Please disprove my "Theory of the Sphere Grid Aether"

[neuromaton]

/thread

Edited November 10, 2016 by neuromaton

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Rules require that people be able to participate without going through an external link, and that advertising your site is not permitted. Discuss it here

You'll need to provide evidence that all the Ba nuclei point "the same direction in space". I strongly suspect you have misunderstood a claim.

[neuromaton]

I would not have said this if it was not true.

 

try these sources

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01485

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel

https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.112503

 

edit: If you do not like external links then this will be difficult. But I can put a quote from the articles here:

 

"We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. This relates to a direction in time, proving there's a well-defined direction in time and we will always travel from past to present," Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland told Kenneth MacDonald at BBC News"

Edited November 10, 2016 by neuromaton

[swansont]

I would not have said this if it was not true.

 

try these sources

http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01485

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-discovered-a-new-nucleus-shape-and-it-could-ruin-our-hopes-of-time-travel

https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.112503

 

edit: If you do not like external links then this will be difficult. But I can put a quote from the articles here:

 

"We've found these nuclei literally point towards a direction in space. This relates to a direction in time, proving there's a well-defined direction in time and we will always travel from past to present," Marcus Scheck from the University of the West of Scotland told Kenneth MacDonald at BBC News"

Pointing to a direction is not what you claimed. You said they all point in one direction. Very different connotation.

[Sensei]

If it would be like you're interpreting it, pear-shaped object would be pointing at one direction regardless of time experiment is done.

Earth rotate (different hour), orbit Sun (different date), but direction vector would be still unchanged.

 

Imagine these arrows are representing not changing direction vector:

Then imagine how hour by hour, Earth is rotating.

At noon you're ~13,000 km closer to the Sun than at midnight.

It's enough to have small tidal effect from the Sun.

 

Deformations correlated toward Earth center, Moon center, Sun, center of galaxy should exist. It would be emanation of gravity force at quantum level.

 

[Mordred]

Nothing in these papers support an Eather. Your definetely misunderstanding them. In point of detail its more related to baryogenesis than an ether. Meaning tbe possibility of an assymmetry between matter and antimatter to account for why we have an imbalance between matter and anti matter. Which has nothing to do with an Ether itself. However even providing evidence to solving baryogenesis is a stretch which these papers do not solve. nor is it their intention.

 

 

For one thing a major detail you've completely ignored is that Bariums do not form in the early universe. they come far later. An ether would have to be present at all stages in our universe history. Barium's cannot form with stability until the average temperature is sufficiently low enough.

 

The two are completely unrelated. Just as the papers above do not relate to baryogenesis.

 

Its unfortunate vixra only requires you pay them to publish a paper. You would have been far better served having your paper reviewed first. You just wasted good money better suited into buying textbooks to learn the subject matter.

 

Your vixra article for 55 pages has a single formula. A lot of pictures and talk but no math....

If anything it tells me how little you understand the physics behind the subject matter. Rather than the opposite.

 

Not a very useful paper in the slightest. Physics is all about showing the math.

 

Sorry for being blunt, but I honestly hate seeing people wasting their money on vixra. PS most forums have banned that particular site. This one is more forgiving to that site and speculative ideas. As it believes one can learn through errors in thinking by providing proper direction and corrections. Most sites have found Speculations too problematic. I for one am glad this one values dealing with those problems.

 

It's the primary reason I support this site to any other.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Mordred

[Sensei]

For one thing a major detail you've completely ignored is that Bariums do not form in the early universe. they come far later. An ether would have to be present at all stages in our universe history. Barium's cannot form with stability until the average temperature is sufficiently low enough.

 

Barium-144 is unstable, with half-life 11.5(2) s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_barium

Barium-144 -> Lanthanum-144 + e- + Ve + 3.1233 MeV

(Lanthanum-144 is also unstable, and so on, so on)

Edited November 10, 2016 by Sensei

[Mordred]

Thanks Sensei your knowledge of atomic physics I rarely disagree with. I deal more with the fundamental particles than atomic physics. However I was referring to thermal equilibrium. ie What temperature atoms can possibly form with a modicum of stability.

 

It makes no sense to apply barium's to an ether at temperatures too high to form a hydrogen atom.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Mordred

[neuromaton]

Oh my, you guys are quick to dismiss a claim. Not very scientific if you ask me. But history has shown that this is what has to be expected if you tell people that the earth is not flat.

 

First of all, "pointing to a direction" is inaccurate. If you had read the articles then you would know that my interpretation is right, and this wording is just inadequate. @swansont

 

And yes, the vector would be roughly the same for earth, the moon, the sun and anything connected to those objects, regardless of rotation. You do realise that you are circling around the sun while rotating around the axis of earth? So your motion vector relative to the sun will always point in one direction regardless of rotation of the earth. The same works for larger correlations. @sensei

 

And your claim that an aether has to exist for all of eternity in the same fashion is only an opinion. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And you have probably looked at my theory for 20 seconds and believe you are capable of judging it. This is more than ridiculous. Your inability to deal with words, or with a more abstract approach, rather than pure math only shows your own narrowness. @mordred

[Mordred]

why wouldn't you think the ether wouldn't exist from the beginning? Perhaps you should start there. Did you want a practical application of Ether that makes sense?

 

Or more practical what is your specific definition of an ether? Obviously its different from the mainstream definition.

 

You obviously have a non standard definition of what constitutes an ether.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Mordred

[Sensei]

And your claim that an aether has to exist for all of eternity in the same fashion is only an opinion. There is no evidence to support such a claim. And you have probably looked at my theory for 20 seconds and believe you are capable of judging it. This is more than ridiculous. Your inability to deal with words, or with a more abstract approach, rather than pure math only shows your own narrowness. @mordred

In scientific theory you can have no word, while you must have math equation(s), which will explain/predict how physical system (or isolated system) is behaving.

After putting the right numbers in equation, somebody in future will be able to predict how other system will behave, in advance prior performing experiment.

 

And yes, the vector would be roughly the same for earth, the moon, the sun and anything connected to those objects, regardless of rotation. You do realise that you are circling around the sun while rotating around the axis of earth? So your motion vector relative to the sun will always point in one direction regardless of rotation of the earth. The same works for larger correlations. @sensei

Which part of scientific articles, that you gave in post #3, is showing this.. ?

BBC quote is not enough. Show it in scientific paper.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Sensei

[Mordred]

Sensei raises a key point. Words in physics means absolutley nothing.

 

Its all about predictability via mathematical modelling. Until you can do that your not doing physics.

Oh my, you guys are quick to dismiss a claim.

Present a proper physics claim that follows the basic laws of physics and we won't be so quick to dismiss it.

 

Present a proper analysis.

[neuromaton]

@ sensei: I was following a few discussions about this paper and they seemed to interpret it this way. Now that I have been looking for this in the publicly available papers there seems to be no mention of this (but those papers have very limited content) so we actually only have the statement of the physicist that I have quoted, which is unfortunately not very accurate, and can be interpreted in different ways. I will have to do more research on this. But it stands that my interpretation is a possibility. I was quick to connect this result to my theory because it follows a prediction that arises from the design. Within my theory the pear shape would only be allowed in the absolute direction of motion. So this "coincidence" was very striking to me.

 

@ mordred: There are many predictions that arise from my Aether design. But I believe this theory is being seen as something that it is not and never wanted to be. I am not interested in calculation of physical phenomena. I am interested in designing a system that works with the calculations that others have presented. To find the origin, the reason why those formulas work the way they do. Mathematics is only a tool to describe reality. But words can also describe reality. And at this point in time it should be quite obvious that we have exhausted the possibilites of the pure mathematical approach. We are still using Einstein's way of viewing reality. So I have used a different approach. It seems to me that it is actually impossible for a new theory to arise where only old methods and mindsets are being used. I believe you should be thankful for anyone who provides a different mindset because physicists have a standardized way of thinking which is most hindering for a creative process.

 

edit: To answer your question about the aether: I am actually leaving open the question how this aether might have "looked like" billions of years ago. This is not interesting to me. My theory includes the expansion of the universe, but this does not necessarily have to be retraced to a "Big Bang". You are probably aware that the concept of a Big Bang is very theoretical. I like the image that a Big Bang is presenting but it also raises new issues and there is no hard evidence for it.

Edited November 10, 2016 by neuromaton

[Sensei]

@ sensei: I was following a few discussions about this paper and they seemed to interpret it this way. Now that I have been looking for this in the publicly available papers there seems to be no mention of this (but those papers have very limited content) so we actually only have the statement of the physicist that I have quoted, which is unfortunately not very accurate, and can be interpreted in different ways. I will have to do more research on this. But it stands that my interpretation is a possibility. I was quick to connect this result to my theory because it follows a prediction that arises from the design. Within my theory the pear shape would only be allowed in the absolute direction of motion. So this "coincidence" was very striking to me.

 

So you made entire theory basing on BBC quote. I didn't know that BBC is so much opinion-forming medium..

 

[Strange]

First of all, "pointing to a direction" is inaccurate. If you had read the articles then you would know that my interpretation is right, and this wording is just inadequate. @swansont

 

Why do you assume people have not read them? I have read them and I see nothing to support your claim that they all point in the same direction.

 

Please point to a specific quotation that says this.

My theory includes the expansion of the universe, but this does not necessarily have to be retraced to a "Big Bang". You are probably aware that the concept of a Big Bang is very theoretical.

 

 

You do realise that "the big bang" is the (ongoing) expansion of space from an early hot dense state; it is not an event. So your first sentence seems contradictory.

 

What do you mean by "very theoretical"? In science, this means extremely well established and supported by lots of evidence (which the big bang model is). But you seem to be using it in a negative sense.

[neuromaton]

 

So you made entire theory basing on BBC quote. I didn't know that BBC is so much opinion-forming medium..

 

 

Actually my theory was done first. I have only recently discovered this experiment that produced the pear shaped nucleus, at that time my theory was mostly complete (in my opinion at least).

And you have asked about experiments: I am providing an experiment in my theory that can provide proof. Experiments are usually based on a thourough understanding of the physical reality, not only on calculations.

 

@ strange: see my answer above.

You do realise that "the big bang" is the (ongoing) expansion of space from an early hot dense state; it is not an event. So your first sentence seems contradictory.

 

What do you mean by "very theoretical"? In science, this means extremely well established and supported by lots of evidence (which the big bang model is). But you seem to be using it in a negative sense.

 

The most prominent proof that we have is the redshift that hints to an expansion. This does not necessarily mean that the universe must have expanded from an existence as a "point-sized" universe, this is merely an extrapolation. What it means is that the universe is expanding. The rest is interpretation without observation.

[Strange]

I have skimmed your "paper". There is no maths so I don't see how you are able to make any testable (i.e. quantifiable) predictions.

 

Perhaps you can explain how the speed of light is the same in all directions if it is moving through a medium? And the same for all observers, regardless of their state of motion with respect to this medium?

 

How is it that all attempts to measure the effects of a stationary aether, an aether that moves with the Earth and every possibility in between, have failed to detect anything?

 

 

 

 

I have saved the IP-rights to all my current new theories

 

What is it about "personal theorists" and this obsession with protecting their ideas? Bizarre. Apart from the fact no one is going to want to steal it, there is no IP protection for theories. You have copyright in that document, and that's it.

[neuromaton]

I am done with this thread btw. Thank you for your time. It is obvious that this discussion will go nowhere. How can you try to discuss something that you have not even read? This is a waste of time.

If you dont want to read it, fine. If it is too much text for you, fine. But if you try to judge it after looking at it for a few minutes, then this is pointless and a waste.

I am sure you too have better things to do. You may celebrate this as a victory. But you will probably live long enough to witness a revival of the aether.

Live long and prosper

Edited November 10, 2016 by neuromaton

[Strange]

 

Actually there is a lot of math. But not in the way that you are used to.

 

 

Please show an example of the math here so I can understand how I missed it.

 

 

 

If you can not understand my reasoning for the constant nature of the speed of light then I am at a loss.

 

I am asking you to provide that explanation here. Thank you.

 

 

 

It is thouroughly explained in the theory how Relativity leads to constant speed of light in all reference frames.

 

That would be a circular argument as relativity is based on the invariant speed of light.

 

 

 

But it will not be the same for all observers.

 

So who you say "constant speed of light in all reference frames" you don't mean invariant, you just mean constant, but possibly different?

 

But, again, the evidence is against you. (So you can consider your hypothesis falsified.)

 

 

 

 

This is something that is also an interpretation that is not backed up by experiments.

 

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

 

 

 

You will have to accept the possibility that Einstein might have been wrong in some details of his interpretation of the results of the experiments.

 

What experiments are you referring to? Einstein's work on relativity was largely just based on purely theoretical considerations.

 

 

 

Dont hurt yourself trying. It might be impossible for you.

 

Please stop making such asinine and smug comments. Thank you.

[neuromaton]

 

Please stop making such asinine and smug comments. Thank you.

 

You are right. Sorry for that. But as I have said above (the edit was done before your answer), I will not waste more time here.

 

 

(So you can consider your hypothesis falsified.)

 

Thank you. Let us leave it at that.

[swansont]

Oh my, you guys are quick to dismiss a claim. Not very scientific if you ask me. But history has shown that this is what has to be expected if you tell people that the earth is not flat.

 

First of all, "pointing to a direction" is inaccurate. If you had read the articles then you would know that my interpretation is right, and this wording is just inadequate. @swansont

 

 

Bollocks. It lacks symmetry, so you can say it points in an unambiguous direction, something you can't say about a sphere, or an oblate or prolate spheroid. (Up or down is still undetermined)

 

What you can't say is that they all point in the same direction, which is nonsense. That says they wouldn't align in a magnetic field. You would need to justify why that is.

 

The scientific burden here is on you. You are wrong until you can show that you're right, not the other way around.

[Strange]

I am done with this thread btw. Thank you for your time. It is obvious that this discussion will go nowhere. How can you try to discuss something that you have not even read? This is a waste of time.

If you dont want to read it, fine. If it is too much text for you, fine. But if you try to judge it after looking at it for a few minutes, then this is pointless and a waste.

I am sure you too have better things to do. You may celebrate this as a victory. But you will probably live long enough to witness a revival of the aether.

Live long and prosper

 

 

So you come here asking for feedback on your idea, but when asked some questions you storm off in a hissy fit and refuse to discuss it.

 

What's that all about?

[Phi for All]

 

 

So you come here asking for feedback on your idea, but when asked some questions you storm off in a hissy fit and refuse to discuss it.

 

What's that all about?

 

He asked nicely in the title, so his request was answered nicely. I'm not sure what the problem is. Surely he can't be saying, "If you'd bother looking past the misunderstandings I've based my idea on, you'll see it's quite profound"?