I don't think that there is a need for alternative theories forum, however I think that there should be a Physics forum. The problem here is that almost every thread becomes an alternative theory thread. If someone asks a questions, maybe one or two persons are trying to answer the question, and immediately after that, it appears that SR is wrong. There is an aether. BigBang is wrong and Quantum mechanics is of course wrong. And most of these answers are given by people who do not have a clue of what is General or Special Relativity. Never solved even the one dimensional time independent Schrodinger equation. Never heard of the basic axioms (or principles) of cosmology. So, as I said, instead of asking if there should be a crackpots forum, maybe the question should have been if there should be a physics forum.
I am glad to see 1100f confirm "There is an aether." or was he just quoting someone else? Problably me. Why is the question of aether considered alternative theory and not mainline physics? Because modern physics has lost the thread? I brought the aether concept in to discuss speed of light - where is a more appropriate forum for aether?? So for this, one becomes a crackpot? So be it. But aether and I am sure many other of the ideas are still physics but if you're not in the presently subscribed to bible, don't bother to show up or speak up (this is the attitude I'm feeling.) The modern day physics belief that an aether is unnecessary and has been proven so. As I mentioned I have read Einstein's Leyden lecture, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity." [It is also linked on my site.] I don't find it convincing, of course, there are those who know I don't understand relativity so my opinion is irrelevant. That being said, this lecture merely states ether doesn't need physical characterics because we can assign physical characteristics to space with our math (Maxwell's) EM formula. How vague is that? Later on, even Einstein was disturbed about the direction the direction physics was taking with lack of causation, the well known "God doesn't roll dice" comment.[But he sort of set up this scenario with his dispensing of aether.] (My opinion) Of course, others would argue that Michelson-Morley null result is what dispensed with the aether. It was done in the wrong location. I have mentioned this earlier and this was the same conclusion presented by prominent physicist-author, Adair in his text, The Great Design. Put it on the ISS (externally of course) and you may get some disturbing results, like ether (actually carrier of light) exists. What's this have to do with alternative theory. Crackpots on the extreme left (often with poor math and calc concepts like me), Physicists and Mathematician on the extreme right (with perhaps too much faith in the math based on potentially corrupt foundations which no one on the "inside" bothers to review), you need an open forum to get them together. Sincerely deweyb
Why do people think this ? Do you really think that all physicists conspire together to keep the general public from the truth, so we can all say how great we are and how the "plebs" has absolutely no understanding of what we do ? The truth is that our world is quite competive, with many people trying to look for the "holy grail" in their field. And believe me (if you have never been to a scientific lecture) ... everytime "the great minds of our time" in a specific field meet, you get very heated discussions on the meaning and interpretation of new scientific results. Basically everybody is trying to debunk everybody. I don't understand where people get this distorted view of science. There are libraries full of scientific books, there are universities with people who are more than glad to explain their work to visitors. Ofcourse you do not have to run in, say they are all fools and that their theories are wrong, and then not be able to communicate with them properly. If you want to talk to somebody in another country with another language, you also try to learn his language first, no ? And to get around in another country doesn't mean you need to speak the language fluently, now does it? Same situation applies here! Bye! Crisp
Don't be glad too soon. I just confirm that people are saying this (which doesn't make it true). Do you really believe that you are the first, in this forum that says that there is an ether? I can assure you that you are not the first and, unfortunately, not the last. Because mainline Physics is done at the universities and research institutes and not in the internet or in sciforum, and nobody is doing research on ether theories. If you look at the arxiv site (http://arxiv.org), where almost all physicists post preprints of their papers before submitting them to publication, you will see that among the thousands of papers since 1991, only 13 of them use the word aether in the title or in the abstarct. You may not be happy with it, but ether theory is not mainline physics, and this is a fact of life. I see you have read my answer to the previous sentence, even before I wrote it. On the contrary, all theories, all paper are public. Everyone can read it, criticize it, and I can assure you that all physicist are happy when people want to learn it. This is opposite to the bible. In physics, words that are used have an accurate meaning. If you use these words without understanding their meaning, that does make of you a physicist, and what you say is not physics. Droping ideas out of the blue, just like that, with no experimental evidence, or mathematical assumptions, using Maxwell's equations, without understanding them, in order to claim that you are right and physics community is wrong, yes, it makes of you a crackpot. You said that:"This means, for example, since the farthest up galaxy is alleged to be receding by 1/3 the speed of light and thd farthest down galaxy is the same, they are moving at 2/3 the speed of light relative to each other. This shows that you don't have any basic understanding of special relativity. Explain me why your opinion on relativity should be relevant? Well, even if you don't believe in relativity and only on galilean relativity and aether, that doesn't mean that space-time doesn't have a structure, which is a fiber bundle structure, with time as the base space, x, y and z as the fiber and particle trajectories as the sections of this fiber bundle. Special Relativity has just changed the fiber-bundle structure into a metric one. How did Einstein set-up this scenario with his dispensing of aether. you are talking about two different things. The dispensing of aether was related to macroscopic objects traveling close to the speed of light, while quantum mechanics is related to microscopic objects. These are two completely different regimes of modern physics. And if you want to combine the theory of relativity with quantum theory of light (QED), then, you should know that the measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is the most accurate measurement performed in physics that agrees with the theory (perturbative QED ). And by the way, although most crackpots believe that the physics community follows Einstein like the bible, I have news for you. When Einstein said that he didn't believe that god rol dice, it was a sentence against the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. And believe it or not, the majority of physicists believe that in this case, Einstein was wrong, and that the nature is probabilistic, governed by the laws of Quantum theory. It was not only the Michelson-Morley null result that dispensed the aether. But all the subsequent physics that came after the theory of relativity. All the mathematical structures that are based on the theory of relativity. I understand that maybe you think that gauge field theories are wrong, that there are no such things like half integer particle spin (which is enterd by hand in non relativistic theory but is a consequence of the representations of Poincare group, the group of Lorentz transformation and translations). As I told you, nobody seriously deals with it. Read Crisp's answer. I just want to add to his answer, "crackpots on the extreme left" is mediocrity (from the physics POV, not the person). "Physicis and mathenmaticians on the extreme right" is hard work, difficult but interesting and fun. I don't believe that there should be a forum to attract physicists and mathematicians toward mediocrity.
Yeah, I could certainly use some help here. Where are all of them? You're right, I shouldn't have used "bible", it should have been more generic, like religion. I am not speaking of all physics, mainly cosmology and atomic structure. The electrical, mechanical and computerized physics structure are awesome, that's why we can have this conversation. I disagree, Unless absolute time and space exist, which they do. Einstein didn't correct for Doppler movement of his moving observer, I know (I think Crisps) says he does. He doesn't, show me his correction in his text. Put the correction in and both observers see the result as the correct time, simultaneous. It's a tool (Lorentz said the same thing about relativity.) Just because we can use probability to determine where things are or where things might appear to be, or will eventually be, does not rule out the real possibility that the entire event actually occurred according to classical equations. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. If you have an aether, of which I have no doubt, then From D.W.Sciama's The Physical Foundations of General Relativity(Anchor Books, 1969, page15), "In the inertial case we would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space, but by other bodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton's laws of motion would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of inertial frames would be solved." Quantum theory is a tool. Tony Rothman, "Instant Physics" Quantum mechanics--the theory that explains phenomena on the size of atoms--is right. It is also so conceptually weird that physicists to this day feel uncomfortable with it. " Evidently not a problem in your case. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If Lorentz is on it, it probably is good, but of course relativity theory is in part based on the Lorentz(Fitzgerald) contraction so it has an empirical foundation. with it? with Aether? But that's the problem, it's a foregone conclusion the minute you hear the word. I know you think I can't tell that Relativity, Quantum, and aether can come together. I can't put them together mathematically, yet, but I know geometrically they do without a doubt. Take a day off from "AETHER is Dead" build a carrier to transmit angular impulse a speed c, (HINT you have to use spheres to maintain supersym in all directions).. Ok I apologize for the "extreme right" comment, and everyone should know that Plato put the mathematician(~ physicist) as prerequisite of Philosopher-Ruler. So you have prominent supporters, even from the metaphysical heirarchy. You guys are so much fun [But I am serious about the aether, big mistake by Einstein - I believe his greatest blunder.] deweyb
Wow, how weird is this, :m: the alternative theory policy thread has turned into a full out alternative theory controversy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Unless one considers carrier of light theory as non-alternative. I guess only 13 papers since 1991 makes aether alternative. very sad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry James R It's the adrenaline. If nothing else it has to be entertaining, and remember, humor, increases the immune respones increasing your ability to resist disease. This is a well documented scientific conclusion. sincerely deweyb
could someone point me to a forum regarding the effects of perception on the world around us. is this universe just a mix of perceptions based on laws that we as a human species percieve as true. could another species that has similar intelligence to our own come to the same conclusions about the universe and physics as we have? is that why our understanding of physics breaks down at so called singularities, and why spacetime seems to bend or curve to us. any help would be appreciated. thanks
It's simple really: Some known scientifc theories maybe wrong Some alternative scientific theories maybe right And I think you should leave that for us to decide, rather than decide yourselves, otherwise what is the point of having such a discussion forum? Hence, make a forum, called "Alternative theories of science" for open-minded scientists to discuss new advanced physics and science. You can either rename the "pseudoscience" forum to "Alternative theories of science" or add a new one in the science section. All up to you, oh masters Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, for set-theroretic reasons there must be a meta-system. How could there not be, as you say. However whether my idea of it accords with yours I'm not sure yet.
a geistkiesel and alternative theories forum. Everybody is here for their own prsonal reasons and as far as I can tell everybody 'understands the rules', but before we write these rules in some book to use as an objective standard why don't we just individually do what we can to improve our individual levels of understanding. Someone might suggest that everything is "technique". So rather than limit or direct a 'protocol', and I see nothing compelling a a response in the form of a complaint, but rule #6 is termed in words of a "threat", as mild as it is. I suggest we simply see how threads develop. and act as we feel is appropriate. As interesting as the concept of Santa Claus performing any real scientific function of any kind may be, all know the technique of no response for reasons of "instantaneous least interest in the thread under consideration", coupled with the "positive response for interest in the thread" attachment. A pet peeve of mine, as I strip myself bare, here and now, are dogmatic statements supported claims of immunity from ihaving any tenet of the subject matteragainst from one claiming interest in science to arbitrarily exclude input challenges to the "standard model" under discusion. If there is cedible scientific information having some measurable affect on some asserted statement of fact the statement is fair game. Here is what I mean by this. I privately and casually suggested to an aquaintence that there was strong scientific evidence that the ice age never occured, ever. After mulling over the statement, with some hemming and hawing for a moment or two, you get the drill, my aquaintance heatedly demanded that, "someone can have an ice age if they want to". What can one say against such overwhelming and scientifically irrefutable experimental results? Do we need an iinf Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ormational gulag?
geistkiesel: If you look at the forum, you will see many examples of threads which question the "standard model" in certain areas of physics. Those discussions are valid and allowed in this forum.
Doctordick I have no quarrel with this and you are absolutely correct. It is the direct assault that is the real subject of this thread. From my perception the question for a "development thread" comes when a post directly challenges the fundamental concepts of QM or SR/GR; for instance a thread that has been progressing in terms of assumed QM or SR/GR authenticity that is suddenly ambushed from a sneaky poster. I am exagerating somewhat, but not excesively. I have this syndrome, but I recognize that with "the predictive successes" each exhibit, "full attacks" aren't useful for any reason. As an example I have been posting arguments demonstrating the fatal weakness of the derived posulate of simultaneity. I was corrected by James R. who informed me that simultaneity concept was derived from the fundamental postulates of relativity. So, I say, if simultaneity goes, what part of SR/GR must be restructured or amended such that the experimental "validations" are not compromised. In other words, that high energy acceleration of electrona show within experimenal error the "predicted" mass increase, then the problem must extend to an explanation outside the limits of current SR/GR theory. The real problem, I say, is the reluctance to explore in this context. Ptolemy's "circles within circles" did not need proof of the model conforming to the real structure of he solar system because it worked wihin the accuracy limts of those using the information. Realism was aproblem that only concerned the church, as "does it work" only concerns the dogmatic moderns. What is different here? I suppose it is technique and a careful assessment of the egos invovled. In physicforums it was stated expressly that visitors were entitled to discussion themes on subect matter where they had accepted or assumed the "truth" of QM or SR/GR or whatever, hence the creation of the theory development forum. And while we are her, doctordick, I would like your assessment of my "simultaneity is in error" thesis, proved by simple algebra and physics. The bare bones argument can be compressed to three or four paragraphs. If you are amenable please let me know. I am one of those who have only a glimmer of understanding of the dynamics of "what we all want to know". I think this is tempered by an instinctive built in warning systems of 'cure all" philosophy, which yours certainly is not, but it is in that direction or so I conclude. Thanks. geistkiesel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No confusion here James R, I was speaking to doctordick when he arrives at this point in his readings. I can tell from your Australian accent who you are. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
[ Originally Posted by aetherdew Why is the question of aether considered alternative theory and not mainline physics? The fact that mainline physics has excuded aether theories, is this 100%. Are you suggesting here that mainliners have some exclusive road to determining physical law? Are you suggesting the mainliners are smarter and more knowledgeable and able to determine the truth of physical law to a higher degree of scientific integrity than some one who isn't a mainliner? Do political funding sources dictate directions of scientific scrutiny? Is it someshing about the mainliners to recruit only those best qualified to determine truth? or is it something peculiar about those recruited by the mainliners that sets them apart? I mean this in the sense do recruited mainliners enjoy these special charateristics since birth, were they born with it(?) or is it a learned and aquired talent? Do mainliners have an "Do you believe in aether theroies?" question on their employment application? Does the mere past exposure to aether theories disqualify one from tenure in the mainline? Do recruits have to sign affidavits swearing on their oath that "not now or in the past have I ever believed in any aether theroies which I hereby unconditionally reject. I file this affiidavit under the penalty of perjury knowing all the aforesaid is the truth the whole truth and to the best of my information and belief I swear them to be true and as to those matters not submitted under information and beief , I believe them to be true"?. Is the 13 papers on aether theory submitted a measure of the integrty of the description of physical law, or is it a measure of some propaganda effective-efficiency profile, or rating? Are you aware of any prolonged stretch of history when descriptions of physical law was exclusively reserved to that institution that enjoyed the right, power and willingness to burn heretics at the stake? Did I ever see your name associated with a "good riddance" attitude regarding diminishing appearance of aether theories? Do you hold those who project determination to discuss aether theories to whatever the prevailing custom happens to be, with scorn, derision, disdain? At any level of seriousness? Will you demonstrate the "void" you use as a replacement of aether theories, by whatever you use, to support a belief in the positive moral propriety of consciously excluding all, the total erasure from human contemplation and consideration, past, present and future aether theroies?
Absolutely not. It was just my ill framed attempt at a humorous response. I remembered a connection with James R and an Australian Educational Institute and assumed the first obvious choice, hence I can tell [from your computerized posts that] you have an Australian acccent, get it?. For future references, when I insult anyone there is never, I mean ever, any ambiguity in determining what ends and intentions the communication was so directed. This is such a rare event I cannot remember anything close to such dialog from myself'. I once talked back to my first wife, I suppose that could be considered an insult. She seemed miffed. If you felt insulted from my post, then please accept my humble apology. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't understand your humour, geistkiesel, but thankyou for the apology. I'm happy to forget this for now.
I don't understand it either, but that is my problem. I am posting this as a question. I authored a thread that I meant to post in the running "simultaneity' thread and attempted to edit and delete it. Can you tke a look and please advise? thanx
