Blasphemy (Aether, really)

[quickquestion]

"We"? You stated earlier you were not talking about the same aether as in the OP.

 

The experiment that showed we were moving through the aether was Bradley's observation of stellar aberration. If you read through the thread you will find the three previous times I mentioned this.

Ok. I will go back to my aether thread then and research this Bradley thing.

[Strange]

I dont object to it. I agree that Michelson Morley disproved lumi-aether wind.

 

I believe in aether that goes with the Earth. Swansont said it was disproven 300 years ago, but I have no idea what experiment they are talking about.

 

 

The various experiments that are unable to detect any sort of aether have been repeatedly stated in this (and every other similar tedious crackpot thread).

The michelson morley experiment was not 300 years ago, so stop trolling.

 

 

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

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=modern+tests+of+lorentz+invariance

 

Let us know when you have found the flaws in every single one of those.

I believe in aether that goes with the Earth.

 

 

And the evidence for this is, what, exactly? Or is it a religious belief?

Einstein was a layman.

 

 

Bollocks. He had a PhD in physics and had published many papers of fundamental concepts in physics (including one that would win him a Nobel Prize) before he published his theory of relativity. He also provided detailed mathematical models with testable predictions. He didn't just iterate beliefs that are unsupported by evidence.

In addition to finding multiple web sites confirming the expansion rates, I found this one that confirms to me that Hawkings continual reference to god in his book and big bangs is a little twisted.

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology4.html

 

 

That is a an article by a well known Creationist. So, without even reading it, I can be fairly certain it is full of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and outright lies. Because, apparently, the Creationist God approves of that sort of thing.

[swansont]

Einstein was a layman. His professor said he was a lazy-dog at math.

Einstein had finished his Phd when he published his special relativity work. How about more fact, and less fiction.

[swansont]

This equation as I understand it is referring to rest mass or Einstein's mass–energy relationship which is not an actual mass, it is an equivalence and can be expressed in terms of pressure and volume, or an inertia. It is an energy equivalence not an actual mass, which can be weighed in the traditional sense.

 

 

The m in the equation is the rest mass. The mass a particle (or system) has while at rest.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Red-shift is proportional to distance. So it wouldn't become infinite until they were infinitely far away.

Aether theory was dispelled before I was born, or at least it was shown not to be completely accurate, along with Newtons equations. The aether was thought to make up all matter and carry all known forces.

 

Things change:)

 

When I graduated a lot of years ago light speed was stipulated as a maximum speed that could not be exceeeded, red shift and blue shifts never indicated anything was travelling faster than light speed, physicicists said there was an unbelievable edge to the universe and came up with an imagined big bang to explain all matter and the beginning of time(which I do not believe and never have). Einsteins equations have had to be adjusted to take into account new observations.

 

Things change.

 

Now we have galaxies doing 3 times light speed disapearing over event horizons, undetectable dark matter and an accelerating universe. Including string theory. Strings that come out of no where and make up all matter and carry all forces. The big bangers are still invoved in physics(I still dont believe them).

 

Things change.

 

We briefly looked at the red shift and an event horizon for things moving away from us at above light speed. When things are moving towards us at above light speed how blue shifted can they get, before they become invisible to us.

 

Heavy elements can only be formed in super high gravitatinal fields or under immense pressure. What happens when a sun doing 3 times light speed collides with a sun going in the opposite direction relatively speaking. Is this not a more likely scenario for a humungus big bang that has most likely happened multiple times in the history of the universe.

 

Stars in the Andromeda galaxy hitting stars in the milky way, may create some big bangs if they happen. The universe is a car crash, how could you tell the difference between different types of big bangs.

 

E = mc² seems a little lacking under this scenario. This is more believable to me than a bing bang from nothing, perhaps the big bangers just didnt see a galactic collision coming

 

Any sentient thoughts on this would be appreciated.

 

I initially asked a question under ionization of gases, something I am interested in, because I did not know how to calculate the relativistic effects, into two moving charges going in oppposite directions along wires, no one answered. I guess this little idea is a harder question to answer.

 

Thank you all for your input.

[quickquestion]

First of all, I find energy equations to be lacking and inconsistent.

 

e=mc² is meaningless. It actually means if the velocity is zero. But velocity is relative. So if two velocities are zero, then where is the energy. The actual equation is e=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

 

Same with KE and PE.

Science textbooks tell me PE=height*gravity.

And KE=.5*m*v²

 

 

 

Then how is PE=height*gravity, which is a linear function. Clearly it should be a non-linear function because KE has exponential features of velocity.

 

 

 

The various experiments that are unable to detect any sort of aether have been repeatedly stated in this (and every other similar tedious crackpot thread).

 

 

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

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=modern+tests+of+lorentz+invariance

 

Let us know when you have found the flaws in every single one of those.

First of all, I don't believe in Lorentz aether. Lorentz predicted a stationary type of aether that I don't believe in. My aether is different.

Second, your challenge is inherently unfair. You are asking me to challenge a bunch of expert Phd conclusions that were made in 100 years using tech I don't have. Not to mention, I have clinical depression which is proven to limit my abilities. I have zero-social contact or support and so I am basically someone living on an island, with nothing but Internet. And you want me to fight fair and fight of a conglomerate of Phds who had 100 years of tech education and Research. Vs. Someone on an island that has no real-life social support or contact. Vs. a team of phds that can teach and support each others advanced science. That isn't fair.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[DrKrettin]

 

Second, your challenge is inherently unfair. You are asking me to challenge a bunch of expert Phd conclusions that were made in 100 years using tech I don't have. Not to mention, I have clinical depression which is proven to limit my abilities. I have zero-social contact or support and so I am basically someone living on an island, with nothing but Internet. And you want me to fight fair and fight of a conglomerate of Phds who had 100 years of tech education and Research. Vs. Someone on an island that has no real-life social support or contact. Vs. a team of phds that can teach and support each others advanced science. That isn't fair.

 

Then why do you persist in arguing about issues which are clearly way above your abilities? That's not fair either, because people on this forum spend their time trying to argue with you when they could be doing something useful instead.

[quickquestion]

 

Then why do you persist in arguing about issues which are clearly way above your abilities? That's not fair either, because people on this forum spend their time trying to argue with you when they could be doing something useful instead.

My underlying praxis is that, science has gone off on a tangent, and they have solidified this tangent with Einstein.

 

Consider it like the ancient greeks, they had great mathematicians and philosophers, Plato invented a thing called shape of matter. He said Fire was a pyramid shape. And this was a tangent that they based their science on for centuries, and they solidified their tangent with so much mathematics and logic that when Democritus came along and said Plato's theory was false, noone wanted to embrace his theory of atoms because he didn't have the power to overturn years of mathematics devoted to false conclusions.

 

Either Im wrong or Im right. I proved experimentally that time-dilation is a paradox. This should be at the very least, enough. Whether or not I can over turn 100 years of society's best savants devoting their work to false ideas is another story.

[studiot]

 

 

Science textbooks tell me PE=height*gravity.

 

My height is 1.80000 metres

 

Does this determine my potential energy?

 

[quickquestion]

 

My height is 1.80000 metres

 

Does this determine my potential energy?

 

Newtonian physics is an approximation. Useful for making crude ancient weapons.

PE is useful for dropping watermelons. Actually, I'm not actually sure what it's useful for. What, exactly, is it useful for?

 

Science textbooks have a lot of nonsense in them. Like saying nobel-prize pulsars prove Einstein.

Edited April 23, 2017 by quickquestion

[swansont]

I proved experimentally that time-dilation is a paradox. This should be at the very least, enough.

You did an actual experiment? What kind of atomic clock(s) did you use?

[Strange]

Second, your challenge is inherently unfair. You are asking me to challenge a bunch of expert Phd conclusions that were made in 100 years using tech I don't have.

 

 

But you must have a reason you think they are all wrong. You must have some evidence or theoretical justification.

 

Surely?

 

Or are you just saying they are wrong because you think it makes you look clever, even though you make it clear with every post that you don't have a clue.

Either Im wrong or Im right. I proved experimentally that time-dilation is a paradox.

 

 

No you didn't. You made up a bit of gibberish, claimed it was relativity and that therefore the theory must be wrong. All this proves is your profound ignorance.

[quickquestion]

You did an actual experiment? What kind of atomic clock(s) did you use?

A thought experiment using logic and reason.

 

Sadly I don't have the tech to measure electron collisions.

 

 

 

 

But you must have a reason you think they are all wrong. You must have some evidence or theoretical justification.

 

Surely?

 

Or are you just saying they are wrong because you think it makes you look clever, even though you make it clear with every post that you don't have a clue.

 

 

No you didn't. You made up a bit of gibberish, claimed it was relativity and that therefore the theory must be wrong. All this proves is your profound ignorance.

Strange Ive decided it will be easier for both of us if you debate me on this issue in the other topic. I have posted some relevant response to you in the other topic just now.

[swansont]

A thought experiment using logic and reason.

 

 

Thought experiments can't show a theory to be false. All you've done is show improper logic.

[Bignose]

First of all, I find energy equations to be lacking and inconsistent.

you can think what you want, I guess, but the fact they they work as they do is validated over and over and over every second of every day.

 

Like, airplanes take off, cars work, the electricity that is powering the device you are typing this dreck on works, the satellites that make GPS work, etc. etc. etc.

 

Conservation of energy -- and the equations for the known different forms of energy -- are among the most validated equations we have. Maybe the single most. Your personal opinions on them are not worth the electrons it took to display that on my screen.

 

In short, it is going to take an awful lot of extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim. A helluva lot more than just a thought experiment. I shall not be holding my breath waiting for you to provide some given your history of making claims and not being able to substantiate them.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Bignose

[Sensei]

First of all, I find energy equations to be lacking and inconsistent. e=mc² is meaningless.

In other thread, I showed where energy equations are used to calculate something useful, and measurable by devices, in alpha decay of unstable isotope:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104711-we-are-in-the-outflow-of-a-universal-black-hole/page-2#entry982413

 

e=mc² is meaningless. It actually means if the velocity is zero. But velocity is relative. So if two velocities are zero, then where is the energy. The actual equation is e=mc²/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

When you use v=0, in equation E=mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), you are getting E=mc^2 exactly..

Because when v=0, gamma is 1.

 

Same with KE and PE.

Science textbooks tell me PE=height*gravity.

And KE=.5*m*v²

 

Then how is PE=height*gravity, which is a linear function. Clearly it should be a non-linear function because KE has exponential features of velocity.

It's PE=m*g*h

You forgot to multiply by m.

 

There was experiment, in which bullets were fired from gun, at water target.

Scientists measured temperature of water prior experiment, fired bullets, dozen/hundreds of them.

They decelerated after impact, and transferred their kinetic energy to water.

Then water was mixed to have uniform temperature distribution.

Temperature of water was measured again after experiment

 

From definition of calorie

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

we know that 4.1855 Joules of energy is needed to increase temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree.

 

The same experiment can be repeated with object released and hitting water due to gravitation from some well known height.

 

PE=mass of object [kg] * g * height

Divide by ( 4.1855 J/g*K * mass of water [grams] )

And you will receive relative increase of temperature of water dT.

 

Even if you wouldn't know equation for PE, you would get it straight away from above experiment, repeated for couple test masses of objects, and couple test heights.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Sensei

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

quickquestion,

 

It would be best if you kept your own pet ideas about aether in your own thread, so as to avoid confusion.

[Handy andy]

We briefly looked at the red shift and an event horizon for things moving away from us at above light speed. When things are moving towards us at above light speed how blue shifted can they get, before they become invisible to us. ???

 

Heavy elements can only be formed in super high gravitatinal fields or under immense pressure. What happens when a sun doing 3 times light speed collides with a sun going in the opposite direction relatively speaking. Is this not a more likely scenario for a humungus big bang that has most likely happened multiple times in the history of the universe.

 

Stars in the Andromeda galaxy hitting stars in the milky way, may create some big bangs if they happen. The universe is a car crash, how could you tell the difference between different types of big bangs.

 

E = mc² seems a little lacking under this scenario. This is more believable to me than a bing bang from nothing, perhaps the big bangers just didnt see a galactic collision coming

 

Any sentient thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[swansont]

What happens when a sun doing 3 times light speed collides with a sun going in the opposite direction relatively speaking.

 

 

Can't happen. The closing speed of one relative to the other in such a scenario cannot exceed c.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Can't happen. The closing speed of one relative to the other in such a scenario cannot exceed c.

Thank you for responding in a sentient fashion

 

That is what I thought and had been taught, in addition to which I was taught as something is accelerated to light speed it would attain an infinite mass and therefore couldnt happen. But it seems the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light, I had thought this was 0.3c and had not given it much thought. I was corrected by science geek it is 3c. I googled it, and it appears at the edge of the visible universe where light is red shifted it diminishes and disapears from view over an event horizon, a bit like looking out of an apparent black hole Galaxies doing just 0.3c towards us would give of blue shifted light, I asked the question of how would matter or light be blue shifted from a galaxy coming towards us at above light speed, and what would happen if it hit us. The George and Gracie analogy often put forward to explain relativity and light seems to fall over under this reasoning. Does Relativity only apply in our galaxy, but when a galaxy coming towards us at approaching light speed hits us, things maybe go "big bang" From the many sites I googled it seems c is no longer a limit. But obviously within those galaxies doing in excess of c with respect to us. Life if it exists goes on as normal, and things are relative to their motion.

 

Would the maximum frequency anything can be blue shifted by be governed by the plank length perhaps. How blue shifted can a photon of light be before it isnt a photon anymore or vanishes. Do they become neutrinos ??? confusion.

 

Worse still could dark matter galaxies be hurtling towards that we cant even detect how can we detect something faster than the speed of light except by collision. Neutrinos are so small they just go straight through the planet.

 

Does any one have any sentient views on the above, other than c is the max relative speed we can perceive anything at and anything above this should be ignored. If so what is happening at the edge of the universe:)

 

Kind Rgds

 

Andy

 

Ps does anyone have an opinion on my ionisation thread I started under projects and amateur science. I was after a little pointer in the right direction with the math.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

In the expansion, the recession is due to increasing amounts of space existing between distant points, not due to anything actually moving faster than c.

[Handy andy]

In the expansion, the recession is due to increasing amounts of space existing between distant points, not due to anything actually moving faster than c.

So if the space existing between points is expanding at c this is OK. The galaxies being points are moving in reference to each other. Claims on the internet are mistaken if they state the universe is expanding faster than c and light disapears over a event horizon. If we see a galaxy moving away from us at c, but cant see another galaxy moving away from it at c this is ok. The planet moving away from us at c will percieve us to be moving away from it at c along with the other galaxy we cant see.

 

What about the blue shift of things coming towards us like galaxies at light speed. Is there a limiting max frequency? If there is, what happens to a photon of light at this frequency if it hits this frequency.

 

What am I missing

Edited April 24, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

So if the space existing between points is expanding at c this is OK. The galaxies being points are moving in reference to each other. Claims on the internet are mistaken if they state the universe is expanding faster than c and light disapears over a event horizon. If we see a galaxy moving away from us at c, but cant see another galaxy moving away from it at c this is ok. The planet moving away from us at c will percieve us to be moving away from it at c along with the other galaxy we cant see.

 

What about the blue shift of things coming towards us like galaxies at light speed. Is there a limiting max frequency? If there is, what happens to a photon of light at this frequency if it hits this frequency.

 

What am I missing

 

 

You're missing a decent grasp on the expansion of space.

[Handy andy]

 

 

You're missing a decent grasp on the expansion of space.

 

I was happy with the expansion of space until someone told me it is expanding at 3c, not at 0.3c as I had originaly mistakingly understood. Do you have a web link that would improve my grasp of your belief.

 

I note you have chosen to ignore the blue shifted question of objects galaxies moving towards us at enormous speeds. The Andromeda galaxy could just be a slow coach. What about space between us and another galaxy shrinking at light speed, or even 3c if it could happen, as was claimed by science geek.

 

I understood years ago in hypothetical black holes everything is sucked in never to escape including light. Today gamma ray bursts are sometimes reported as coming from claimed black holes.

 

Gamma rays are normally given off when matter is destroyed, this would suggest that black holes destroy matter and would therefore be in some way self moderating does anyone have any thoughts on this little idea.

 

At what point does science breakdown.

 

Ps my main interest on this forum was to try and get a pointer on the the ionization of gases question I asked, using two parallel wires to cause a current bunching impulse effect. Amateur science forum

Edited April 24, 2017 by Handy andy

[Mordred]

The confusion is the sheer seperation distance between observer and emitter.

 

take the formula

 

[latex]v_{recessive}=H_o d[/latex] now each Mpc add the rate of expansion

 

70 km/s/Mpc. For example

 

1 Mpc =70

2Mpc=140

3Mpc=210

...

 

Eventually you will reach a distance where the recessive velocity exceeds c. However that only to a far distant observer. Roughly 4400 Mpc away from the object being measured. It is a apparent velocity based upon the recessive velocity formula above. Not an actual inertial velocity which relativity uses.

 

Here read this as it covers the above

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf

 

The main trick to grasp is that expansion doesn't give inertia to any galaxies. The volume of space between galaxies are simply increasing but this doesn't impart any inertia to any object. The true velocity of those galaxies is their normal drift ie for Milky way 631 km/s relative to CMB.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Mordred