What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On 10/4/2011 3:18 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...



On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.

There is no twin - we're talking aeroplanes. Have you got any idea at all? "Kinematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haefele-Keating_experiment

Yes. Twin clocks. You do know, don't you that the H-K experiment is a
test of the twin puzzle?


Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.

Just sad.

Really? You don't understand this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?

Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions. There is red/blue shift in specific direction
because the light is at different speeds since the measuring device has a speed itself relative to the aether.

Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


This is also consistent with Dayton Miller's findings apart from the odd situation that the direction of the
stationary aether seems to be off by 90deg compared to what the overwhelming number of interferometer experiments
predict.

They probably need to further understand how interferometers and light work.

Aha. So if you have a pet theory and the *confirmed* data are
inconsistent with your theory, then something is wrong with how the data
were obtained?


But the parallels are only denied by those in chronic denial!

There is clearly a stationary aether for light.

You sound so much like Ralph Rabbidge these days. So predictable. So ...
trite.




Anyone who cannot see from this that there is light anisotropy has no instinct at all.

It's obvious.

And it is in alignment with other such light anisotropy experiments.

In article , says...

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise, surely you can
derive that.


So we flush the Cosmological Principle instead?

Take your pick - it has to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

In article , says...

On 10/4/2011 3:18 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...



On 9/29/2011 10:02 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:

Alright. You'll notice that one twin accelerates to change direction and
the other one doesn't. This means that the traveling twin is not at rest
in some inertial reference frame throughout the whole trip. It also
means that the worldline of the traveling twin has a kink that cannot be
removed.

There is no twin - we're talking aeroplanes. Have you got any idea at all? "Kinematic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haefele-Keating_experiment

Yes. Twin clocks. You do know, don't you that the H-K experiment is a
test of the twin puzzle?


Also note that this is a truly and physically asymmetric difference. The
traveling twin *feels* the acceleration and the other one does not. No
amount of "sitting with the traveling twin" will make the Earth twin be
the one that accelerates.

Just sad.

Really? You don't understand this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

And this is the checking of the error analysis of the Munera et al.
paper how?

Do they or do they not both indicate anisotropy? And thus kill SR?

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions. There is red/blue shift in specific direction
because the light is at different speeds since the measuring device has a speed itself relative to the aether.

Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?



This is also consistent with Dayton Miller's findings apart from the odd situation that the direction of the
stationary aether seems to be off by 90deg compared to what the overwhelming number of interferometer experiments
predict.

They probably need to further understand how interferometers and light work.

Aha. So if you have a pet theory and the *confirmed* data are
inconsistent with your theory, then something is wrong with how the data
were obtained?


Everything else lines up and this is perpendicular so there is even agreement there - the question is how.



But the parallels are only denied by those in chronic denial!

There is clearly a stationary aether for light.

You sound so much like Ralph Rabbidge these days. So predictable. So ...
trite.


Never 'eard of 'im.





Anyone who cannot see from this that there is light anisotropy has no instinct at all.

It's obvious.

And it is in alignment with other such light anisotropy experiments.

On 10/4/2011 5:01 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise, surely you can
derive that.


So we flush the Cosmological Principle instead?

Or you phrase it carefully, as it really is phrased, not some
oversimplified *******ization of it.


Take your pick - it has to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

Then surely you can follow the links in that article around to find out
why this doesn't blow the hell out of the cosmological principle.

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.

In article , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:01 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise, surely you can
derive that.


So we flush the Cosmological Principle instead?

Or you phrase it carefully, as it really is phrased, not some
oversimplified *******ization of it.


Take your pick - it has to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

Then surely you can follow the links in that article around to find out
why this doesn't blow the hell out of the cosmological principle.


Agreed. And thus relativity is flushed.

In article , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


This is simple.

The CMB is redshifted in a specific direction.

This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

Simple.

This is in agreement with these -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Cahill2006.pdf

"We now have eight experiments that independently and consistently
demonstrated (i) the anisotropy of the speed of
light, and where the anisotropy is quite large, namely 300,000
±420 km/s, depending on the direction of measurement relative
to the Milky Way, (ii) that the direction, given by the
Right Ascension and Declination, is now known, being established
by the Miller, De Witte and Flinders experiments!"

"The Miller experiment was one of the most significant
experiments of the 20th century. It meant that a substructure
to reality deeper than spacetime had been revealed, that
spacetime was merely a mathematical construct and not an
aspect of reality. It meant that the Einstein postulate regarding
the invariance of the speed of light was incorrect ? in
disagreement with experiment, and had been so from the
beginning."


plus

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera2006.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf

In article , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


SR predicts same freq spread in all directions.

End of story.

On 10/11/2011 6:56 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:01 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 3:10 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On Sep 30, 11:47 pm, Byron wrote:
In , says...

Why do you think CMBR dipole anistropy kills SR? What do you think SR
says should be the case?

SR would predict the "temperature" to be the same in all directions.

False.

Jerry


So you concede that c varies?

No. One does not imply the other. If you think otherwise, surely you can
derive that.


So we flush the Cosmological Principle instead?

Or you phrase it carefully, as it really is phrased, not some
oversimplified *******ization of it.


Take your pick - it has to be one or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#CMBR_dipole_anisotropy

Then surely you can follow the links in that article around to find out
why this doesn't blow the hell out of the cosmological principle.


Agreed. And thus relativity is flushed.

How so? CMBR is completely consistent with both.
You first claimed that CMBR is inconsistent with the principle of
relativity by claiming that the principle of relativity would imply
isotropy of temperature -- which is false.
Then you claimed that, since it is not inconsistent with the principle
of relativity, it must therefore be inconsistent with the cosmological
principle.
When it was pointed out to you (with a reference) that this is not the
case, you then circled back to again claim that it is inconsistent with
the principle of relativity.

See the problem?

"This is inconsistent with A."
"No, it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with B."
"But it's not."
"Then I conclude that it must be inconsistent with A."

On 10/11/2011 7:03 AM, Byron Forbes wrote:
In , says...

On 10/4/2011 5:07 PM, Byron Forbes wrote:


Why on earth do you think SR predicts the temperature would be the
same in all directions???


So what are we violating here, Cosmological principle or invariant lightspeed?

Neither one. Why would you think SR predicts the temperature would be
the same in all directions?


If SR and/or CP are not violated then what's the explanation?

Explanation for WHAT? You still haven't said what you think SR predicts
(and why) or what the CP says should be the case (and why). First find
out what those two things SAY, and then you can worry about whether CMBR
is a violation of that. I'm really not too concerned about your vague
notions that maybe somehow perhaps CMBR violates something you think
maybe SR or CP might possibly be saying or something like that. Don't
GUESS. It's unbecoming.


This is simple.

The CMB is redshifted in a specific direction.

Yes.


This means that light from that direction is faster and the aether is blowing that way.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Redshift doesn't have anything to do with the speed of light.
The wavelength from redshifted objects has been measured with
instruments SOLELY sensitive to wavelength.
The frequency from redshifted objects has been measured with instruments
SOLELY sensitive to frequency.
The product of those two measured quantities is c, regardless of the
redshift of the object.


Simple.

This is in agreement with these -

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Cahill2006.pdf

"We now have eight experiments that independently and consistently
demonstrated (i) the anisotropy of the speed of
light, and where the anisotropy is quite large, namely 300,000
±420 km/s, depending on the direction of measurement relative
to the Milky Way, (ii) that the direction, given by the
Right Ascension and Declination, is now known, being established
by the Miller, De Witte and Flinders experiments!"

"The Miller experiment was one of the most significant
experiments of the 20th century. It meant that a substructure
to reality deeper than spacetime had been revealed, that
spacetime was merely a mathematical construct and not an
aspect of reality. It meant that the Einstein postulate regarding
the invariance of the speed of light was incorrect ? in
disagreement with experiment, and had been so from the
beginning."


plus

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Munera2006.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/...Bejing2009.pdf