Bignose

There is a need to discuss it when you aren't using it right. In many mediums, pressure and density can be varied not in perfect proportion. I can take a piston full of gas and raise the temperature... the pressure will go up but the density won't. In room temperature water, pressure waves go through it with negligible changes in density. And, in fact, that equation is at the heart of the different between longitudinal waves and transverse waves. Because the medium either moves perpendicular to the wave direction or along the wave direction, the density in the medium changes in different ways. In a transverse wave, the density is relatively constant...the medium just moves up and down. But in a longitudinal wave, the density increases and decreases. The medium moves side to side and forms more dense and less dense zones. It is this difference -- as further backed up by the equation above -- that causes transverse and longitudinal waves to move at different speeds. And so now we are back to the MM experiment. If you want to claim that all of light is a medium, then why doesn't it behave like a medium? Why aren't there transverse and longitudinal waves? The MM experiment was set up precisely to shoot transverse waves in one direction and longitudinal ones in the other. It is even in the description you quoted above. Now, without knowing which way is which because of the medium, they repeated the experiment rotating it a little each time. If there was a real medium, eventually one of the orientations would have shown a significant difference between transverse and longitudinal ... when the orientation was aligned with the medium. But this wasn't found. And, since these experiments weren't conducted in the dark, light bulbs provide quite a large number of photons. There should have been plenty of this medium in the room flowing from every light source. There should have been a difference between transverse and longitudinal waves. And lastly, you're right. The fact that MM's experiment came up with a null result was a key bit of evidence that started to make people drop the medium/aether hypothesis. Further the fact that the MM experiment has been redone to extraordinary accuracy and still no effect possibly larger than 1 in 10^-17 really makes it seem unlikely. So, again, how can your idea that light is a medium stand up to these experimental results?

I have no desire to reply to the rest of that other than you did a good job of not reading what I wrote or deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote. I only want to reply to this line and say: As a self-defined 'layman' I am not sure where you think you can call the research being done today 'wrong' except for the fact that science hasn't published a theory of everything that is satisfactory to you. I guess the good news is that you don't determine the vast, vast majority of funding for scientific research out there, because I think you are demonstrably ignorant of how real research is conducted and your expectations of what should be happening are unrealistic.

Or as another alternative to Sayanara's suggestion, you could just ignore acg52... and start posting answers to the questions asked.

friendly hint to take however you want, but I don't think your warning has anything to do with not replying for 24 hours and has everything to do with what specifically the content of your replies have been.

then, by completely the same way, your opinion on the matter is also a variation on argument by authority. Several of us who have worked or do work in research environments have seen in action methods that conflict with your opinion. I guess formally, until someone surveys 1000 working scientists and ask them how much trial and error is involved this will remain unknowable. But, I don't think you can support your broad statements on how it is summarily rejected. First and foremost, you yourself said it would be busted. It was your own words. But secondly, what you are witnessing is this trial and error. You tried an idea, you presented for a very informal peer review here, and people have shown you why your idea doesn't fit into what is already known. That is, where your idea is in error compared to what is already known. In many ways, doesn't this exactly demonstrate that the system is working?

Even our written records suffer from these problems. The Bible, arguably one of the major written works of mankind, it just totally riddled with translation and transcription errors. Some deliberately put in to support or detract from some point of view at the time, some just simple mistakes. And you can't argue that the above were caused by not taking enough great pains. The simple truth is that errors -- both the intentional kind and the unintentional kind -- happen quite a lot.

I am not trashing anyone, nor do I think my position has been contradictory in any way. It has been very, very clear: the model that makes the most accurate predictions is considered the best. The 'trashing' is only to note that promotion of an idea that cannot do any better than the current ideas is at the very least premature and misplaced. That the best promotion any new idea can have is to demonstrate that is makes at least as good predictions of the current best ideas. Far, far too often a new idea is hailed as being more logical, or more beautiful, when those considerations are far lesser than predictive accuracy. So, I wish people would hold off on the promotion and exalting of an idea until has been compared to the existing best ideas. And I also wish people would accept that when their idea does worse compared to the current best ideas, that it isn't personal -- it just means that their idea isn't better than another idea. They need to accept that unless an idea makes better predictions, it really isn't all that interesting. On the question of trials and errors: I believe the computer code I wrote for my thesis underwent 11 major revisions (total re-writes) and over 200 minor revisions by the time I was finished. I didn't re-write the code over and over for fun, it was because some aspect was tried and found lacking. Trial and error is the majority of the work in my experience (both personal as well as colleagues I knew) as well.

There is not 'another' 9. There is no finite number of nines. It is infinite. There is no such thing as an 'infinite number of 9s and another 9'. It is infinite in the first place. That is what the ellipses notion means, an infinite number. Because there is not 'another' 9, there is no number between 0.9999... and 1.

correct incorrect. One of the waves is transverse, the other is longitudinal. If there is really a medium, longitudinal waves behave differently than transverse waves. This is the whole point of MM. If there is really a medium, why wasn't this difference found? Come on now, pressure & density are not always constant. Try telling that to the people who live in Florida (sea level) and the people who live in Denver. Also, there is the phenomena called weather that happens.

I don't state any such position. My stated position is that I want theories that make good predictions. And that I in no way will support any concept that makes worse predictions just for the sake of being a theory of everything. Lack of accurate predictions severely limits the usefulness of any idea. This is no different. And lastly I have always stated that when someone wants to replace a theory, they need to show up with more accurate predictions than the current theory. At face value, this is an exceptionally easy hurdle to understand: the model that makes the most accurate predictions is favored. But, do understand that the current theories, GR & QM, have been supremely successful in their respective domains. I have no doubt that there is something missing. QM & GR are known to be incorrect in that they are at least missing something. But, no self respecting scientist is going to just toss them out until there is a replacement that is at least as good. And since your supposed better idea has already been busted -- been show to be significantly worse than the ideas was have currently -- it really has very little scientific value. Scientific value is almost wholly based on how accurately predictions can be made.

But it apparently sucks as making predictions, and hence is really of very, very limited value. I'll stick with the domains where QM & GR make excellent predictions (and stay away from the known limitations) instead of having 1 single theory that doesn't make good predictions everywhere.

Wow, just wow. He actually tries to make a definitive statement, and then he tries to weasel out of it. Just admit you made a mistake. It's nothing personal, every single one of us has made mistakes. What is important is to learn from them and learn how to make our models stronger. And your Bayesian reasoning is utter nonsense. The words you use demonstrate that you don't even know how the tool works. A Bayesian analysis never 'proves' anything. It demonstrates when one scenario may be more probable than another, but that is never a 'proof'. The fact that you misunderstand this basic idea from the analysis calls into question whether the analysis is in any way correct.

No, the speed of a wave in air is dependent on the air temperature, pressure, etc. In fact, the equation you posted says exactly this! [math]a^2 = \left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s[/math]. if you treat air as a perfect gas, the isentropic gas law becomes [math]pv^{\gamma}=constant[/math]. You can plug this in to the above equations to yield [math] a = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma p}{\rho}} = \sqrt{\gamma R T}[/math]. To more easily see this dependence. And that's only for pressure waves at the speed of sound. Other pressure waves move at different speeds. There are supersonic and subsonic waves, too. Please see Anderson's Modern Compressible Flow for more information. I don't know what 'common knowledge' you are citing here, but it is dead wrong. Then you need to proffer a test where we can feel it. How can we measure its effects? Also, I want more than "MM used wrong method". I want to know details why you think it is wrong. Just stating it does not make it so. Because from my understanding, MM should have be exactly what was needed to determine if there was an electromagnetic medium.

Then please use what you think is conclusive about the geometric series to present the number that is between 0.9999.... and 1. This notion of a number between two number cuts both ways. If there is a number between a and b, then a does not equal b. But vice versa, if there are no numbers between a and b, then a must equal b. So, in order for a=0.99999 to not equal b=1, then there must be some number between them. What is that number?

So, you're saying it is a medium that doesn't behave like any other medium we know about. And that this medium apparently has no effect. So, then what's the point in calling it a medium if the effects from it being a medium can't be felt?

So if light is made up of a medium, that is in direct analogy with fluid mechanics, as fluids are made up of molecules of the fluid. That is fine. But this is what physicists were looking for when the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed. Please explain why MM got a null result, and everyone who has performed far more accurate MM experiments since them have gotten null results. And no, I don't understand why MM wouldn't work. If light is a medium, then the earth must be moving through this medium. The sun is a significant source of light (and hence this medium) after all. MM was set up to detect us moving through this medium. Because of the motion of the earth, we cannot be moving through the medium completely uniformly -- the earth rotates, for example. MM was set up to detect these non uniformities. And yes, MM and all follow up experiments got null results. Remember again here that the error bars on this null result are about 1 in 10^17 now. That's not a lot of room for fluidic effects if they exist. And even if they do exist, their influence but be awfully small. Lastly, regarding your last sentences "all subatomic particles and light made of this superfluid medium. and explain how this is possible." I don't know if that was directed at me, but I don't have to explain anything in YOUR idea. You are the one who has to answer questions about it, it is after all YOUR idea.

Ok, so if two numbers aren't the same number, there is always a number between them. If 0.9999... isn't the same as 1, please post the number that comes between them.

I don't have a model, and hence I don't have anything to defend. You do have a model, and you do have something to defend. That's what this thread is about, isn't it? YOUR model. Again, this is how science works. We don't just take your model as correct until proven wrong. We don't take ANY model as correct until it is shown that that model makes the most accurate predictions. YOU need to demonstrate to us that your model makes the best predictions out there. That's what is important.

Right on! Fight the man! The invisible dinosaur that lives my garage told me that the age of the universe is closer to 22 billion years, and I'm going to believe him until someones dissuades me too! Stampy hasn't been wrong yet! [/sarcasm] If the above was too subtle for you, this is not how science works. One does not take something as face value until proven wrong. Firstly, one makes a prediction and sees if the observed data agrees with it or not. Secondly, imatfaal showed you where at least something you predicted is wrong -- your calculations and prediction isn't dimensionally sound. This is like asking 'haw far to the market?' and being told '18 gallons.' Dimensional errors are nonsense. Your predictions have to have units that makes sense. As an example of how the above two points work, please see: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Every equation in that paper is dimensionally sound, and every equation in that paper makes a prediction that is then compared to measured reality. You would do well to follow its example.

I have no fear to admit the basic truth that you really ought to go and read an introduction to fluid mechanics book. Because if you really wanted the answers to these questions, they are discussed in many numerous texts. It is also a basic truth that I am very, very hesitant to answer because I think there is an extraordinary chance you'll just use the words out of context or deliberately misunderstand in order to fit your personal agenda. Again, please go and read an introductory fluid mechanics text. If you want recommendations, I will provide that, and if you have questions from the text, I'll answer those. You have had over a month since this thread was started; you can find many cheap fluid mechanics books on used book websites; you really don't have much of an excuse not to have looked over a basic fluid mechanics text by now, if and only if you really sought answers to these questions. I suspect that you are playing games, again, though.

Sheesh, this seems awfully melodramatic for a constant. I just don't see how renaming one constant = 2 times some other constant will make us more 'modern'. I guess I feel that it shouldn't be that hard to think around an arbitrary constant that's been generally agreed upon. If you look around you, they are everywhere. Why do we buy eggs in dozens? Why Liters? or Gallons? Why are 2x4s really 1 1/2" by 3 1/2"? And so on. It is just an arbitrary constant that everyone agreed upon so that everyone knew what was being said. It really isn't anything more than that, to me.

Yeah, that really cleared things up, guy. <if you couldn't tell, that was 100% sarcasm> I did read through your pdf, and I have read all your replies in this thread. My question remains. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to help explain why your idea is not an aether in a little more detail. Because it sure seems like it to me.

Can't tell if serious question or just trolling. ..

Mike, every subject creates is own jargon. Fans of football (both footie and American) have their own terminology. Every job I've ever had had its own set of terminology and acronyms. Using the Internet and this forum has its own language. It happens all the time. Science and every branch and offshoot of science does this as well. Almost surely could ways be set up to decode this be easier. But the terminology is not going away. So outsiders do need to put in a little work to understand, be they outside an Internet community, an outsider to fans of football, or outside the science community.

My, my, how generous of you! I'm going to try again, because I am a glutton for punishment, but here goes: The math is needed because it is the most precise way to compare prediction with reality. Words alone are fungible and subject to a wide variety of interpretations. Here is a favorite example of mine: If I walked into your room, sat a box down on a table and said "Phew! That box is heavy!" what does that really mean? Do you actually know how heavy that box is? What if I were an Olympic weightlifter? What if I were a ballet dancer? The point is that the word "heavy" means very, very different things depending on who is interpreting it. On the other hand, if I said "That box weighs 50 kg", there is no wiggle room there. There is no other interpretations possible. 50 kg is 50 kg. Not 40, not 60, and is not highly dependent upon one's perspective. Where this relates to science is if I had two models, model A predicts the box will have 49.3 kg of mass, and model B predicts the box will have 13.8 kg of mass -- one model is clearly superior to the other. And superior is because one model has 1% error and the other is over 70% error. This is the value of mathematics. It has the tools to be objective about just how accurate a prediction is. This is why I tried to encourage you to make specific predictions about how much acceleration and deflection Juno will have. If you can predict "4.5 degrees of deflection and an acceleration of 16.7 m/s^2" and those are very close to the observed numbers, you will get a great deal of attention. I would think that that is what you want, isn't it? Don't you want to be able to tout the successes of your idea? If you truly believed in your idea, shouldn't you try to actually make a good prediction with it? Leaving your "prediction" in general terms leaves a lot of room to be subject to interpretation -- and as I wrote above, leaves a lot of room open for scientists to ignore you prediction. I am just encouraging you make as meaningful a prediction as possible. Per your comments above, you don't "owe" me anything. And per my comments above, in the exact same way, by making such vague and subjective predictions, science doesn't owe you much in return.