rwjefferson Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 I see through your cloak Drag is not just a retarding/ slowing-down force when moving through a fluid, drag also occurs when moving through any physical medium such as a gas, a liquid, a particulate solid, or any medium that might cause friction or resistance including so-far undiscovered theoretical entities or mediums. def: drag the retarding force acting on matter attacking a fluent and vice versa def: fluent any and all physical media at least to the enlightened def: aether the quantum particles that constitute space syns: wimpy dark matter stand on a scale and look up naked To measure drag you use a coefficient(s) of friction concerning the medium(s) involved, the relative velocity, subtracting other known forces, and then estimating drag There is no need to calculate viscid friction of media to measure drag. Drag and gravitational acceleration share the same scale of inertial measure according to newton and wgt.et al like I said before Like I said before, aether of the many possible types has not been disproved, but fast moving tangent-to-the-Earth aether has pretty well been thought to have been discredited in most scientists minds, regarding the numerous attempts to find a luminiferous tangential aether. in other words Like I said before, it is not speculation that aether has not been disproved because M&M were looking in the wrong direction. bonus question If inertial spacecraft are found to be dragging by 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2 ; what is the calculated impedance of the wimpy aether wind? ItS peace r~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 This is just more nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Like I said before, it is not speculation that aether has not been disproved because M&M were looking in the wrong direction. How could they look in the wrong direction? Is our motion through the aether north/south? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) How could they look in the wrong direction? Is our motion through the aether north/south? rwjefferson, on 29 July 2012 - 05:09 PM, said: Like I said before, it is not speculation that aether has not been disproved because M&M were looking in the wrong direction. Hi Swansot, Aether motion North-South or South_North, pretty good. Haven't heard or thought of that one yet. Not exactly sure the meaning of his statement aether but I know of a number of other possibilities, than yours, of his meaning. rwjeffersonell will tell us soon enough, I expect. There are/ have been many variations of aether theory in and before the 19th century, the 20th, and I expect, the 21st century. The most famous argument was Lorenz' proposing that via motion and aetherial influences the instrumentation of the interferometer deforms via the direction of the aether and instrument rotation, rendering the M & M's experiment and other interferometers unable to detect the relative motion of the aether (the wording may be a little off). In one model the aether is gravity centered, meaning that gravity drags aether around so that there could be no measurement of its relative motion such as in a M & M type experiment. In another theoretical version aether is not only the carrier of EM radiation, but the cause of time dilation and the the force of gravity. In this version aether is radiated away from all matter in the form of EM radiation and other forms of wave and particulate radiation, and the back-flow of aether equalizing pressure would accordingly be the cause of gravity. In another model again aether is something like dark matter that does not interact with EM radiation so cannot be detected via light. In another version the effect of particle spin causes a 3D aether vortex surrounding matter. Accordingly in larger matter like the Earth, we would be near the center of the vortex somehow and would see no relative motion of the aether. Still another aether version proposes that aether is the source of dark energy and the proliferation of the ZPF. Accordingly the aether energy of motion is what we observe as the ZPE. This somehow would be the cause/ of the expansion of the universe, its acceleration, the source of dark matter, etc. (Note: My explanations of such various proposals are according to my memory and may be a little bit off, in some cases. ) I would guess that the aether model rwjefferson is interested in is different again. I have seen a few modern mainstream aether proposals that have included some of these older proposed ideas but most do not involve a luminiferous aether, and its author's usually choose to use alternative wording because of the commonly perceived stigma concerning the word "aether" I guess any particulate background-field model could be called an aether model such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, etc., or any background energy field such as dark energy, quantum space foam, etc., depending upon how aether is defined. // Edited July 30, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 welcome to my wormhole.006&7 meet me here ~ron -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 there is coherence in chaos for those that know the cipher how to construct and maintain a dogmatic strawman.008 - define aether by a property not held by wind - demonstrate earth does not move through static aether - dictate aether is therefore disproved - bury self evident observation as speculation How could they look in the wrong direction? Is our motion through the aether north/south? sorry No. Earth and you do not move through static aether. Aether is fluent; aether moves toward center of mass. The best way to measure drag is with a scale. Which words do you not understand? peace ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 sorry No. Earth and you do not move through static aether. Aether is fluent; aether moves toward center of mass. The best way to measure drag is with a scale. Which words do you not understand? It's not the words, it's the combination of them. How can speak of a static aether and then say it moves toward center of mass? It can't do both. If we are not moving through the aether, how do you explain stellar aberration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) It's not the words, it's the combination of them. How can speak of a static aether and then say it moves toward center of mass? It can't do both. If we are not moving through the aether, how do you explain stellar aberration? He used the word "fluent" concerning his aether which I interpret to mean fluid. He can correct me if I am wrong. An aether that moves toward the center of gravity, is a gravitational aether model. A pushing aether model of gravity. There are a great number of such aether models proposing to explain gravity. Most of these models are centuries old and few propose anything other than the inverse square law to mathematically explain the model. Stellar aberration has never been mentioned in any of aether models I have read, so I expect I have just missed such discussions. If such an aether were fluid it could seemingly move in different channels depending upon its location, from higher pressure areas to lower. For example it might move in a vortex motion within spiral galaxies, and have less distinctive motions in elliptical and irregular galaxies. It could move in distinctive curved currents between galaxies. It could therefore seemingly be able to bend light, cause stellar aberration, lensing effects, and seemingly could cause the same effects as presently attributed to dark matter. // Edited August 12, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 He used the word "fluent" concerning his aether which I interpret to mean fluid. He can correct me if I am wrong. Flowing fluids are not static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) Flowing fluids are not static. For sure. Did he use the word "static?" If so I missed it // Edited August 12, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted August 18, 2012 Author Share Posted August 18, 2012 relative inertial pressure differential.101 Flowing fluids are not static. If we are not moving through the aether, how do you explain stellar aberration? When is air fluent? When is wind static? Name an 'anomaly' or 'aberration' that is not consistent with fluent aether. Explain. in the spirit of peace ron P.S. that I might ask a question does not mean I do not know the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Hyde Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 All experimentalists can do is measure what happens during an experiment, and report their results. All theorists can do is build mathematical representations that connect those measurements. That is all there is to Physics, measurements that are related to each other, and mathematical representations of them. To postulate spurious entities like Aether to 'explain' the result is both unneeded and dangerous, because it fools people into believing that they can understand the World as being made up of some kinds of 'things', when there are only mathematical relationships. The sooner people stop believing that the World is made of 'things that are made up of other things' the better Physics will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 When is air fluent? When is wind static? Name an 'anomaly' or 'aberration' that is not consistent with fluent aether. Explain. in the spirit of peace ron P.S. that I might ask a question does not mean I do not know the answer If you are proposing something the burden of proof is on you. You need to do a better job of describing your proposal. When you say we are not moving through a static aether, is it that we are not moving, or that the aether is not static? It seems like the latter, but something has to be moving — we're moving relative to other things, so we can't all be stationary — so how does that all work? How is this consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment? You need to answer with something more substantial than something that sounds like zen koans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) If you are proposing something the burden of proof is on you. You need to do a better job of describing your proposal. When you say we are not moving through a static aether, is it that we are not moving, or that the aether is not static? It seems like the latter, but something has to be moving — we're moving relative to other things, so we can't all be stationary — so how does that all work? How is this consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment? You need to answer with something more substantial than something that sounds like zen koans. Yeah, maybe I would like his aether proposal, maybe not, I can't know unless I better understand it. I don't seem to be very good at solving Jwjefferson's riddles jwjefferson, Swansont is making an important point. You need to try to communicate more clearly without riddles. This is the speculation forum so you are in the right place. Unlike some other science forums you may speculate much here with meager evidence or justification, but I think you should try to explain your proposal using your best communication skills. If your proposal is contradicted by strong evidence that you are unaware of then others may know and point out your proposals weaknesses. If others believe your proposal has merit they might likewise provide you with better supporting evidence or tell you what they think might improve your ideas. They cannot make their own proposals diverting attention away from your ideas since they can start their own thread. So give us your best shot so that we might have a chance to understand your aether proposal. good luck, Forrest // Edited August 19, 2012 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 I know why you do not want my questions answered. elementary physics.101 force is inertial differential curvature is not Is force inertial differential? Is curvature? welcome to my wormhole.009 I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. ItS peace d.r.jekyll when does honest become willful ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I know why you do not want my questions answered. elementary physics.101 force is inertial differential curvature is not Is force inertial differential? Is curvature? ....I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. ItS peace d.r.jekyl..... I would like to better understand your aether proposal but believe you are continuing to talk riddles. You may not wish to understand anything different since you may believe you have a superior understanding to those who reply here. But if you wish to learn anything new, you need to communicate better. If you cannot converse with another aether proponent like myself, then I would expect you would have a really hard time, or close to impossible task of communicating with anybody else. Forrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 When is air fluent? Always. When is wind static? Never. By definition. force is inertial differential Is there a language problem? Anyway, no. I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. You don't seem to know any elementary physics. So I suppose you're correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 compliment your selves with ignorance I would like to better understand your aether proposal but believe you are continuing to talk riddles. Always. Never. Is there a language problem? Yes. That's why I am here. Now do your best to answer my questions... Is force inertial pressure differential? Is curvature? ...or forever hold your tongue ItS the last cub scout (before the hostile takeover) r~ I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 compliment your selves with ignorance Yes. That's why I am here. Now do your best to answer my questions... ...or forever hold your tongue ItS the last cub scout (before the hostile takeover) r~ I can no more prove elementary physics to you than I can prove elementary evolution to creationists. The problem is, the answer to your questions definitely isn't yes, but it isn't even no. Your questions simply do not make sense. =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 welcome to my wormhole.010 don't believe everything Authority tells you so def: uncool spouting off without a clue def: ignorance judging and condemning self evident truth as speculation welcome to the science revolution.101 the force of all and everything Has aether been disproved? No. 'Luminiferous' Aether is a 'mythical' bitch. Michelson and Morley Merely prove 'strawman' aether does not exist. Michelson and Morley do not disprove space might consist of weakly interactive massive quantum particles. Were Michelson and Morley even looking in the right direction? Yes - if they meant to be tilting at strawman speculation. No - not if they wanted to measure the the wimpy aether wind. Is force inertial differential? Yes. Inertial differential forces mass acceleration. Inertial differential creates fluent wind from static airmass. Inertial differential between fingertips and keys records my tongue and otherwise amuses me. Inertial differential is the force that lifts wings. Inertial differential is... ...the list goes on and on as far as I can see. Is curvature? No. Curvature is not force. Curvature is not inertial differential. It is not a dome of firmament that separates heaven from flatland earth. Stars are not little lights embedded in a crystal sphere spinning around stationary earth. Centripetal does not counter centrifugal force. Planets do not wander epicycle upon epicycle upon epicycle ad infinitum. Curvature of wing is not the force of levity. Curvature of space is not the force of gravity. Tensors do not curve space. Thus the burden lies still with you. Name a state of force that is not also consistent with inertial differential. Name curve that alone forces mass acceleration. ItS peace r~ none can enlighten the willfully blind least of all me -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Just more ungrammatical nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 ! Moderator Note rwjefferson if your posts don't become comprehensible and if you do not start responding to the members questions this thread will be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwjefferson Posted September 16, 2012 Author Share Posted September 16, 2012 welcome to my wormhole.013 ... Is force inertial differential?Yes. Inertial differential forces mass acceleration... ! Moderator Note if your posts don't become comprehensible and if you do not start responding to the members questions this thread will be locked. I accept your challenge. I raise my own amateurish philosophy of science against the best B.S. piled higher by others marked like you. I challenge you to fold your power to silence with one last insulting post. I challenge you to do your best to decipher and answer my questions with kind and well reasoned responses. I will do the same for you. I am the OP at least of this particular thread. Does inertial differential force mass acceleration? .007: Please see that this thread is not hijacked. Please admonish all posters to cite the first word in context that escapes their native language starting with 'does'. Welcome to the science revolution. Thanks ItS the last cub scout a good teacher learns from all students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Nero Samuel Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I agree you have to get more specific with your question. It could be simple, or even insightful; but its just too vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 ! Moderator Note You obviously missed the bit about comprehensibility. Thread moved to speculations and merged with your existing thread. Do not open more threads on the same or similar ideas. Please restate your question - it really isn'tclear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now