever.
mpc755
>
> I don't. All I insist on is that suggested alternatives satisfy minimum
> requirements for a scientific model before being seriously considered.
> That includes making specific, quantitative, testable predictions that
> distinguish it from other competing models. Once that has been
> satisfied, then there are no limits whatsoever.
>
>
Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
in nature?
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> I don't. All I insist on is that suggested alternatives satisfy minimum
>> requirements for a scientific model before being seriously considered.
>> That includes making specific, quantitative, testable predictions that
>> distinguish it from other competing models. Once that has been
>> satisfied, then there are no limits whatsoever.
>>
>>
>
> Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
> in nature?
>
I already told you: I don't.
If you think that having to satisfy the MINIMUM requirements for a
scientific model before being seriously considered is a limitation on
understanding, though, then that's just sorta too bad. That's how
science works. If you don't like the way science works, then say so.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
mpc755
Your responses insist you do.
In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the future.
You do this in order to avoid understanding a moving particle has an
associated physical wave.
In order to support the failed model of the Big Bang you simply insist
the spin about a Universal axis and the directionality of the galaxy
clusters hasn't had answers made up yet to support it.
You do this in order to avoid understanding the Universe is, or the
local Universe we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a
black hole.
Your models have failed. You are unable to realize this.
You are unable to realize you will go to ridiculous absurd lengths in
order to make stuff up in order to support your failed models.
Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
in nature?
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 11:22 AM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't. All I insist on is that suggested alternatives satisfy minimum
>>>> requirements for a scientific model before being seriously considered.
>>>> That includes making specific, quantitative, testable predictions that
>>>> distinguish it from other competing models. Once that has been
>>>> satisfied, then there are no limits whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
>>> in nature?
>>>
>>
>> I already told you: I don't.
>> If you think that having to satisfy the MINIMUM requirements for a
>> scientific model before being seriously considered is a limitation on
>> understanding, though, then that's just sorta too bad. That's how
>> science works. If you don't like the way science works, then say so.
>> Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
>
> Your responses insist you do.
>
> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the future.
There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
>
> You do this in order to avoid understanding a moving particle has an
> associated physical wave.
Nah. We do this because this is how scientific models are judged.
>
> In order to support the failed model of the Big Bang you simply insist
> the spin about a Universal axis and the directionality of the galaxy
> clusters hasn't had answers made up yet to support it.
No making up involved. And as I said, there has not been a definite
prediction of Big Bang Cosmology that has disagreed with observation,
and so there is no failure of that model.
Your complaint that the model doesn't explain this or that is not
considered a failure in science.
>
> You do this in order to avoid understanding the Universe is, or the
> local Universe we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a
> black hole.
Nah. We do this because this is how scientific models are judged.
>
> Your models have failed. You are unable to realize this.
But they haven't failed, according to the metric that science uses to
judge models.
Whether you consider them absurd simply isn't a consideration for
failure or success in science.
>
> You are unable to realize you will go to ridiculous absurd lengths in
> order to make stuff up in order to support your failed models.
Nothing ridiculous or absurd about them, as they succeed scientifically.
Whether YOU think they are absurd anyway is completely irrelevant. If
you don't buy that a model is successful if it satisfies the criterion
that its specific, quantitative, and testable predictions match
experimental measurements, and you believe a model should be rejected
even if it does that because you find it ridiculous or absurd, then you
really don't have any interest in science. I suggest you stop banging
your head against that wall, because its immovable.
mpc755
>
>> Your responses insist you do.
>>
>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the future.
>
> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
>
Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
in nature?
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>>> Your responses insist you do.
>>>
>>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
>>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the future.
>>
>> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
>> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
>> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
>> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
>>
>
> Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
> untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
>
Not at all. It's COMPLETELY testable and experiments have been performed
that distinguish this model's predictions from the predictions of other
models. I believe you've been pointed to the details of how those tests
are done, though you've only digested thumbnail sketches instead. And
since your model makes NO specific, quantitative, testable predictions,
it doesn't even enter into the competition to be evaluated. And it
doesn't matter at all whether you believe that such a thing is absurd
and that it can't possibly be tested if it's absurd.
You have no idea what's really testable or not, or in fact what claims
have been tested, or in fact what the results of those tests are. You
don't know and you don't care. You reject things even before you look at
the evidence. And THAT, Mike, is precisely what dogma looks like.
mpc755
> On 8/8/2011 12:20 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your responses insist you do.
>>>>
>>>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
>>>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
>>> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
>>> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
>>> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
>>>
>>
>> Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
>> untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
>>
>
> Not at all. It's COMPLETELY testable and experiments have been performed
> that distinguish this model's predictions from the predictions of other
> models.
The future determining the past is not testable. What you have done is
perpetuated absurd nonsense to maintain a failed model.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j1p6dp$171$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
| On 8/8/2011 12:20 PM, mpc755 wrote:
| > PD wrote:
| >>
| >>> Your responses insist you do.
| >>>
| >>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
| >>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the
future.
| >>
| >> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
| >> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
| >> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
| >> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
| >>
| >
| > Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
| > untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
| >
|
| Not at all.
That's just silly.
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 12:20 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>> PD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your responses insist you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters and
>>>>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the
>>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes specific,
>>>> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
>>>> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
>>>> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
>>> untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. It's COMPLETELY testable and experiments have been performed
>> that distinguish this model's predictions from the predictions of other
>> models.
>
> The future determining the past is not testable. What you have done is
> perpetuated absurd nonsense to maintain a failed model.
>
Well, Mike, since the tests have been conducted and documented and are a
matter of historical record, your denial of their existence because you
believe it can't be done shall be recorded as a denial of reality. This
is, as you know, a form of psychosis.
Nobody can force you to acknowledge reality, Mike. But reality will go
on without you.
Androcles
| On 8/8/2011 12:36 PM, mpc755 wrote:
| > PD wrote:
| >> On 8/8/2011 12:20 PM, mpc755 wrote:
| >>> PD wrote:
| >>>>
| >>>>> Your responses insist you do.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> In order to support your failed model you insist a particle enters
and
| >>>>> exits a single slit depending upon what is going to occur in the
| >>>>> future.
| >>>>
| >>>> There's no failure there. The model works superbly. It makes
specific,
| >>>> quantitative, testable predictions that distinguish it from other
| >>>> competing models, and the results of those tests are positive. By
| >>>> scientific measures, this is a success, not a failure.
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>> Stating the future determines the past is untestable. If it is
| >>> untestable it is dogma. If it is dogma your model has failed.
| >>>
| >>
| >> Not at all. It's COMPLETELY testable and experiments have been
performed
| >> that distinguish this model's predictions from the predictions of other
| >> models.
| >
| > The future determining the past is not testable. What you have done is
| > perpetuated absurd nonsense to maintain a failed model.
| >
|
| Well,
That's just silly. What do boreholes and wells have to do with anything?
mpc755
>
> Well, Mike, since the tests have been conducted and documented and are a
> matter of historical record, your denial of their existence because you
> believe it can't be done shall be recorded as a denial of reality. This
> is, as you know, a form of psychosis.
>
> Nobody can force you to acknowledge reality, Mike. But reality will go
> on without you.
The future determining the past is not testable. Any supposed experiment
is simply not understanding the physics of nature.
PD
>
> The future determining the past is not testable. Any supposed experiment
> is simply not understanding the physics of nature.
>
Gotta love that, Mike. Well harumphed on your part.
Mike says, "Can't make me believe your stupid experiment. Can't! Can't!
Can't!"
mpc755
All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by
understanding a moving particle has an associated physical wave.
The reason why they are absurdly named is because physics has been
screwed up since the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
All of the nonsense goes away with de Broglie wave mechanics.
The future determining the past is not testable. Any supposed experiment
is simply not understanding the physics of nature.
Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
PD
> PD wrote:
>> On 8/8/2011 1:39 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The future determining the past is not testable. Any supposed experiment
>>> is simply not understanding the physics of nature.
>>>
>>
>> Gotta love that, Mike. Well harumphed on your part.
>> Mike says, "Can't make me believe your stupid experiment. Can't! Can't!
>> Can't!"
>
> All 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiments are explained by
> understanding a moving particle has an associated physical wave.
You must, MUST, demonstrate this by satisfying what *science* considers
an explanation -- that is, you must make specific, quantitative
predictions of those results derived from your model. Your pithy
sentences do not satisfy that criterion. Therefore, as far as science is
concerned, your pithy sentences do not qualify as a scientific
explanation. This is true for ANY physical model, lest you think you're
being picked on -- you're not. Lest you think this is a new criterion of
modern physics, it's not -- this has been true since Newton's day.
So when you say your idea serves as a scientific explanation, Mike, you
are LYING. You've been corrected on it several times, and you continue
to push this untruth, and so you are LYING.
>
> The reason why they are absurdly named is because physics has been
> screwed up since the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
The *name* of the experiment has nothing to do with it.
As I told you earlier, you have no idea what's really testable or not,
what claims have been tested, and what the results of those tests are.
You rely on sound bites and *names* of experiments, for Pete's sake, to
decide what is reliable or not. You do this without even LOOKING at the
experimental data. And that, Mike, is exactly what dogma is.
Any more bleatings from you that "science just doesn't want to
understand!" will be taken to be third-grade wailing.
mpc755
Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
PD
> PD wrote:
>>
>> Any more bleatings from you that "science just doesn't want to
>> understand!" will be taken to be third-grade wailing.
>>
>
> Why do you insist on limiting your understand of what occurs physically
> in nature?
>
When do you hope to make it to fourth grade?
mpc755
'Quantum mechanics rule 'bent' in classic experiment'
HVAC
>
>
> You do this in order to avoid understanding the Universe is, or the
> local Universe we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a
> black hole.
Look dummy....There's no jet, no rotation, and no ether.
Accept those facts and you'll soon be on the long road to recovery.
Good luck.
mpc755
> On 8/8/2011 12:43 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>
>> You do this in order to avoid understanding the Universe is, or the
>> local Universe we exist in is in, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a
>> black hole.
>
> Look dummy....There's no jet, no rotation, and no ether.
>
> Accept those facts and you'll soon be on the long road to recovery.
>
> Good luck.
>
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
"The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places" -
Albert Einstein
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
HVAC
>
>>
>> Look dummy....There's no jet, no rotation, and no ether.
>>
>> Accept those facts and you'll soon be on the long road to recovery.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>
> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>
> "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places" -
> Albert Einstein
He was wrong and admitted as much later in his life.
Suggest it's time for you to do the same?
mpc755
> On 8/8/2011 6:19 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Look dummy....There's no jet, no rotation, and no ether.
>>>
>>> Accept those facts and you'll soon be on the long road to recovery.
>>>
>>> Good luck.
>>>
>>
>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
>>
>> "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
>> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places" -
>> Albert Einstein
>
>
> He was wrong and admitted as much later in his life.
>
> Suggest it's time for you to do the same?
>
>
Einstein did no such thing. Back up the claim.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Quantum of Light and my Parrot.
=.
The fact number -1.
1729.The astronomical aberration effect of light showed
the finite constant speed of quantum of light.
#
The fact number - 2.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed that the speed of quantum of light is constant
in all directions regardless of the motion of the source.
(c = 299,792,458 m/sec = 1)
#
#
The fact number - 3.
1905. Paper: “ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein’s second postulate says that
the speed of quantum of light in the vacuum
is absolute constant c=1.
============..
#
Gentlemen
I have only two questions:
First -
Didn’t my parrot fly to you?
Second -
Why does everybody write that all movements are relative
if the speed of quantum of light isn’t relative but
it is an absolute constant in absolute Vacuum ?
P.S.
You can easily find out my parrot. It studied only
two sentences: ‘ there is no absolute movement ’,
‘ there is no absolute reference system ‘
#
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==== .
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
===================…
P.S.
Indeed... it is in total contradiction to say that there is no
absolute frame of reference, and then to say that the speed
of light is constant..
/ Kris /
How is it possible to say that there is absolute speed of light
and there is no absolute frame of reference ?
Huh?
In the Alice's Wonderland everything is possible.
Socratus
======…
saul...@cox.net
MAKE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
THE WACKOS KEEP TRYING!
Saul Levy