Philosophy of Science never should have been created.

[Grumblenuts]

You didn't provide a counter-example to QM ...

I did.

don't feel bad ...

I don't.

no one can ...

I did.

that in-of-itself is perplexing ...

Not really.

most all other scientific theories have a few small exceptions ...

Hmm, what is the difference between "most all" and "most all other"?

QM has proven to be robust in all her manifestations ...

Nope.

strange but true ...

Nope.

You already busted that notion all by your lonesome.

with the exception of gravity ...

Yeah, that's a GREAT BIG GIANT EXCEPTION ... hoot-and-nanny ... when we start ignoring gravity, we're in deep deep trouble ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

The problem with the æther model is that doesn't explain the expansion of the universe ... that's what Einstein's math predicted at a time when consensus was for a steady-state universe ... so he inserted his "cosmological constant" to keep the universe from flying apart ... until Hubble showed him that the universe was ... in fact ... flying apart ...

Yeah, aside from being smart, Einstein was also very fortunate, stole other's ideas, fudged things, screwed up, and changed his mind constantly.

The math has never been at issue. There's never been an "æther model." One either accepts the existence of the Aether (the fundamental, ubiquitous field, necessarily comprised of equal parts dielectric and magnetic, i.e. counterspace and space, i.e. the capacitive and the inductive) or they don't. There is no try. Precious few modern physicists have even considered or attempted to understand it. None shall accept it until the basis of QM is exposed as just a farcical attempt to replace the Aether. Oh well, guess they'll all just have to die off while us lunatics press on.. undaunted as ever..

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm not sure you're aware of this ... but it was Linus Pauling who worked out the physics of optical isomerism ...

My degree is in Chemistry.

[giggle] ... what experiment can we perform to demonstrate the existence of the æther? ... if there's is none, then this is strictly philosophical ...

One is showing that the math works out just fine (equivalent results) without having to warp space. Eric Dollard, for one, has done so. Explain how QM allows for a single strand of wire to transmit high fidelity sound (I can link to a video of it). Explain how space can warp while possessing no properties.. by definition.. as Nikola Tesla noted long ago. Explain all the fractal nature observed in nature. Explain how power gets transferred along transmission lines without the Aether. Explain why natural constants are constant. Explain how light supposedly accelerates back to near c when exiting clear glass or plastic. The list of things QM and Relativity theory fail to explain is so endless it's embarrassing.. or should be.

 

[ReinyDays]

I did.

You didn't describe any counter-examples ... stop lying ... you have the all of chemical bonding to explain ... without field theory ... good luck ...

Yeah, aside from being smart, Einstein was also very fortunate, stole other's ideas, fudged things, screwed up, and changed his mind constantly.

Special Relativity explained the orbit of Mercury ... and for the first time ... even Newton knew his Law of Gravity failed this test ... yes, we've all stolen Copernicus' ideas ... Newton, Euler, Einstein, Darwin ... all charlatans ...

... you don't know whats relative in Special Relativity, do you? ...

My degree is in Chemistry.

You mean Alchemy ... modern chemistry refutes the æther ... what you're promoting here is pseudo-science ... spinning straw into gold ...

You should stop lying ... it's bad for your complexion ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

You didn't describe any counter-examples ... stop lying ... you have the all of chemical bonding to explain ... without field theory ... good luck ...



Special Relativity explained the orbit of Mercury ... and for the first time ... even Newton knew his Law of Gravity failed this test ... yes, we've all stolen Copernicus' ideas ... Newton, Euler, Einstein, Darwin ... all charlatans ...

... you don't know whats relative in Special Relativity, do you? ...



You mean Alchemy ... modern chemistry refutes the æther ... what you're promoting here is pseudo-science ... spinning straw into gold ...

You should stop lying ... it's bad for your complexion ...

LOL. I don't lie and you don't know shit. However, I do agree to disagree with much love and affection

 

[ReinyDays]

LOL. I don't lie and you don't know shit. However, I do agree to disagree with much love and affection

You have a college degree in Alchemy? ... that's funny ... you're into ad hominim attacks now, so you admit I'm right ... thank you ... save the emoticons, little girl, I haven't bothered to learn what those mean ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[giggle] ... what experiment can we perform to demonstrate the existence of the æther? ... if there's is none, then this is strictly philosophical ...

What Drags on Light to Limit Its Velocity to C?

 

[Grumblenuts]

... you don't know whats relative in Special Relativity, do you? ...

Here, I'll teach you some basic physics:
E=mc^2 immediately appears whenever you look up "Special Relativity."

E stands for energy and is most often assigned units in Joules.

1 Joule is first defined as "the amount of work done when a force of 1 newton displaces a mass through a distance of 1 metre in the direction of the force applied." - Wikipedia.
Notice no time dependence as of yet, but wait..

1 Newton "the force which gives a mass of 1 kilogram an acceleration of 1 metre per second per second." - Wikipedia.

Suddenly two time units mysteriously appear. WTF? But wait.. hang on.. Sounds a bit convenient and familiar, no? If you drop anything at sea level and within a vacuum, it's going to begin falling at that exact rate of acceleration: 1 meter per second per second. So 1 Newton is just the force gravity exerts upon any mass at sea level within a vacuum. Could be 2 kilograms or a feather. Doesn't matter, right? Same result. WTF?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, so back in reality.. While one Newton is now defined as "the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in the direction of the applied force," there's actually nothing about it requiring a vacuum, nor even STP for that matter. Newton claimed F = ma. Force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration and is proportional to both no matter the specific direction, .

That is, Earth's gravity really has nothing to do with it. They chose 1 Nm/s^2 for SI unit simplicity, but g (the standard acceleration due to gravity) has actually been measured and defined as "9.80665 m/s^2" in SI units. Using F=mg then yields F=9.80665 Kgm/s^2. It does not =1.

Newton's most famous equation, F=ma, or his "Second law of motion" does not pertain specifically to Earth's gravity. Indeed, Newton's third

law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton's law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton's place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates their centers. Newton's conclusion about the magnitude of gravitational forces is summarized symbolically as

Since the gravitational force is directly proportional to the mass of both interacting objects, more massive objects will attract each other with a greater gravitational force. So as the mass of either object increases, the force of gravitational attraction between them also increases. If the mass of one of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is doubled. If the mass of one of the objects is tripled, then the force of gravity between them is tripled. If the mass of both of the objects is doubled, then the force of gravity between them is quadrupled; and so on.

Since gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the separation distance between the two interacting objects, more separation distance will result in weaker gravitational forces. So as two objects are separated from each other, the force of gravitational attraction between them also decreases. If the separation distance between two objects is doubled (increased by a factor of 2), then the force of gravitational attraction is decreased by a factor of 4 (2 raised to the second power). If the separation distance between any two objects is tripled (increased by a factor of 3), then the force of gravitational attraction is decreased by a factor of 9 (3 raised to the second power).

Now notice how any mention of time is completely absent from the above. Mass and distance are all that matter. So what's actually relevant about Special Relativity? Nothing. Past and future time are abstractions. What's real is the present.

Special Relativity explained the orbit of Mercury

from our perspective over time. Constantly observing Mercury's orbit in real time is of limited practical use. Newton explained the orbit of Mercury from either Mercury's or the Sun's POV at any moment.

Special or General? Modern Physicists can't seem to agree upon much else. Btw, anyone suggesting Aether theory doesn't explain precession clearly knows no Aether theory.

 

[ReinyDays]

Here, I'll teach you some basic physics:
E=mc^2 immediately appears whenever you look up "Special Relativity."

That's the mass/energy conversion equation ... is this what Middle Schools say is special relativity or somethin' ... yeesh ...

Actual scientists use this:

Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... duh ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's the mass/energy conversion equation ... is this what Middle Schools say is special relativity or somethin' ... yeesh ...

Actual scientists use this:

Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... duh ...

See my thumb? Me neither! But if you really wished to understand relativity (and the Aether), this would be a great place to start:

Full text of "The Quantum Key By Aaron Murakam"

Afterwards even Einstein would view you like

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Okay, so back in reality.. While one Newton is now defined as "the force needed to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared in the direction of the applied force," there's actually nothing about it requiring a vacuum, nor even STP for that matter. Newton claimed F = ma. Force is equal to the product of mass and acceleration and is proportional to both no matter the specific direction, .

That is, Earth's gravity really has nothing to do with it. They chose 1 Nm/s^2 for SI unit simplicity, but g (the standard acceleration due to gravity) has actually been measured and defined as "9.80665 m/s^2" in SI units. Using F=mg then yields F=9.80665 Kgm/s^2. It does not =1.

Newton's most famous equation, F=ma, or his "Second law of motion" does not pertain specifically to Earth's gravity. Indeed, Newton's third

Now notice how any mention of time is completely absent from the above. Mass and distance are all that matter. So what's actually relevant about Special Relativity? Nothing. Past and future time are abstractions. What's real is the present.

from our perspective over time. Constantly observing Mercury's orbit in real time is of limited practical use. Newton explained the orbit of Mercury from either Mercury's or the Sun's POV at any moment.

Special or General? Modern Physicists can't seem to agree upon much else. Btw, anyone suggesting Aether theory doesn't explain precession clearly knows no Aether theory.

The Big Apple

Since gravity is linear, why does its equation contain a square? That implies another dimension is involved, the fourth spatial dimension, where the gravitons are.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Big Apple

Since gravity is linear, why does its equation contain a square? That implies another dimension is involved, the fourth spatial dimension, where the gravitons are.

There are unlimited potential coordinates in space, e.g. length, width, height, lateral and vertical angles from any given reference plane, polar.. etc.

There exists but one spatial dimension: Space. Counterspace is dimensionless. "Gravitons" are fairy dust. The Aether itself creates gravity directly. We experience it as an anti-field Aether modality. A broadcasting antenna produces a positive or outward directed field of radio wave EM pressure upon everything else. The Aether does the opposite, producing inward pressure upon every mass and all of the observed gravitational effects when combined, including what are described as "gravity waves" from binary stars, black holes, and so forth. It would be weird if we were unable to detect any such distant field perturbations.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Since gravity is linear, why does its equation contain a square?

It's linear only when considering exactly two mass centers (or "centers of gravity"). And square because each mass contributes an equal pull force. From our perspective that is. From the Aether's POV it's a push force. The Aether broadcasts from every direction at once, pushing us into the Earth and the Earth into us simultaneously and at the same time too.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's linear only when considering exactly two mass centers (or "centers of gravity"). And square because each mass contributes an equal pull force. From our perspective that is. From the Aether's POV it's a push force. The Aether broadcasts from every direction at once, pushing us into the Earth and the Earth into us simultaneously and at the same time too.

Space Itself Was Created at the Original Eruption, Along With Matter, Energy, Light, and a Fifth Element

The Aether is too weak to do that by itself, so it needs a force from an underlying dimension to back it up. Although a shadow is only a negative illusion of a projection, the exospace projection is positive and real. It can be detected only by its effect.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Space Itself Was Created at the Original Eruption, Along With Matter, Energy, Light, and a Fifth Element

The Aether is too weak to do that by itself, so it needs a force from an underlying dimension to back it up. Although a shadow is only a negative illusion of a projection, the exospace projection is positive and real. It can be detected only by its effect.

Nonsense. All energy emerges from counterspace, not some "force from an underlying dimension". Generally half the Aether is counterspace / half space. All matter exists in space. No matter? Nature abhors a vacuum (local or otherwise). Then you get a "singularity."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Nonsense. All energy emerges from counterspace, not some "force from an underlying dimension". Generally half the Aether is counterspace / half space. All matter exists in space. No matter? Nature abhors a vacuum (local or otherwise). Then you get a "singularity."

Forces and Fields Exist Outside of Space

 

[Grumblenuts]

Forces and Fields Exist Outside of Space

Energy takes up no space, i.e. counterspace. The Aether (the ubiquitous, fundamental field) also generates ("empty") space and all that takes up space (matter). All energy exchange occurs between spatial or "magnetic" entities due to local field strength differentials or "dielectric" "dipoles" that apparently disturb the general nature of the Aether not at all.

 

[Grumblenuts]

One may be strongly tempted to describe counterspace as "inverse space" especially after viewing something like crystalline bismuth:

Alas no. It depicts a funneling down of the spatial into pure energy or counterspace. Alternatively and better, it shows the hyperboloid emergence or growth of the spatial fueled by the energy confined within counterspace. The Casimir effect provides the most obvious evidence. Cavitation as well.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Energy takes up no space, i.e. counterspace. The Aether (the ubiquitous, fundamental field) also generates ("empty") space and all that takes up space (matter). All energy exchange occurs between spatial or "magnetic" entities due to local field strength differentials or "dielectric" "dipoles" that apparently disturb the general nature of the Aether not at all.

Conformists Up to Their Old Tricks

Trying to contain every phenomenon within this universe sounds too much like the "epicycles" used to explain heliocentrism.