Finite Relativism: Review Request

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:13 am, doug wrote:


There have been no experiments in conflict with the predictions
of relativity in the century of testing.


You must be ignorant of the fact that the voyager craft are way
outside of the velocity that was predicted for them.

That is not true at this point. There has been a lot of examination
of the situation and so far relativity is fine.

Also spacecraft
in slingshot manouvers come out faster than relativity predicts.

Reference?

But
yes apart from those the equations are good equations. Pitty they
don't work for everything though.

Everything so far.

I'm not arguing the equations I'm arguing that the aether exhists and
that the aether dragging around the earth would give the same results
as an apparent bending of space time. Frame - dragging etc, etc.

Lets see the math.

On Mar 17, 3:38*pm, doug wrote:


You did reply to the links I gave you and yet you claim there are no
paradoxs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

Have a look then tell me there are no paradoxs.

On Mar 17, 3:38*pm, doug wrote:


You did reply to the links I gave you and yet you claim there are no
paradoxs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

Have a look then tell me there are no paradoxs.

On Mar 17, 3:41*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote:
On Mar 17, 2:23 pm, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:13 am, doug wrote:

There have been no experiments in conflict with the predictions
of relativity in the century of testing.

You must be ignorant of the fact that the voyager craft are way
outside of the velocity that was predicted for them.

That is not true at this point. There has been a lot of examination
of the situation and so far relativity is fine.

*Also spacecraft

in slingshot manouvers come out faster than relativity predicts.

Reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

There is nothing there to support your argument.



But

yes apart from those the equations are good equations. Pitty they
don't work for everything though.

Everything so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

In case you are not aware, *Wikipedia is not a science reference.



I'm not arguing the equations I'm arguing that the aether exhists and
that the aether dragging around the earth would give the same results
as an apparent bending of space time. Frame - dragging etc, etc.

Lets see the math.

Still no math being shown on your part.



Then look at the references at the bottom of the page.

On Mar 17, 3:41*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote:
On Mar 17, 2:23 pm, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:13 am, doug wrote:

There have been no experiments in conflict with the predictions
of relativity in the century of testing.

You must be ignorant of the fact that the voyager craft are way
outside of the velocity that was predicted for them.

That is not true at this point. There has been a lot of examination
of the situation and so far relativity is fine.

*Also spacecraft

in slingshot manouvers come out faster than relativity predicts.

Reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

There is nothing there to support your argument.



But

yes apart from those the equations are good equations. Pitty they
don't work for everything though.

Everything so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

In case you are not aware, *Wikipedia is not a science reference.



I'm not arguing the equations I'm arguing that the aether exhists and
that the aether dragging around the earth would give the same results
as an apparent bending of space time. Frame - dragging etc, etc.

Lets see the math.

Still no math being shown on your part.



Then look at the references at the bottom of the page.

I'd like to add one last thing before I leave you guys to it.

What do you think magnetism is????

Isn't in general agreement that mainstream science doesn't know what
it is? It works in a vacuum just as well as in an atmosphere. Do you
not think it could be the motion of some type of medium not yet
accepted to exhist? It definately has some sort of rotary property as
it rotates the plane of polarization of an electromagnetic wave.

Chow.

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:14 pm, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:13 am, doug wrote:

Have you ever seen an interferometer?

I am not talking about an interferometer. I am talking about a simple
experiement that could be done with two torchs. I will draw a text
diagram.

d
-------------------|
b-- c |
|
|a |e

d is a brick wall so is e they are at 90degrees to each other. a is a
torch shining on d. b is a torch shining on e. Turn a on only and it
will shine onto d. Look at the light reflected off d. Now turn on b so
that it shines onto e directly through a and the beams cross at c. a's
pattern on d will not change even though they are crossing each others
path.

This simple experiement proves that light cannot be a particle.

What makes you think it has proved anything. Have you done a prediction
of this with QM?

If you


want to argue it furthur then give me an explanation of how the
alleged "photon" can cross without observed interference like two
hoses would if they were substituted for a and b.


Ok, well if you are going to argue this VERY simple observed fact then
I can't argue with you.

Well, study some physics and come back.

Why does one photon injected into the double
slit experiement still act like a wave.

Except that it also acts like a particle. Read some physics.

Explain to me why it doesn't prove they are not particles??? Anyone? I
bet no one here understands why they don't collide while going
through. They just take it for granted because they read it in a text
book.

You should try that sometime.


See QM. But you are not going to like the answer. Light is neither
a particle or a wave. We get the result we see depending on how
we measure it. You were trying to ignore the photoelectric effect
and PMTs but they are real and are not explained by wave theory.


Yes yes, no energy exchanges, no change in quantum state. I'm sick of
arguing. Neither of us will change our minds.

Yes, but the world has said you are wrong.

Science will never ever not in a million years unify the forces until
they accept the exhistance of the aether.

No, there is no need for it.

This is a promise.

It is a hope on your part but that is not a scientific argument.
And the world does not care what you promise.

It may
take decades, it may even be called another name and described in
better detail than the classical physics did, but without it eveything
is lost. Look at physics for the last 90+ years. The more they
discover the more paradoxs that occur the more complicated the maths
to prove it. I can make an onion into a monkey with maths if I so
wish.

There are no paradoxes. There are those who will not learn about
physics but your ignorance of physics is not a scientific argument.

My theory perfectly explained the just recently discovered true shape
of our solar system and the bow shock effect of it traveling through
space. The sun rigidifies the aether around it and this rigidified
ball of aether traveling through un rigidified aether creates the bow
shock. Just like a ship through water.

You do not have a theory. You have a daydream. It is easy to make
big claims without any backup but you are just blustering now.







Common sense really,

No, they were testing relativity. And it passed.

They were testing the equations of relativity and they passed. There
is still no proof it is actually bending of space time. That is my
argument. I say that it is an all pervading electric fluid which is
responsible also for giving particles charge. I agree the equations of
relativity are pretty damn accurate. (in most cases except for speed
out of slingshot manouvers and the voyager spacecraft speed.) I'm
saying that it isn't a bending of space time. It is this electric
fluid being dragged around the earth.

Well, then show how the predictions of your theory agree with
relativity. If you cannot, you have no theory, only a daydream.


Done and almost perfect. I spent hours working it out, reviewing laser
experiements, the earths magnetic field, birkeland currents in space,
pendulums etc, etc. I am very proud of it because it fits so well.
You probably don't realise you are arguing with a mathmatician also.

Dealing with a mathematician is not hard. Mathematics is not physics.
You need to learn some physics.




The video i provided a link to postulates that what is observed as
"gas" around clusters of stars is actually plasma, which in turn
generates a magnetic feild which is about 10 to the 40th power
stronger than gravity. If they took this magnetism into account then
there would be no need for dark matter or blackholes. His theories are
slowly gaining acceptance.

With who?

Have you heard of Birkeland currents.? If


the "gases" observed around these constellations were considered to be
plasma and we don't know as we havn't been there, then this would make
astronomy simpler, as there would be no need for blackholes and
darkmatter. Watch the video!!!

And the math supporting the conclusions?




They used data from the radio telescopes. Thats why they thought that
the "gasses" are infact plasma. Look it up!!! I'm serious hes no
crank. It doesn't make sense gasses just floating in space. Surely
they should disperse. If it's gravity you say then why the sudden
border between empty space and the pillars of creation surely there
should be a gradual thinning out of density of these gases, not a
sudden abrupt one.

End of my argument.

Yes, you still have no theory, or if you do, you are hiding it. Cranks
come here every day and claim big things. None produce.

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:23 pm, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

On Mar 17, 4:13 am, doug wrote:

There have been no experiments in conflict with the predictions
of relativity in the century of testing.

You must be ignorant of the fact that the voyager craft are way
outside of the velocity that was predicted for them.

That is not true at this point. There has been a lot of examination
of the situation and so far relativity is fine.

Also spacecraft


in slingshot manouvers come out faster than relativity predicts.

Reference?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

There is nothing there to support your argument.


But


yes apart from those the equations are good equations. Pitty they
don't work for everything though.

Everything so far.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity..._discrepancies

In case you are not aware, Wikipedia is not a science reference.




I'm not arguing the equations I'm arguing that the aether exhists and
that the aether dragging around the earth would give the same results
as an apparent bending of space time. Frame - dragging etc, etc.

Lets see the math.

Still no math being shown on your part.

On Mar 17, 4:34*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote:
I'd like to add one last thing before I leave you guys to it.

What do you think magnetism is????

See maxwells's equations.

Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You
really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do
you study in your spare time?







Isn't in general agreement that mainstream science doesn't know what
it is?

No. You should study some.

* It works in a vacuum just as well as in an atmosphere. Do you

not think it could be the motion of some type of medium not yet
accepted to exhist?

No. It is covered quite well in existing physics.

read: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may...rthrow-physics

the part that states "renowned physicist Steven Weinberg, who won a
Nobel for unifying electromagnetism with the so-called weak force,
admit that he can’t explain how a magnet holds a dry-cleaning ticket
to the door of a refrigerator."

It is defined as virtual photons popping in and out of exhistance. Do
you believe this?


It definately has some sort of rotary property as

it rotates the plane of polarization of an electromagnetic wave.

Yes, sure it does. You just keep thinking that while you are
avoiding studying physics.



Chow.

You italian is no better than your physics.

You didn't even know that maxwell developed his equations with the
aether in mind. They were altered by heaviside still with the aether
in mind. Even Lorentz believed in the aether. It wasn't till Einstein
came along that the aether was removed. "Remember gentlemen we have
not discarded the aether just proved it is not needed for
calculations" Einstein himself said this. Are you saying he was wrong?




I meant references at the bottom of the wikipedia page. You are
starting to come across as really f&*king stupid.

On Mar 17, 4:12*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
bobd wrote:

Did you know that maxwell derived them with the aether in mind. You
really don't know much about science do you? Do you have a phd or do
you study in your spare time?

* *Science has shown that Maxwell's equations work fine without any
* *aether. None is needed and none is detected.

Then what is magnetism??? You don't know do you, science doesn't
either.

What proof is there that the aether doesn't exhist? That the michelson-
morley experiement didn't detect it????
That only proved there was no "aether wind" it did not disprove it. It
makes more sense for it to be dragged round by the earth. It explains
frame dragging, GPS corrections all without the need for bending of
space time.