#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Failures of AWT
« on: September 30, 2014, 05:18:48 PM »
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.

The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844. Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.

Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.

More to come in the coming days...
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Rama Set

• 5792
• Round and round...
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2014, 05:23:14 PM »
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.

The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844. Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.

Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.

More to come in the coming days...

I have been talking with Tausami and we had a miscommunication, so I would like to give him a chance to respond to my queries before you lynch them.

Thanks.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2014, 05:28:40 PM »
Well, I guess we have about all the evidence (none) and description (very limited and even somewhat contradictory) we're going to get--in spite of FE promises, so let's start to list how AWT fails.

The first is in thermodynamics. To constantly accelerate the FE at g for billions of years, AWT would need to provide orders of magnitude more than 10303 joules. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1592.msg30844#msg30844. Assuming a 50% efficiency, so much of the energy would go into heating of the FE as to vaporize us.

Let me put a second in this first post. (I have about a dozen more.) Mathematical models of whirlpools require at least two energy states. For a bathtub drain whirlpool, the difference in the potential energy at the surface and at the "floor" of the tub creates the two states. Without gravity, AWT models have nothing to base their motion, and fail for yet another reason.

More to come in the coming days...

I have been talking with Tausami and we had a miscommunication, so I would like to give him a chance to respond to my queries before you lynch them.

Thanks.
I'll continue with my analysis based on what Ts and Vx posted. If they need to retract their posts, I'll update (add to) this thread accordingly. I suspect that if we waited on Ts like the ZC does, we'd be waiting 10 months.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2014, 07:23:44 PM »
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.

FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.) Now consider the AWT claims that stellar objects float on the aether and that the aether is superfluid over them. No disc floats on a superfluid. A superfluid will even spill out of its container without any outside assistance. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-can-climb-walls/

Another AWT failure.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Ghost of V

##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2014, 07:27:38 PM »
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?

Where's the evidence for that?

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2014, 07:42:15 PM »
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?

Where's the evidence for that?
I don't see any similarities between AWT's aether and the real-world dark matter. If you need evidence for the existence of dark matter, here's a few citations:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/

I see markjo already provided evidence of dark matter to you in another thread. Now about that evidence FEers promised for AWT?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 4081
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2014, 07:47:06 PM »
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?

Where's the evidence for that?
Just like dark matter, aether is imbued with mystical properties which makes it impossible to observe directly.
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.

#### Ghost of V

##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2014, 07:51:20 PM »
Aether is kinda like dark matter, huh?

Where's the evidence for that?
I don't see any similarities between AWT's aether and the real-world dark matter. If you need evidence for the existence of dark matter, here's a few citations:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/dark_matter/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-indirect-detection-of-dark-matter/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-will-we-find-dark-matter/

I see markjo already provided evidence of dark matter to you in another thread. Now about that evidence FEers promised for AWT?

Wow, thanks for the links full of speculative science about dark matter. As if I didn't already know what dark matter was according to your silly science. None of those links provided concrete evidence for dark matter's existence. Can you?

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2014, 08:09:40 PM »
Wow, thanks for the links full of speculative science about dark matter. As if I didn't already know what dark matter was according to your silly science. None of those links provided concrete evidence for dark matter's existence. Can you?
The links provide evidence. Moving the goalposts and committing a "no true Scotsman" fallacy do not help your case. It's your turn. Provide "concrete" evidence of AWT as FEers have repeatedly promised.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Ghost of V

##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2014, 09:06:15 PM »

I could go on about how each link you posted offers no concrete evidence for dark matter, but that would be a waste of my time. So I'll just summarize by quoting one paragraph from one of the links.

"One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct information about dark matter."

And each link goes on like this. There is no evidence for dark matter here. You might as well have just linked me to the wikipedia article on dark matter. Please try again.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 09:19:35 PM by Vauxhall »

#### Rama Set

• 5792
• Round and round...
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2014, 09:15:23 PM »

I could go on about how each link you posted offers no concrete evidence for dark matter, but that would be a waste of my time. So I'll just summarize by quoting one paragraph from one of the links.

"One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."

And each link goes on like this. There is no evidence for dark matter here. You might as well have just linked me to the wikipedia article on dark matter. Please try again.

Lets be clear:  Anyone who says that Dark Matter is science fact is lying or ignorant, it is a hypothesis.  What can be said is follows:  If gravity is true, there must be something that is conventionally undetectable and exerts a gravitational force.  This unseen thing is likely matter, since it exhibits the required density to reasonably account for the amount of gravity missing, whereas energy tends to exhibit a very small gravitational attraction.

Now, seeing as gravity is almost certainly true, there is almost certainly dark matter, whatever it ends up constituting.  I say almost certainly true, because the other possibility is that we are facing a paradigm shifting discovery, where whatever gravitational inducing material is missing turns out to be a massive and hitherto unforseen failure of gravitational theory.  This would be extremely surprising since gravitational theory has not been remotely close to this level of variance before and it seems reasonable, according to Occam's Razor, to conclude that we are just not seeing everything we can.

If you wish to deny gravity's existence that is fine, but, as I am sure you are aware, it requires a lot of conspiracy finger pointing and hand waving.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 09:16:58 PM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2014, 09:20:42 PM »
"... Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."
First, you left out part of the above sentence.

Second, the article is quite clear in presenting evidence and the plans to obtain more. To wit:
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Indirect evidence is still evidence. Deal with it.

Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy. Every science has a boundary where the search continues. As long as the scientists are honest about the speculative nature of their effort, there's nothing wrong.

FEers, OTH, regularly fail to disclose when they speculate and to produce promised evidence, even indirect.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Ghost of V

##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2014, 09:23:42 PM »
"... Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct about dark matter."
First, you left out part of the above sentence.

Second, the article is quite clear in presenting evidence and the plans to obtain more. To wit:
In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
Indirect evidence is still evidence. Deal with it.

Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy. Every science has a boundary where the search continues. As long as the scientists are honest about the speculative nature of their effort, there's nothing wrong.

FEers, OTH, regularly fail to disclose when they speculate and to produce promised evidence, even indirect.

Rama-Set has provided an honest answer, you have not. Refusing to address it doesn't make your position any less shaky.

Assumptions are not evidence, Gully.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2014, 09:27:44 PM »
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Ghost of V

##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2014, 09:33:16 PM »
Now I will no longer respond to your comments about the pending search for further evidence of dark matter or dark energy.

#### Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2014, 09:42:55 PM »
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.

FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.

Also, gulliver, you're kind of a jerk. I hope you're nicer in person than you are here.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2014, 10:00:26 PM »
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.

FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.

Also, gulliver, you're kind of a jerk. I hope you're nicer in person than you are here.
I would appreciate that you read what FEers have said. Also you are aware that neutrinos are matter, right?

Here's how I would define "fluid" in a physics context:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid
Fluids are a subset of the phase of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids.

I think I've already documented that a superfluid is a fluid, by definition.

Can you even state in 100-200 words what AWT even is?

AWT is a theory that a superfluid substance known as Aether accelerates delicately through space. Furthermore, this substance's interaction with the plane of the earth causes several phenomena including gravitation and the Aetheric whirlpool. The whirlpool in turn causes several phenomena including night/day cycles, seasons, Auroras, eclipses, etc.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Tau

• Zetetic Council Member
• 911
• Magistrum Fallaciae
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2014, 10:08:23 PM »
www.rif.org

That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

#### Gulliver

• 682
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2014, 10:33:18 PM »
www.rif.org

So personal attacks are the best you can do. I'lll just go on then to the next failure of AWT.

AWT's eyewall appears to be the terminator (the boundary between the lit and dark side of the FE). The terminator must change size, shape and position without any reason. Somehow this is supposed to be better than FET's typical gears. Really it's just changing the point of "fiat".

AWT claims that the eyewall explains the shape (and maybe the size) of the rising or setting sun. If an eyewall were blocking part of the sun then the observer would seek its "outline". Since FEers can't provide any evidence of such, AWT fails here too.

AWT claims to explain the UA. Since the AWT does not explain the origin of the required energy, it is not much better than "turtle all the way down". Yet another fail.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

#### Rama Set

• 5792
• Round and round...
##### Re: Failures of AWT
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2014, 11:27:01 PM »
Next, let's consider the claim that the aether is a superfluid and its implications.

FEers can't decide whether the aether is energy or matter. (Hint: In order to be a superfluid it must be matter.)

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there. We don't know what aether is made from. It could be similar to neutrinos for all we know. So no, we don't know whether or not it has mass. I suspect that it does not have atoms, and it clearly has properties similar to that of a superfluid. This does not mean that it is a superfluid, nor does it mean that aether must have mass, and it certainly doesn't mean you can make random comparisons between it and superfluid helium.

I am not sure how it would be similar to neutrinos. Neutrinos have been detected with scanners, the Aether (any definition of it) has not. Neutrinos are weakly interacting and could not possibly confer the type of force required by a gravity analog.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.