PMS:The lies you tell about science however I cannot take lying down. Your position is internally contradictory.
ME:demonstrate it.
ME:demonstrate it.
ME:honestly I was not so sure about geocentricity until I was destroying your arguments so easily.
PMS:You
need a different law of gravity for geocentrism (as Newton's laws
predict that lighter objects orbit heavier ones. So this law of gravity
won't get geocentric motion of the Sun AND get the correct orbit of the
moon for example.
I have yet to see you even get one of my arguments let long "destroy
it"...
Me:
The aether of the universe is heavier than the mass of the sun.
But more importantly you are assuming that the universe is only
operating with gravitational force.
The matter of the universe is mostly plasma. Plasma operates with
electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic energy is 10 to the 36 power
greater than gravity.
So for instance the sun is, in your cosmology is moving by gravity 1.4
million miles a day around the Milky Way.
In my cosmology it is moving by a force 10 to the 36th power greater
around the earth coast with the gravitational and electromagnetic force of
the constellations.
Of course I doubt you have studied my research no matter how often I
linked it to you.
I just want to know are you so ignorant that after years of arguing with
regular geo centrist you never studied enough to know, that they are
not arguing that the earth is moving the sun?
PMS:Prove the aether exists. Your "research" is based upon zero understand. Do yourself a favour, pick up a physics textbook.
PMS:Prove the aether exists. Your "research" is based upon zero understand. Do yourself a favour, pick up a physics textbook.
Me:We
have proved the existence of aether with 4 experiments you have proved
dark matter with nothing! You spent thousands of dollars and you still
are not scientific.
PMS: This is just an assertion not proof. I don't want links. I want you to explain it to me in your own words.
[at this point another facebook person enters the conversation]
ME: This is the problem I have already explained the concept of aether. You did not read it or remember it when referenced. "What of the heaven?
with hints from the rest of the chapter, this is neither the sky nor our current understanding of the cosmos. This would be the substance articulated by the Greeks and early scientists known as the ether.
"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity." wikipedia"http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html Now it is your turn, define dark matter. Then identify the distinctions between dark matter and Aether. Sense Einstein did not invent the concept of dark matter explain the differences between the void and dark matter and if that would effect Michelson's research
Alright while we wait on those previous questions. I will ask another. What do you do with the sloan scale? The conecentric shells of galaxies around us are curved around us. BBT would assume everything is relatively the same. But if we went to the other galaxies it appears that the galaxies would not point to the other location but to point towards the milky way. How do you respond to the findings?
22 hours ago
PMS
Maxwell's equation do not require an aether, if you simply take a look at them, you'll see no mention of it. Gravity doesn't require an aether either, as it is a dynamics theory of SPACETIME..
about an hour ago
ME:I assume you accept my definition of aether.
Please define spacetime. Also make distinctions between it, aether, dark matter and what disproved the existence of aether, since aether was the original understanding of space.
Andy Ide
The MM disproved the aether. It was designed to measure aether drift. None was found (the null result) and aether was abandoned. This was combined with the particle nature of light discovery and the aether is debunked.
Me: Actually the "null result" was only null with the presuppositions that light is an unchanging constant and that Helio-centrism is true. I contend neither. There was indeed an either drag found, though it was not adequate for the assumption of earth spinning around the sun. However, if I am arguing that the earth is not spinning around the sun then this repeated experiment is backing me up.
"In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo's experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome. Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics."http://arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article78.pdf pg3
Now in later experiments like the sagnac experiment and the michelson Gale experiment we see an Aether drag. Thus building a case for geo-centricity. The scientist themselves were not geo-centrist thus proving the power of this evidence. But we have to have clarity. How does the nature of vacuum, the nature of dark matter, and the nature of spacetime differ with the Aether?
pp: You can misrepresent the MM all you want. The experiment skowed that light is isotropic and there is no aether."
PMS:
The problem is, the MMX experiment has been repeated with far higher accuracy WITH THE SAME RESULTS. They can't get away from that.
Me: Of course not, but you can't get away from that either/ether ;)
Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length that he tried at various sites including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in the 1920s amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment or aether dragging, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
If 10 kilometers per second is nothing then you better start running or your nothing! LOL But seriously, the experiment as developed by Dayton Miller shows the ether drag is a real thing, only it contradicts heliocentricity.
But I must plead with you again that we must find clarity as to the nature of Aether vs. dark matter vs. space-time. After all physics doesn't stop at the moon.
Also I don't want to leave the topic of the Copernican principle abandoned. based upon the evidence of galaxies in concentric shells around us How can there be no preferred locations when all other observed locations are contorted towards us?
PMS)
Before we do a gish gallop, We have to examine the Michelson-Morley experiment again when it was repeated in the last 15 years or so with the SAME result. So the claim of the geocentrists is false.
ME:"the claim of geocentrist is false" because the Michelson Morrely experiment as you have clearly stated has always had the same result. And as shown has always revealed an aether drag of as high as 10kilometers per second which defies your contention of helio centricity and vindicates my view over and over?"
PMS: That was not the result of the MMX, it was that the speed of light was the same in all directions and that it was the same in different frames of reference.
Me:We have public record to the contrary. Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
wikipedia cited it.
PMS:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/morley.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305117
So you see, it's not the data which says that the original experiment and conclusions are correct.
Me: It's not my position that these conclusions are correct. They wanted to have aether physics with heliocentricity
I argue for aether physics with Geocentricity. (among other aspects of New Years cosmology)
All these examples do is try to adjust the scale of the measurement to be estimated zero in your standard.
You can get a satelite far enough away to look like a little blue dot. But those of us on earth see the earth in at least 50% of our optics over the course of lifetime.
You are hanging on to a "Bait-n-switch" whereby the small scale of either giving an estimated zero is all of the sudden an absolute zero. But a current that goes as high as 10 kilometers a second is not absolute nothing. It is just nothing in terms of trying to get the earth to rotate around the sun. It is my contention that the earth is not rotating around the sun. You have placed your confidence in the experiments so You can't go back on your word. We have measured an aether that is incompatible with helicentrism and because we measured an aether at all and repeatedly found it in a few oter experiments the data is showing us geo centrism. This works with greater effect as we consider the cosmos. Of course that begs the question which I keep asking of you. What is the distinction between Aether and Dark matter and Space-Time in terms of substance?
PMS
No bait and switch. I have shown you that scientists didn't just rest on the single experiment. They improved the accuracy of the experiment time and time again with the same result.
Me: Yes and every experiment shown has an aether drag. Why have you been dodging my question about dark matter and aether and Space time? I asked this question first and you have failed to address it.
Every experiment has show the aether is not required.
Me: required for what?
PMS: For physics
Me: If that were true you wouldn't dodge my question for simple definitions.
PMS:
It is quite clearly true. What do YOU define aether as?
ME: I
already defined Aether previously in our conversation. here it is a
second time. ""According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek:
αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called
quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe
above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several
theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of
light and gravity." wikipedia"http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10
/a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html I then told you that I
must assume you hold the same definition. But you never responded. So
you do you want to argue another definition? Will you ever define any of
the other terms so that we can have a meaningful dialogue?
PMS: That's not really a definition of anything useful.
Me: Perhaps for the first time, you should give me your definitions then.
PMS: I don't want to set up a straw man. My understanding of the aether was that it was required as the medium of light propagation. The MMX has shown that this is false.
ME: If you make the definition then why would you set up a false definition to defeat yourself? All I could do is point out contradictions. But would you really want to have contradictions in your cosmology anyway?
PMS: Give me 2 apparent contradictions.
Me: Well, was your statement about aether a definition? I can't evaluate things that are not defined.
PMS: Agreed, the aether is not a well defined topic.
ME:This is because Aether was a concept for an ancient category. much like air. They understood aether as a substance. They knew it wasn't the air itself and it was the substance of space between celestial bodies.
PMS: It was thought to be needed, and then came along the MMX and Maxwell's equations.
Me: Much like air is thought to be needed. There was no "dark matter" or "space time" that is the back drop to scientific dialogue. In order to deny Aether you have to be careful to define what you have denied. Because you are creating new terms which have to prove that they exist by being different than aether and yet fulfilling the other functions.
Me:So let me ask you... is the copernican principle a claim you assume by faith or is it a fact you have ascertained?
PMS:Maxwell's equations do not require an wther.[ether] EM waves do not require a medium.
1 day later
Me:
Do you argue that the Copernican principle is an observed fact or is it an assumption you prefer?
1 day later..
Me:You know as you referred to Maxwell's equations it reminds me of a previous conversation we had and I asked you if numbers are real. Numbers are mental abstractions, they are symbols of reality. But you have to have observations in order for the numbers to bear any reality.
this also brings up the fact that you have yet to define dark matter, space time, and vacuum.
Is there any observation experimental data to prove the existence of dark matter? If there is not, then could not dark matter be simply another word for Aether? In James Maxwell's day Aether was the working concept, but there was no discussion of dark matter.
2 days later
Me:If we are talking about the Copernican principle saying the earth has no preferred position in space, we have to look deeper into nature.
The fact that we are having this conversation stems from the fact that life has come to earth.
We have yet to find this life on other planets or in other galaxies.
There are many conditions that have to be met in order for that to be possible.
Our planet must be solid.
Our planet must have liquid water
Our planet must have air
Our planet must have the right size to balance the water and earth and the right gravity
Our planet must have plants and organisms which conduct photosynthesis,
Our planet must have an ecosystem available.
We must have a sun at a appropriate distance to warm our earth
It must also have appropriate motion for the earth to warm on both sides.
We must have a moon at an appropriate distance to churn the seas.
Our sun and moon are in unique positions.
They are a perfect shape and distance to not only accomplish these things but they are in alignment as we see from the solar eclipse every couple years. This alignment was necessary as these bodies were then used to determine many scales of time by which we were able to move onto developing technology.
We also need protection from gigantic celestial bodies. This is provided to us by the gas giant planets.
Not too mention the many pressure and radioactive areas which could also destroy life.
Obviously with all these conditions we are in a unique place. But if our position is unique, it breaks the Copernican principle and demands that we search for a center of space and consider the earth as a candidate. At which point we see the universe spin around us and must then search for a way to disprove that by observation.
pp:That logic does not make sense.
2 days later
Me: I guess we will have to agree to disagree
PMS:I agree with pp, this is a rant with no understanding of reality, let along science.
No comments:
Post a Comment