| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (302/396) > >> |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on March 09, 2022, 10:35:57 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 09:25:26 pm ---...The postulates do indeed give good numbers (confirmed by Hipparcos satellite), & might be good models, but whether the postulates are good science is of course a different question. And i say that there is no such thing as spacetime, hence the science is wrong or partly wrong. The full answer for bending near the Sun has to include the aetherwind. --- End quote --- I accept that as a logically consistent 'postulate' in itself. But you have summarised what I thought you were saying a few posts back, where you say half the bending is not consistent with aetherwind, therefore - well you've described it as quoted above. You are using an assertion that the aetherwind exists as a kind of evidence to support that same assertion. It's not wrong (because it's technically meaningless beyond being an unproven postulate), but is an odd way of stating something you think, without clarifying what you mean by that circular argument. --- End quote --- The aetherwind has been proven by many kinds of experiments. And the aetherwind inflow to the Sun gives 0.87 arcsec, based on a postulate that the aetherwind moves as per the escape velocity, & on a postulate that photons propagate at c in the aether (which means that photons drift with the aether)(like a plane in the wind)(which in effect means that aether inflow into the Sun gives the same bending as gotten by a falling particle)(if the particle started with the speed of light). The trouble then is that the slowing of light near mass they say gives the full value of 1.75 arcsec. It would be lovely if it gave only 0.87 arcsec (ie if the slowing was a half)(ie if it was based on a half of the escape velocity), which i could then add to the aether's 0.87 arcsec. One possibility is that the bending due to aether inflow is double, if the inflow speed is double the escape velocity, giving the full 1.75 arcsec on its own. This would require that the slowing of light near mass gave 0.00 arcsec of bending. I think that slowing of light near mass is true, & i think that it must slow the nearside of a photon moreso than the far side, in which case it gives bending. I think that the aether inflow carries the photon in a curved traject, & also that the front of the photon accumulates more curve than the rear, ie the photon has a bend in it (just like the bend in the photon due to Einstein's slowing)(ie in both cases the arrow doesn't remain parallel to its initial angle). I want to use aether, & i want to use slowing, but that adds 0.87 arcsec to the 1.75 arcsec, or it even doubles the 1.75 arcsec. Something has to give. Still thinking. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 09:25:26 pm --- --- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 09, 2022, 06:30:15 pm ---So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets? --- End quote --- Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72. --- End quote --- Are you sure about that? :) |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 10, 2022, 12:24:19 am --- --- Quote from: aetherist on March 09, 2022, 09:25:26 pm --- --- Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 09, 2022, 06:30:15 pm ---So have you proven the existence of aether with some Excel sheets? --- End quote --- Every proper aether experiment has confirmed that we have an aetherwind on Earth, especially Demjanov in 1968-72. --- End quote --- Are you sure about that? :) --- End quote --- Yes. Even the modern vacuum mode Xs often pick up a weak signal, even tho the signal is supposed to be zero for vacuum mode. |
| adx:
I see what you mean. You are saying aetherwind experiments have conclusively proven not only its existence, but have quantified its behaviour to the point you can draw an inarguable conclusion on how the light must behave in that circumstance (passing by the sun). Any other result would overturn an accepted physical law that has been so well tested that it is unrealistic to argue against. Therefore the weaker theory (general relativity) must be somehow wrong, and any support it gets from experimental results can only reasonably be seen as happy accidents (for it). Except then you say (paraphrasing based on earlier posts) that vacuum experiments only show up effects of aetherwind that are perhaps 1000th of expectation, which supports aetherwind, but does not allow it to be detected anywhere near as easily as was once thought possible in a vacuum. So what surrounds the sun. Glass? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: adx on March 10, 2022, 03:10:41 am ---I see what you mean. You are saying aetherwind experiments have conclusively proven not only its existence, but have quantified its behaviour to the point you can draw an inarguable conclusion on how the light must behave in that circumstance (passing by the sun). Any other result would overturn an accepted physical law that has been so well tested that it is unrealistic to argue against. Therefore the weaker theory (general relativity) must be somehow wrong, and any support it gets from experimental results can only reasonably be seen as happy accidents (for it). Except then you say (paraphrasing based on earlier posts) that vacuum experiments only show up effects of aetherwind that are perhaps 1000th of expectation, which supports aetherwind, but does not allow it to be detected anywhere near as easily as was once thought possible in a vacuum. So what surrounds the sun. Glass? --- End quote --- The oldendays MMX aetherists did indeed think that the best MMXs would be in vacuum. They did their MMXs in air whilst acknowledging that air was a third rate MMX. Some did their MMXs in helium, reckoning that that was second rate, but better than air. It was not until 1968 that the correct calibration was derived for MMXs, by Demjanov, & this showed that the fringeshift in vacuum was zero. However the correct calibration remained a secret until it was again derived in about 2001 by Reg Cahill. Demjanov wrote some English papers starting in about 2005. Then in 2017 i came along & explained that MMXs in vacuum could possibly detect a weak 3rd order signal (or 4th order)(which starts to appear at about the 12th decimal), compared to the standard 2nd order signal for the standard MMX. And of course the amazing brilliant Demjanov MMX had (what i think he called a giant 1st order signal)(1000 times better than the usual 2nd order signals). In 2007 Reg Cahill confirmed that the aether inflow into Earth was indeed equal to the escape velocity, ie 11.2 km/s. The aether inflow to the Sun at Earth's orbit is 42 km/s. The inflow into the Sun at the Sun is 618 km/s. And of course we have the Earth's orbital component of the aetherwind of plus or minus 30 km/s. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.5404.pdf Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow Reginald T. Cahill One of the problems re measuring the bending of light near the Sun is that u have to deduct the bending due to refraction in the Sun's atmosphere, ie in the glass surrounding the Sun. One way of estimating this bending is that it is affected by frequency (ie as in glass). And they assume that the bending due to the nearness of mass is not affected by frequency. So, as u can see, there is a circular argument in there somewhere. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |