*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2014, 06:21:23 PM »
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.

[citation needed]
How's this?
Tidal forces, and a more precise definition
So far, so simple. Too simple, in fact, in several respects. Strictly speaking, all that was said about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration is true only for gravitational fields that are strictly homogeneous. Only in homogeneous gravitational fields are all bodies - per definition - accelerated in exactly the same way, namely in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same rate; as a result, it is indeed true that a researcher inside a cabin cannot distinguish acceleration from gravity. But real gravitational fields are always to a certain extent inhomogeneous.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2014, 06:30:18 PM »
Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.
Good thing that he isn't arguing that, because that is an argument that FE'ers would lose.

[citation needed]
How's this?
Tidal forces, and a more precise definition
So far, so simple. Too simple, in fact, in several respects. Strictly speaking, all that was said about the equivalence of gravity and acceleration is true only for gravitational fields that are strictly homogeneous. Only in homogeneous gravitational fields are all bodies - per definition - accelerated in exactly the same way, namely in exactly the same direction and at exactly the same rate; as a result, it is indeed true that a researcher inside a cabin cannot distinguish acceleration from gravity. But real gravitational fields are always to a certain extent inhomogeneous.

Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory. Try again.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2014, 06:32:04 PM »
Please explain and show some testable predictions of the theory.  That would be very interesting.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2014, 06:35:48 PM »
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2014, 08:22:03 PM »
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].

We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2014, 08:26:58 PM »
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].

We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?

I'm inclined to say that any claim without support is an insufficient rebuttal and should be either withdrawn or ignored.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2014, 10:05:55 PM »
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].

We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
Aether wind doesn't matter.  That fact that the earth does not have homogeneous gravitational field (regardless of the cause) means that the EP does not apply. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2014, 06:18:15 PM »
Tidal forces (and gravitational fluctuations, which are the other implication) are easily explained via Aetheric Wind Theory[Citation Needed].

We've had this conversation more than twice. Are you going to bring up something new, or are we going to have the same discussion again?
Aether wind doesn't matter.  That fact that the earth does not have homogeneous gravitational field (regardless of the cause) means that the EP does not apply.

I'm starting to think you're just grasping onto vocabulary you don't entirely understand. A homogeneous gravitational field means that it is exactly the same at all points on the sphere. This is not the case in RET due to differences in density, as well as the influence of celestial bodies. Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration. This has been accomplished through the introduction of the shadow of the Aetheric Whirlpool, which cause coriolis force via its angular momentum, tides via its horizontal (x-axis) momentum, and gravitational fluctuation through its vertical (y-axis) momentum.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2014, 06:22:26 PM »
There is still a citation need regardless of the rationale.  I think this conversation would really benefit from some sort of evidence being provided for the Aetheric Whirlpool.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2014, 09:04:57 PM »
There is still a citation need regardless of the rationale.  I think this conversation would really benefit from some sort of evidence being provided for the Aetheric Whirlpool.

As the Aetheric Whirlpool in this instance is a theoretical construct to account for the alleged variations in gravity on different parts of the earth, perhaps this is the data we should start with.   Once we have this, perhaps we can, using a rudimentary understanding of fluids, construct a model where the variations in G are accounted for by the aether's movements.

However, I've never seen any conclusive evidence in the variations in G over the earth's surface, only predictions.  Has anyone ever actually measured this (and don't bring up the fundamentally flawed gnome experiment)?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2014, 11:34:07 PM »
The GRACE and GOCE experiments measured the variations in the gravitational field.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2014, 11:58:57 PM »
I'm starting to think you're just grasping onto vocabulary you don't entirely understand. A homogeneous gravitational field means that it is exactly the same at all points on the sphere. This is not the case in RET due to differences in density, as well as the influence of celestial bodies.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean and that's exactly why the EP doesn't apply.

Quote
Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration.
Citation please.

Quote
This has been accomplished through the introduction of the shadow of the Aetheric Whirlpool, which cause coriolis force via its angular momentum, tides via its horizontal (x-axis) momentum, and gravitational fluctuation through its vertical (y-axis) momentum.
It has?  Would you care to show me the math, please?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2014, 12:09:40 AM »
Therefore, when converting to an accelerative model one must be able to account for those things being caused by something other than acceleration.
Citation please.

I don't think this requires a citation. He is acknowledging that on an accelerative model, there is no justification for variations in the gravity field. Hence the ad hoc construct of the AW.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2014, 12:19:03 AM »
the ad hoc construct of the AW.

Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.

AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.

We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.

____

As for Markjo, feel free to make an actual point at any time. I'm not going to have a pedantic debate over your inaccurately strict interpretation of something you read online.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #54 on: January 31, 2014, 01:03:35 AM »
the ad hoc construct of the AW.

Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.

Can we both promise not to make it personal?

Quote
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.

We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.

I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.

EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 01:09:24 AM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3869
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #55 on: January 31, 2014, 01:42:18 AM »
As for Markjo, feel free to make an actual point at any time. I'm not going to have a pedantic debate over your inaccurately strict interpretation of something you read online.
What evidence do you have that my strict interpretation of the EP is inaccurate?  Seriously, I want to know how aether wind can account for gravitational variations due to differing geological densities.  Before you answer, I just want to point out that these gravitational variations are used in real world geologic surveys.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #56 on: January 31, 2014, 01:50:48 AM »
the ad hoc construct of the AW.

Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.

Can we both promise not to make it personal?

No, no, it's not personal at all. You have a theoretical superiority complex. All of the RE'ers do. Most of the FE'ers do. You're so certain that Round Earth Theory is obviously correct and that by extension, Flat Earth Theory is quite silly, that you assume that all parts of Flat Earth Theory are arbitrary pseudoscience. That was my experience when I first discovered the society, and observations suggest that it's everyone's position upon finding the society.


Quote
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.

We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.

I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.

EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.

I can see what I can do for you in the second respect. As I said before, the theory is just a logical application of fluid dynamics to Universal Acceleration.

I should probably qualify that this entire thought process is based on the assumption that the Aether acts similarly to a fluid. If that turns out to be incorrect the entire theory is moot.

So, this fast-moving fluid would be exhibiting laminar flow prior to hitting the Earth. That's a fancy way of saying that it's moving in parallel layers aren't disrupting each other. It's very calm and orderly. This is because there's no known boundaries to the UA, so there's no friction to cause it to be disrupted.

But then the fluid hits the Earth. Now its laminar flow is disrupted significantly, at least in the area surrounding the Earth. You end up with an eddy, or vortex, according to fluid dynamics.

The celestial bodies appear to be positively buoyant in relation to aether (suggesting, now that I think about it, that it is quite dense). The Sun would ride much higher on it than the Moon simply because the Sun is ~98% H and He, while the moon is composed primarily of silicate rocks. This is consistent with observations.

Most of the eddy wouldn't make it to the surface of the Earth, of course. We have an atmolayer in the way. But some of it will make it through, and this aether would still have momentum. It will have angular momentum, vertical momentum, and horizontal momentum. When it hits objects within the Earth's atmosphere it will impart some of its energy. This has to be consistent with observations, and it is. The angular momentum we would expect to see is explained by Coriolis force. The vertical momentum we would expect to see is explained by gravitational variations (some parts of the atmosphere will allow more aether in than others, thereby causing more or less of this variation). The horizontal momentum is mostly only significant in the oceans, where the large scale application of its force causes tides.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2014, 02:01:13 AM »
the ad hoc construct of the AW.

Incorrect. You weren't there and are assuming quite a bit in order to fuel your theoretical superiority complex.

Can we both promise not to make it personal?

No, no, it's not personal at all. You have a theoretical superiority complex. All of the RE'ers do. Most of the FE'ers do. You're so certain that Round Earth Theory is obviously correct and that by extension, Flat Earth Theory is quite silly, that you assume that all parts of Flat Earth Theory are arbitrary pseudoscience. That was my experience when I first discovered the society, and observations suggest that it's everyone's position upon finding the society.

I am interested to know how you an presume to know my mind?


Quote
Quote
AWT was created due to the realization that the universal accelerator acted as a wind and, therefore, probably was a wind. I then compared the Earth to a rock in a river and realized that there would have to be quite violent eddies directly above the Earth in keeping with this interpretation. These eddies would certainly influence the motions of the celestial bodies, and it follows that it would have some kind of effect on us. Assuming that the eddies are similar to a whirlpool, which they would be, their effects would be exactly what is observed. An angular effect, a vertical effect, and a horizontal effect.

We currently don't know enough about the Aether to do the calculations you're about to ask for. We aren't sure what it is made out of and don't really know how it behaves (density and viscosity, for example). Any speculation about this would be arbitrary and unwarranted and therefore should not be bothered with.

I called it Ad Hoc because there has never been any evidence provided to me to support your observations despite numerous requests. Unless I am mistaken, this is what an Ad Hoc theory is: one that is utilitarian in that it is constructed to fit observation, but has not been substantiated yet; much like string theory.

EDIT: Being able to show that your theory can be derived from other successful theories would go a ways to showing it is not Ad Hoc as well I would think.

I can see what I can do for you in the second respect. As I said before, the theory is just a logical application of fluid dynamics to Universal Acceleration.

I should probably qualify that this entire thought process is based on the assumption that the Aether acts similarly to a fluid. If that turns out to be incorrect the entire theory is moot.

So, this fast-moving fluid would be exhibiting laminar flow prior to hitting the Earth. That's a fancy way of saying that it's moving in parallel layers aren't disrupting each other. It's very calm and orderly. This is because there's no known boundaries to the UA, so there's no friction to cause it to be disrupted.

But then the fluid hits the Earth. Now its laminar flow is disrupted significantly, at least in the area surrounding the Earth. You end up with an eddy, or vortex, according to fluid dynamics.

The celestial bodies appear to be positively buoyant in relation to aether (suggesting, now that I think about it, that it is quite dense). The Sun would ride much higher on it than the Moon simply because the Sun is ~98% H and He, while the moon is composed primarily of silicate rocks. This is consistent with observations.

Most of the eddy wouldn't make it to the surface of the Earth, of course. We have an atmolayer in the way. But some of it will make it through, and this aether would still have momentum. It will have angular momentum, vertical momentum, and horizontal momentum. When it hits objects within the Earth's atmosphere it will impart some of its energy. This has to be consistent with observations, and it is. The angular momentum we would expect to see is explained by Coriolis force. The vertical momentum we would expect to see is explained by gravitational variations (some parts of the atmosphere will allow more aether in than others, thereby causing more or less of this variation). The horizontal momentum is mostly only significant in the oceans, where the large scale application of its force causes tides.

I understand that you have created a coherent rationale for this, and it is admirable, but what I am saying is, until one of my requests for some sort of experimental evidence is acknowledged, or you can show that this hypothesis is some sort of inevitable consequence of another tested theory, I cannot consider this anything more than a piece of utilitarian thinking. Has any of this been mathematically modeled even?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Aether
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2014, 02:38:40 PM »
Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:

1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.

2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.

3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.

4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.

5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:

a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.

Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.

b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.

c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.

1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.

2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.

1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?

2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.

1) I was being pedantic in reference to your inaccurate usage of the term 'baryonic matter'. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand. No need to be rude about it.

2) This continues to be the Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter why Einstein came up with the idea. What matters is that it is true. Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.

On number 2,

I'd agree that what matters is what is true. The problem is that there are no premises that lead to the conclusion of aether or UA to be true. In fact, observations do just the opposite and give us every reason to reject those unoriginal hypotheses.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Aether
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2014, 02:22:58 AM »
Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ