Hexenmeister wrote:
wrote in message oups.com...
| Bill, you can do better than that!
|
| What about the rest of you, PD, Wormley, Eric, Timo and the rest --
| it's no fun if you don't come out and play!
|
| Now I should have just loaded you guys up with all the ammo you need by
| refuting several major scientific dogmas:
|
| The aether exists.

Prove it, idiot.

Maybe a better question for you is - prove that it doesn't exist! The
MMX experiment by itself didn't rule out the aether. It only showed
that it isn't moving at Earth's orbital speed. A great many things -
like how EM travels, how atoms are arranged, magnetic force, atomic
spectra, time dialation, inertia, what is dark matter and what causes
dark energy can be simply explained in terms of an aether. See my TOE
at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

Things usually cannot be absolutely proved, however, just the fact that
many things can be explained in terms of an aether is evidence that it
may be true.

It would be best to experimentally prove the aether exists. Since MMX
type experiments are not convincing, I would suggest we try to find
compression effects. Even if the aether flows through almost anything
as if it wasn't there, I would imagine there should be some resistance.
So if you take a closed evacuated cylinder and fire a projectile to the
closed end, you might find it puts up more resistance than if the
cylinder were open due to the compression of the aether in the closed
cylinder.

You could look for inertial effects as well. The aether is what
propagates inertia, so if we could somehow create an aether wind
(perhaps with some kind of magnetic arrangement), we may be able to
show that it is easier or harder to push a mass depending on which
direction you are pushing the mass. There have been some recent
experiments showing that if you spin up a magnet and then stop it, the
second time you spin it up, it takes less energy. Perhaps this shows
that the aether can be made to spin using magnets and that it is easier
to spin it up the second time because the aether is already in motion.
There are also some very recent experiments using only gyroscopes that
appear to show that space somehow has a memory of whether the gyro was
recently spun. These types of experiments could definitely point to an
aether.

We could also look for it directly in particle accelerators. If we
frame collisions in the frame of reference where there is not only the
colliding particles, but also an interaction of the aether, we would
predict that some of the particles being emitted, come from the aether.
Maybe this is the source of the random spray of hadrons we see in
experiments. It would be a matter of re-examing the experiments for
evidence.


| Quarks do not exist.

shrug, nothing to say


| Dark matter and dark energy are gravitationally associated.

Bright green flying elephants and black holes are emotionally associated.
(What ****ing dark matter?)

Probably the best evidence to date is a mapping of the dark matter
using telescopes. Don't ask me how they did it, but they produced some
kind of map showing it congregates around galaxies. The association
that I placed between dark matter and dark energy are directly related
unlike elephants and black holes. If you could draw an unbroken line
between the elephant and black holes, that would be impressive - but
that isn't what I did. Dark matter is gravitationally attracted aether
and dark energy is not caused by universe expansion, but is caused by
the aether clumping together which forces the lighter galaxies into the
bubbles we see in the universe structure. Can't get much more direct
and simple than that. The whole thing can be explained in a single
sentence that an elementary student could understand.



| The magnetic lines of force are defined in the wrong direction.

Who gives a ****?

Granted, it doens't make much of a difference which way to define it
mathematically - it all produces the same results, but you could say
the same thing about saying that the Earth is the center of the
universe and calculating that everything moves around it. Sure it could
work out mathematically, but in a real sense, it is totally wrong when
compared to reality. So it is totally wrong to think the magnetic lines
of force actually run from pole to pole. Based on how electron react to
the field, they wrap around the axis of the poles instead and things
are much easier to understand.


| Redshift is an effect caused by distance only.

Correct.

| The big bang didn't need to happen to explain the CMBR

It didn't happen anyway.


Yeah, the big bang and redshift is a crock!



|
| Now, I've noticed that the internet usenets exist on the principle -
| 'If you can't say anything to refute, don't say anything at all". I
| see very little in the way of collaboration on the sci.physics group. I
| think it would be OK to encourage people every once in a while when
| they're not totally crazy.
|
| All of the papers I have recently published on the sci.physics news
| groups have opened to virtual silence - which could mean a couple of
| things - either
|
| 1. You are in total agreement and have nothing to say against it and
| are in stunned silence - which I find bloody unlikely
| 2. You're not reading any of my posts
| 3. Maybe you're just sick of me
|
| In any case, some comments please ....

Put up your dukes, then. Let's see what you are capable of.
Androcles.

Whoo-hoo we're having fun now!