Full list of physics concepts with circular definition?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hardly. You just wish.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You just made a totally false claim regarding results of such experiments. All such experiments (including MM) actually show a cyclic variation in the data that consistantly varies in a 12 hour period concurrent with the earth's rotation vs its orbit around the sun.

None have actually been true null. The problem is the data is only a minor fraction of a percentage of what would be expected of a static ether. What such testing shows is not there there IS no ether but that there MUST be an ether of some sort which has as yet unexplained properties.

Once again you are commiting the very act I have asserted you would. "Being unnecessary" (Which Einstein said "Gentlemen, we have not proven an ether does not exist. We have only proven we do not need one"), is not the same thing.!!

I don't. But my point is and has been the false statements and claims made by physicists. They make claim that "Einstien said so" to make it appear athoratative, when what they claim is in fact diameterically opposed to what Einstein said. That has been my point. Not as to ultimately who is right but the deliberate distortion of the record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would agree fully. thank you for conceeding my point. All this talk about "Einstien said or Einstein proved" is just hot air based on pure fabrication which is in fact diaameterically opposed to the truth. Einstein is routinely mis-quited strickly to give the air of authority that they think they need to justify the counter intuitive nature of Relativity.

You should amend your statement. It is not "My" ether. It is the universe's - perhaps Gods - HeHe.

Fortunately this isn't totally true. While the ether must comply with the observed range of data. It will also (should) place constraints on the mathematics and limit it useful range, thereby eliminating the apparent impossiblities of the mathematics at the extremes.

 

MacM,

This is now going to herald a shifting of the issue.

The issue clearly had already shifted. It was I who raised the aether in the first place in order to illustrate that a preconception about the nature of the cosmos will mislead - a point that you simply won't accept. That's fine.

Your logic seems to follow the following pattern.
1. Einstein created the theory of Relativity.
2. Everybody says that Relativity implies no aether.
3. Einstein said there was an aether.
4. Relativity is wrong, because Einstein said so.

I DID NO SUCH THING.

Where did I suggest that your information was false? I was simply stating that I had nothing to hand - no source for physics textbooks and what they say, and no source for the results of the MM experiments and their like.

Because the result as you acknowledge showed that there was no aether as it was understood by the previous generation of science.

It's disingenuous to claim that the textbooks are stating a falsehood when really it's a matter for interpretation. And as I said, Einstein may have said that Relativity made no sense without an aether, but other scientists clearly did not agree with him on this point. I assume that the cyclic results you talk of are interpreted in some other way than an aether.

I SEE no disparity. So what if Einstein thought (in 1920) that there was an aether. His authority is not accepted on this point. Neither is there a grand conspiracy of claiming that Einstein stated that there was an aether. Most books and articles (and relevant posts on this forum) will ascribe the classical view of the motion of the bodies of the solar system (and others) to Isaac Newton. However, the bulk of the work of actually calculating the motions was performed by Pierre LaPlace. Newton did not state that the moon would move in such-and-such a way, LaPlace did - but it's Newton's universal law of Gravity and his laws of motion that laid the basis for everything that LaPlace did. Now the number and names of all the researchers who have explored relativity is too great to enumerate, but Relativity was Einstein's theory. The reason he's acknowleged as a great genius was because it was Einstein who formulated both the Special and General theories of relativity. Anyone might have deduced General Relativity, from Special, but it was the originator who did it.

 

Why is it you missed the one and only stated issue.

5 - Physicists and current physics books lie and/or misrepresent the
historical fact about Relativity, Einstein and ether experiments. Respond
to the issue jplease.

Books and/or Physicists misrepresent the true history or Relativity and
ether.

Yes____ or No _____

You seem to be saying you are argueing with me in absence of any factual
information on the topic.

Unfortunately no. That is the problem. The stance is "There is no ether"
and they have declined to explore the issue further.
There was heated debate of a few highly recognized scientists over this
issue. Miller did far more tests than was done in MM and his data was much
more clear but Einstien stated "It must have been an affect of uncontrolled
temperature or something, otherwise Relativity is false and that cannot be."
But he never did any testing and ignored Miller detailed control of the
experiments and stated temperature was not the cause. But by then
Relativity had taken hold and nobody wanted to look back. Millers work was
verbally attacked without any basis and no effort to duplicate his results
were ever made.

In the unlikely event you are actually interested in the truth here is a
link:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Actually, Lorentz preceeded Einstien on the concept of Relativity, Thomson
preceeded Einstein by about 17 years on E=mc^2. Most of
Relativity was already in the scientific community before Einstien in 1905.
Einstein did however, assemble others peoples work and was successful at
making it all fit into one theory that was mathematically consistant.

Simply put he has been greatly over-rated.

 

Why must you always attempt to distort the situation.? Relativity became generally accepted after the bending of light prediction and calculation of Mercury's orbit.

But what does that have to do with the issue of him being misquoted andmaking claims which are simply false. These issues have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

What justification do you give for claiming Einstein proved there was no ether and that MM and all other ether tests have shown a "Null" result?.

That is the issue. Lets stick with it.

Here we go James. I have not raised UniKEF you have. Again just what does these questions have to do with the issue of Einstein being misquoted and falsehoods about scientific data regarding the M&M and Miller experiments?

 

Well now we are making progress. Other than to conclude that every test (and there have been many since M&M) result in the same cyclic data; however small, makes it a stretch to simply say it isn't of a high enough value to be a static ether, therefore an ether doesn't exist.

It is now far more likely that an ether does exist and it has parameters that we have not yet discovered. i.e. - linked to gravity fields (the drag movement of the ether with the planet masking the data). Or some dynamic impedance vs the old passive resistance concept.

The 100,000's of data samples that have now been accumulated; which all show the same 12 hour cycle corresponding to earth's rotation as it orbits the sun, simply cannot be ignored and claimed to not exist and ignored because it has only barely been measured.

If anything it suggest we should be accelerating our efforts to design tests that are more sensative or to test in other ways, i.e. in space away from gravity drag affect.

Indeed Millers data was taken at different locations and altitudes and a correlation to altitude shows in the results. Enough so that it is irresponsible to continue to ignore it.

 

Evidently you don't understand the phrase "to hand". I'm at work, as a matter of fact, and I'm arguing with you on the basis of my knowlege of science and science history. For example, you sent me a link to the "Orgone Lab" - I must confess that I was unaware such an institution existed, but I am aware that Wilhelm Reich's Orgone theory is firmly ensconced in the realm of pseudoscience.

We have definitely been at cross purposes, since I thought I was arguing with you about the advisability or otherwise of an actual physical model. You are arguing that Einstein's words are misrepresented by a physics establishment determined to hold onto Relativity and the absence of the aether. I've already stated that really that point of view holds little interest for me. Einstein was a realist, like you. The broad consensus of physics today is to ignore realist models. I've tried to explain that this is not out of spite or wilful blindness, but due to its lack of usefulness as a tool to actually explore. You express the opposite point of view - that it is useful - but you have no more capability of formulating such a realist physical model in a way that will correctly guide knowledge than I have of doing the same for the mathematical model.

 

I already did:

Next point:

NO. Physics textbooks say "Einstein's theory did away with the need for a luminiferous aether." The physics consensus is the same. Einstein's personal views of the presence, absence or usefulness of the aether are of no matter (particularly when expressed in 1920, the era known as the "Quantum Stone Age", and before the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation, the first thorough expression of a quantum theory). Nobody is being misrepresented when stuff they believed that turns out to be wrong is quietly not mentioned.

Your source tells us a great deal about the advisability of trusting Miller without even having to explore what he's supposed to have done (which I will do in any case). But I've no doubt (knowing the scientific method) that the statement "no attempt to duplicate his results was ever made", is just flat out false. All over the world, faculties are busy looking for stuff to get their students to do. New, testable, science is the perfect thing for them to get stuck into. Nothing in science is accepted unless it has been duplicated, and everything gets tried at least once, and probably more than once.

In 1905, Albert Einstein issued three papers. In the first one he used Max Planck's mostly disregarded theory of quanta to explain the photoelectric effect, thus placing quantum theory firmly on the pedestal of established scientific truth. In the second paper, he explained Brownian motion in terms of particles being knocked about by atoms in such a way that established the atomic theory once and for all. In the third paper, he forwarded the concept that all motions are relative but that the speed of light is constant, and the various ramifications of that; in other words the Theory of Relativity. Ten years later he utterly changed the conception of space and gravity, postulating a four-dimensional space-time with a non-Euclidean geometry that absolutely agreed with observation, including those elements not handled correctly by Newton.

Any one of these notions would have established Einstein instantly as a mind of the first rank. But to produce all four is pretty much the stamp of genius.

 

I've re-read your correspondance with JamesR regarding your view that Einstein was misrepresented. Again I think we're at cross-purposes - I think JamesR and I believe (and again I have nothing to hand specifically) that textbooks will talk about the implications of Einstein's theory - "Relativity means such and such", "Einstein showed that so and so". You think that they say, literally, "Einstein said 'There is no such thing as the aether'". I've never read such a book so you'll have to give us a reference. But, let's be clear - if you are talking about some kind of schoolbook designed to introduce kids to the concepts of physics, then yes, it might well be couched in terms of "Einstein said this" and "Einstein said that". That is a particular writing style typical of those books and nobody takes those "quotations" literally, or at least they shouldn't do.

 

Greetings Silas:
I have a test for physics students. The test involves setting a visible laser in a ridgid horizontal mount, focusing its beam on a fixed, distant target and then watching the laser dot scribe a small ellipse on the target that is repeated every 24 hours. Do you think SRT makes the prediction that such a test result is simply not possible?

Try it for yourself. Direct one or two of those faculties of which you are aware to try the test. Get their input. My test description, theory and results are posted at http://www.PhysicsNews1.com for those who are interested. I would appreciate hearing of your/their results.

Thanks for your time.

Ethan Skyler

 

Ethan,

Ethan I am heartened that someone else agrees with the fact that Lights velocity is not relative or should I say it's relative velocity is zero.
I have written an article posted as:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43559
I am no physicist but I found similarities in our contentions.

I have since heard that H Ziegler also had thoughts along those lines. [Luxon Theory]

 

i would say that things are best defined by the reason we needed to or decided to consder them to begin with (or any later) and nothing more. work should be defined as nothing more than a quantity with whatever dimensions it has....