The Einstein Cranks:

Futilitist said:
4) If a neutrino has mass and light doesn't, how come a neutrino will go through a mountain but light won't?
Click to expand...
BECAUSE there are ELECTRONS in the OUTER SHELLS of ATOMIC STRUCTURE, and PHOTONS are the EM force carrying BOSON. It would be impossible for a photon not to interact with the first few layers of atoms in a manner which would keep it from penetrating any further, other than to be absorbed and increase the temperature of the mountain.

A NEUTRINO, on the other hand, ONLY INTERACTS WITH THE ELECTROWEAK part of ATOMIC STRUCTURE (a MUCH smaller target), AND SIMPLY CHANGES MODE OF OSCILLATION. Unless it encounters a nucleus of something like a chlorine atom (which it will change into argon), it just keeps on going.

Or did you have some other explanation in connection with an aether?
 
NOTE: Following posts #42-#55 are an in-sequence restoration following crash. Minor formatting changes unavoidable

Schmelzer, Nov 4, 7:35PM
About my ether model:
danshawen said: ↑
In that case, tell us all about the physical properties of this aether. What is it made of?
Click to expand...
It is made of a lattice of small cells, and some other material between them, like in my avatar.

All forces (EM, weak, strong, gravity) as well as all matter (the quarks, leptons and neutrinos) are fields (as described in quantum field theory) which describe some properties of the ether.
danshawen said: ↑
What justifies a distortion of clocks "by the aether"? What property of the aether allows it to do that?
Click to expand...
The wave equation. All local changes of properties of the ether are distributed using the same wave equation.

Once all what is distributed through space and time follows the same wave equation, it also fulfills the symmetries of this wave equation. This is, essentially, the symmetry we know from EM theory, thus, the Lorentz symmetry. And clocks which have a Lorentz symmetry have time dilation.
danshawen said: ↑
What is this aether moving or stationary with respect to? How fast is it moving? Do you understand any actual relativity at all?​
Click to expand...
​
The ether is moving with velocity vi=g0i/g00 relative to absolute space, as described by preferred coordinates. These preferred coordinates are known in GR as harmonic coordinates.

My ether theory has been published in peer-reviewed journals, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009), and you can be quite sure that papers of people who don't understand relativity at all would not have survived the peer review.
danshawen likes this.
Click to expand...
 
exchemist, Nov 4, 10:22PM
Schmelzer said: ↑
About my ether model:

It is made of a lattice of small cells, and some other material between them, like in my avatar.

All forces (EM, weak, strong, gravity) as well as all matter (the quarks, leptons and neutrinos) are fields (as described in quantum field theory) which describe some properties of the ether.


The wave equation. All local changes of properties of the ether are distributed using the same wave equation.

Once all what is distributed through space and time follows the same wave equation, it also fulfills the symmetries of this wave equation. This is, essentially, the symmetry we know from EM theory, thus, the Lorentz symmetry. And clocks which have a Lorentz symmetry have time dilation.

The ether is moving with velocity vi=g0i/g00 relative to absolute space, as described by preferred coordinates. These preferred coordinates are known in GR as harmonic coordinates.

My ether theory has been published in peer-reviewed journals, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009), and you can be quite sure that papers of people who don't understand relativity at all would not have survived the peer review.
Click to expand...
To be accurate, arXiv is not peer-reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv, though the other two are.
 
danshawen, Nov 4, 10:32PM
Schmelzer said: ↑
About my ether model:

It is made of a lattice of small cells, and some other material between them, like in my avatar.

All forces (EM, weak, strong, gravity) as well as all matter (the quarks, leptons and neutrinos) are fields (as described in quantum field theory) which describe some properties of the ether.


The wave equation. All local changes of properties of the ether are distributed using the same wave equation.

Once all what is distributed through space and time follows the same wave equation, it also fulfills the symmetries of this wave equation. This is, essentially, the symmetry we know from EM theory, thus, the Lorentz symmetry. And clocks which have a Lorentz symmetry have time dilation.

The ether is moving with velocity vi=g0i/g00 relative to absolute space, as described by preferred coordinates. These preferred coordinates are known in GR as harmonic coordinates.

My ether theory has been published in peer-reviewed journals, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 (2009), and you can be quite sure that papers of people who don't understand relativity at all would not have survived the peer review.
Click to expand...
Yet evidently, at least one person who did not understand relativity has passed peer review somewhere, and I suspect there are a great deal more.

Take a hard look at your avatar. You have constructed it using Euclidean geometry. You have co-opted Schroedinger's wave equation to do something that is well beyond its limits. It is true that it works well to describe sublight electrodynamics, particularly in solids. It was never intended to be used the way you are trying to use it. It doesn't fit any reality other than the mangled mathematical model you seem to have gotten into your head.

And to add insult to injury, you actually referenced absolute space (or is it merely a quantum field?) in your own description of your model. Was that in your paper also? Some peer reviewer just glazed over when they read it, is my guess. This is what happens when you read an awful lot of self-similar reading material.

Einstein was a genius. Being the most prominent traitor against naziism, Hitler and the third reich does not diminish this for anyone who does not identify with the cruelty of his inbred master race. Hitler had an uncle who was Jewish, as was the woman he married just before ending their lives by suicide, at least sufficiently for them to be shipped to the same concentration camps he would have sent Einstein if he had remained in Germany.

And none of this detracts from the simple fact that Einstein, for all of the other things people may find fault with in his life, was manifestly right. Since 1905.

Verstehen?
 
Schmelzer, Nov 5, 1:07AM
exchemist said: ↑
To be accurate, arXiv is not peer-reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv, though the other two are.
Click to expand...
The arxiv links are links to the peer-reviewed papers. In the journals themself they are behind paywalls, on arxiv they remain free.
danshawen said: ↑
Take a hard look at your avatar. You have constructed it using Euclidean geometry. You have co-opted Schroedinger's wave equation to do something that is well beyond its limits. It is true that it works well to describe sublight electrodynamics, particularly in solids. It was never intended to be used the way you are trying to use it. It doesn't fit any reality other than the mangled mathematical model you seem to have gotten into your head.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your objection makes no sense at all. I propose a fundamental theory. The most fundamental theory is always based on postulates, hypothesis, they are an invention of the human mind. What makes it a physical theory, connects it with physics, is not that the postulated fundamental objects and equations have some justification from God, political authorities, or intentions of scientists who have used similar equations earlier. Therefore, claims that these justifications do not hold for my theory are simply nonsense.

What matters is that I can derive from the postulates predictions about what we can observe. And, in particular, in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 the equations of my theory of gravity are derived. And these equations give, in the quite natural limit Ξ,Υ→0, the Einstein equations of GR. This is what matters.
exchemist said: ↑
Verstehen?​
Click to expand...
​
Пошел ты
 
paddoboy, Nov 5, 6:03AM
danshawen said: ↑
And none of this detracts from the simple fact that Einstein, for all of the other things people may find fault with in his life, was manifestly right. Since 1905.
Click to expand...
The prime reason why we have so many and so varied attempted modifications/refutations of his great works.
With some, it's simply the malady we in Australia call "tall poppy syndrome", with a touch or two of delusions of grandeur and anti science fanaticism.

SR/GR will be standing unchanged when this lot are long gone!
 
arfa brane, Nov 5, 1:18PM
I'm interested in how quantum information science is a kind of proof that certain symmetries pertain to every point in spacetime, and these imply the existence of qubits. Quantum information is a computational resource, then. What about gravitational "information", and what does it look like?
Or should the question be, is gravity a computational resource?

Will information theory be any assistance in finding a theory that does connect QM to gravity? I think there are still some surprises ahead.
 
exchemist, Nov 5, 9:07PM
brucep said: ↑
It was peer reviewed long ago but they ran out of folks to keep up with it. So they instituted the system of recommendation they have now. Keeps the cranks out. For me it's a great resource.
Click to expand...
Sure, don't disagree, just want to keep the record straight about peer review as such.
 
Schmelzer, Nov 5, 9:28PM
brucep said: ↑
It was peer reviewed long ago but they ran out of folks to keep up with it. So they instituted the system of recommendation they have now. Keeps the cranks out. For me it's a great resource.
Click to expand...
No, it was never peer-reviewed. It was initially completely open. The recommendation system came later. (Recently they seem to have started some more quite arbitrary censorship, but this is not a peer-review.)
 
Schmelzer, Nov 6, 3:43AM
Yes, and they were unable to explain why. They initially tried all the formal reasons for rejections which were available, not of them obviously was applicable to me. After this they simply rejected it. Obviously for containing the e-word.
 
brucep, Nov 6, 12:46PM
exchemist said: ↑
Sure, don't disagree, just want to keep the record straight about peer review as such.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to say something good about arxiv. Good source for somebody like me. I can't remember having read any nonsense published at arxiv so I trust it. Plus most the great papers eventually get published at arxiv.
 
Q-reeus said:
exchemist, Nov 5, 9:58PM

Have you had a submission rejected, then?
Click to expand...
Higgs, Englert, Kibble and Brout also had a paper rejected, over 50 years ago. If there is shame to be had there, it is with the peer reviewers, not the paper that 50 years later was proven to be correct and is again shaking the foundations of the mathematically derived physics world that largely ignored the effect of the paper during the intervening half century. Stephen Hawking bet against the discovery of the particle it posits. No doubt, he was just another one of those peer reviewers.

Frankly, it makes one wonder just how many first rate peer reviewed papers were rejected and never published because they were politically unpopular with someone influential or with their own agenda at the time they were submitted. If Hooke had been a peer reviewer, we might never have seen any part of a published version of Principia.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Frankly, it makes one wonder just how many first rate peer reviewed papers were rejected and never published because they were politically unpopular with someone influential or with their own agenda at the time they were submitted. If Hooke had been a peer reviewer, we might never have seen any part of a published version of Principia.
Click to expand...


A good point you make. Extending on that though, I firmly am of the opinion that just as you can't keep a good man down, and relevant scientific paper that purports a view or theory that has benefits, will not be subdued for too long.
If for example your own example of Hooke and Newton's Principia had of taken place, seriously how long do you believe it would have been lost?
 
paddoboy said:
If for example your own example of Hooke and Newton's Principia had of taken place, seriously how long do you believe it would have been lost?
Click to expand...
It wasn't until after Newton's death and examination of his private writings that we learned about his blasphemous critique of the new translation of the Greek texts canonized in the pages of the New Testament King James Version. The Holy Trinity (and Newton was supposed to also be a lay priest at Trinity College) was, according to Newton, nothing more or less than the conversion of Christianity to Greek Polytheism. Newton never wrote about why he declined the commission by the King to calculate a canonical date of creation for the same text. Either or both of these blasphemous transgressions would have been sufficient cause to have Newton executed, so it is not a stretch to think that he might well have done the same with his more famous writing. It's a good thing Hooke never found out Newton's true beliefs. It might have taken another 400 years for anyone less than Newton to work out the mathematical details of his three laws of motion, calculus and gravitation.

Newton could not have known (because he was not a Jew) that there actually was a substantial amount of Greek culture including some things that resembled Polytheism which got included in the Torah (the first five books of Moses) as an indirect result of Judaism being conquered by Alexander the Great, and there was an attempt made by the Greeks to assimilate Jews into Greek culture. As the story goes, the attempt at assimilation was not entirely successful. Even the story Jews get about the celebration of the Mennorah lights is deliberately a bit obscure about what the lights really represented (enlightenment), no doubt an attempt to confuse the motives of those who were so determined to assimilate them.

It was not Greek enlightenment those lights represented.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top