Looking for some lively debate on an Aether theory which is equivalent to GR.
The stress energy tensor of matter: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}
A homogeneous perfect fluid: Omega g_{\mu\nu}
The stress energy tensor of the residual density: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
Let Omega g_{\mu\nu}=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
So that R_{\mu\nu}+(1/2)Rg_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}
Thus in the Aether theory, matter and energy are reductions in the density and pressure of the perfect fluid, equivalent to GR. In the Aether theory, for quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, the only portion that needs to be considered is the level which exists in a timespan long enough to produce gravitational effects. The entire potential energy of the vacuum does not need to be considered since in the Aether theory only 4 dimensional waves produce curvature. For two particles, solving for the Newtonian gradients (which are equivalent to the GR model), gravity is a reduced repulsion within a certain radius. However, as they separate farther, at a certain radius determined by Omega the gravitational gradient becomes linearly repulsive.
For the Aether theory, the results violates what our senses tell us about energy, but does not break the fluid models where effects extend past boundaries. Note that this theory is still covariant.
Comments or questions?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 02:54 AM)
Looking for some lively debate on an Aether theory which is equivalent to GR.
The stress energy tensor of matter: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}
A homogeneous perfect fluid: Omega g_{\mu\nu}
The stress energy tensor of the residual density: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
Let Omega g_{\mu\nu}=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
So that R_{\mu\nu}+(1/2)Rg_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}
Thus in the Aether theory, matter and energy are reductions in the density and pressure of the perfect fluid, equivalent to GR. In the Aether theory, for quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, the only portion that needs to be considered is the level which exists in a timespan long enough to produce gravitational effects. The entire potential energy of the vacuum does not need to be considered since in the Aether theory only 4 dimensional waves produce curvature. For two particles, solving for the Newtonian gradients (which are equivalent to the GR model), gravity is a reduced repulsion within a certain radius. However, as they separate farther, at a certain radius determined by Omega the gravitational gradient becomes linearly repulsive.
For the Aether theory, the results violates what our senses tell us about energy, but does not break the fluid models where effects extend past boundaries. Note that this theory is still covariant.
Comments or questions?
Geometric model is my cup of tea. Gravity Probe B detected the geodetic effect not the aether.
The stress energy tensor of matter: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}
A homogeneous perfect fluid: Omega g_{\mu\nu}
The stress energy tensor of the residual density: \kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
Let Omega g_{\mu\nu}=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A
So that R_{\mu\nu}+(1/2)Rg_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A=\kappa T_{\mu\nu}
Thus in the Aether theory, matter and energy are reductions in the density and pressure of the perfect fluid, equivalent to GR. In the Aether theory, for quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, the only portion that needs to be considered is the level which exists in a timespan long enough to produce gravitational effects. The entire potential energy of the vacuum does not need to be considered since in the Aether theory only 4 dimensional waves produce curvature. For two particles, solving for the Newtonian gradients (which are equivalent to the GR model), gravity is a reduced repulsion within a certain radius. However, as they separate farther, at a certain radius determined by Omega the gravitational gradient becomes linearly repulsive.
For the Aether theory, the results violates what our senses tell us about energy, but does not break the fluid models where effects extend past boundaries. Note that this theory is still covariant.
Comments or questions?
Geometric model is my cup of tea. Gravity Probe B detected the geodetic effect not the aether.
Of course...but not sure why you think there would be any difference if the Aether can be described by the same geodesics.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 05:43 AM)
Of course...but not sure why you think there would be any difference if the Aether can be described by the same geodesics.
Since the aether doesn't exist, there is no reason for you to try to do this.
Since the aether doesn't exist, there is no reason for you to try to do this.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 12:48 PM)
Since the aether doesn't exist, there is no reason for you to try to do this.
Unless energy density isn't defined the same in GR and quantum effects. Only way I know of to account for why the entire potential energy of the vacuum doesn't gravitate.
Unless energy density isn't defined the same in GR and quantum effects. Only way I know of to account for why the entire potential energy of the vacuum doesn't gravitate.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 06:18 AM)
Unless energy density isn't defined the same in GR and quantum effects. Only way I know of to account for why the entire potential energy of the vacuum doesn't gravitate.
You don't get it. Aether doesn't exist. So it doesn't matter what bs you pretend to be the results for motion in aether because it doesnt exist. Prove that it exists first. Then we'll start looking at implications.
You don't get it. Aether doesn't exist. So it doesn't matter what bs you pretend to be the results for motion in aether because it doesnt exist. Prove that it exists first. Then we'll start looking at implications.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 01:27 PM)
You don't get it. Aether doesn't exist. So it doesn't matter what bs you pretend to be the results for motion in aether because it doesnt exist. Prove that it exists first. Then we'll start looking at implications.
Do you understand what a stress-energy tensor of a fluid is? Only math has proofs.
Do you understand what a stress-energy tensor of a fluid is? Only math has proofs.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 06:39 AM)
Do you understand what a stress-energy tensor of a fluid is? Only math has proofs.
Unlike you, yes I do, and am talking about a math proof. Mathematicaly prove it exists by deriving it from a well verified theory or show me an independently repeatable experiment that demonstrates its existance. Until you do this, it should be assumed to not exist, just like flying horses and majic sky zombies.
Unlike you, yes I do, and am talking about a math proof. Mathematicaly prove it exists by deriving it from a well verified theory or show me an independently repeatable experiment that demonstrates its existance. Until you do this, it should be assumed to not exist, just like flying horses and majic sky zombies.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 02:24 PM)
Unlike you, yes I do, and am talking about a math proof. Mathematicaly prove it exists by deriving it from a well verified theory or show me an independently repeatable experiment that demonstrates its existance. Until you do this, it should be assumed to not exist, just like flying horses and majic sky zombies.
If you can't bother to read the mathematical proof I gave in the first post, how is posting it again going to help?
If you can't bother to read the mathematical proof I gave in the first post, how is posting it again going to help?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 09:13 AM)
If you can't bother to read the mathematical proof I gave in the first post, how is posting it again going to help?
You didn't give any such thing in the first post. You just copied down a field equation and simply asserted that this is the good old aether without any proof.
You didn't give any such thing in the first post. You just copied down a field equation and simply asserted that this is the good old aether without any proof.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 04:20 PM)
You didn't give any such thing in the first post. You just copied down a field equation and simply asserted that this is the good old aether without any proof.
I gave definitions for a perfect fluid and a stress-energy tensor and a mathematical proof for how they are related to the stress-energy tensor of matter. I never asserted that it was the "good old aether", only an aether theory for a perfect fluid that is equivalent to GR.
I gave definitions for a perfect fluid and a stress-energy tensor and a mathematical proof for how they are related to the stress-energy tensor of matter. I never asserted that it was the "good old aether", only an aether theory for a perfect fluid that is equivalent to GR.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 09:26 AM)
I gave definitions for a perfect fluid and a stress-energy tensor and a mathematical proof for how they are related to the stress-energy tensor of matter. I never asserted that it was the "good old aether", only an aether theory for a perfect fluid that is equivalent to GR.
You did NOT give any mathematical proof. You wrote down field equations and just said ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether.
You did NOT give any mathematical proof. You wrote down field equations and just said ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 04:49 PM)
You did NOT give any mathematical proof. You wrote down field equations and just said ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether.
I don't think you actually understand what a proof is.
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
I don't think you actually understand what a proof is.
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 10:33 AM)
I don't think you actually understand what a proof is.
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
And then ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether. Sure thats a proof all right. I hope you can read sarcasm.
And to answer your question Masters of science in physics, (translation applied mathematics). Yours?
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
And then ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether. Sure thats a proof all right. I hope you can read sarcasm.
And to answer your question Masters of science in physics, (translation applied mathematics). Yours?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 05:33 PM)
I don't think you actually understand what a proof is.
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
This should be funny. Asking David about his mathematics level.
Here let me help:
If Omega g_{\mu\nu} is a homogeneous and isotropic perfect fluid, and \kappa T_{\mu\nu} is the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid, then if Omega g_{\mu\nu}= \kappa T_{\mu\nu}+\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A, then we can assert \kappa T_{\mu\nu}=Omega g_{\mu\nu}-\kappa T_{\mu\nu}^A.
What is your level of math education?
This should be funny. Asking David about his mathematics level.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 01:27 PM)
You don't get it. Aether doesn't exist. So it doesn't matter what bs you pretend to be the results for motion in aether because it doesnt exist. Prove that it exists first. Then we'll start looking at implications.
When Gravity Probe B results were released confirming the measurement of the Geodetic Effect, as predicted by GR, the aether was forever round filed.
When Gravity Probe B results were released confirming the measurement of the Geodetic Effect, as predicted by GR, the aether was forever round filed.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 21 2012, 10:55 AM)
This should be funny. Asking David about his mathematics level.
I laughed.
What he's doing here is writting down field equations with a stress-energy tensor and just asserting that this part is the good old aether. Its something like drawing a map of his hometown and asserting that this street here is where the easter bunny lives, therefor the easter bunny exists.
I laughed.
What he's doing here is writting down field equations with a stress-energy tensor and just asserting that this part is the good old aether. Its something like drawing a map of his hometown and asserting that this street here is where the easter bunny lives, therefor the easter bunny exists.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 05:37 PM)
And then ABRA CADABRA thats the good old aether. Sure thats a proof all right. I hope you can read sarcasm.
And to answer your question Masters of science in physics, (translation applied mathematics). Yours?
PhD candidate studying field theory. Perhaps you can still get a refund from your university.
And to answer your question Masters of science in physics, (translation applied mathematics). Yours?
PhD candidate studying field theory. Perhaps you can still get a refund from your university.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 11:03 AM)
PhD candidate studying field theory. Perhaps you can still get a refund from your university.
lol thats a good one. My bets high school and wikipedia.
lol thats a good one. My bets high school and wikipedia.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 12:43 PM)
Of course...but not sure why you think there would be any difference if the Aether can be described by the same geodesics.
Because I know what the experiment was designed to measure and it wasn't the effects of 'non existent natural phenomena' on the satellite measuring apparatus. If you think you're right you should try to publish in a reputable Journal and then we might look it over. In a public science forum it's 'sorted out' and tossed in the 'crank aether bin'.
Because I know what the experiment was designed to measure and it wasn't the effects of 'non existent natural phenomena' on the satellite measuring apparatus. If you think you're right you should try to publish in a reputable Journal and then we might look it over. In a public science forum it's 'sorted out' and tossed in the 'crank aether bin'.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 06:10 PM)
lol thats a good one. My bets high school and wikipedia.
If the best you can provide in mathematical discourse is ad hominem attacks, I will look elsewhere for historical modeling discussions on the use of perfect fluids in field theory.
If the best you can provide in mathematical discourse is ad hominem attacks, I will look elsewhere for historical modeling discussions on the use of perfect fluids in field theory.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 11:14 AM)
If the best you can provide in mathematical discourse is ad hominem attacks, I will look elsewhere for historical modeling discussions on the use of perfect fluids in field theory.
I'm sorry I didn't know you still believed in the easter bunny too. Besides it was you pulling the ad hominem asking me my education you dolt.
I'm sorry I didn't know you still believed in the easter bunny too. Besides it was you pulling the ad hominem asking me my education you dolt.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 20 2012, 08:54 PM)
Looking for some lively debate on an Aether theory which is equivalent to GR.
Quite simply, if an aether theory is equivalent to GR then parsimony dictates that there is no need to postulate an aether at all.
Then they aren't equivalent, are they? And if they aren't equivalent, they WILL have different, verifiable, predictions.
Quite simply, if an aether theory is equivalent to GR then parsimony dictates that there is no need to postulate an aether at all.
QUOTE
Unless energy density isn't defined the same in GR and quantum effects. Only way I know of to account for why the entire potential energy of the vacuum doesn't gravitate.
Then they aren't equivalent, are they? And if they aren't equivalent, they WILL have different, verifiable, predictions.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 06:32 PM)
Quite simply, if an aether theory is equivalent to GR then parsimony dictates that there is no need to postulate an aether at all.
Then they aren't equivalent, are they? And if they aren't equivalent, they WILL have different, verifiable, predictions.
Parsimony also dictates that when using the model of a perfect fluid, one must accept the complete model and not just pick and choose those aspects which agree with empirical evidence. Equating successive contractions of the Riemann tensor to derivatives of density and pressure of a fluid does not absolve the modeler from accounting for the fluid itself.
Then they aren't equivalent, are they? And if they aren't equivalent, they WILL have different, verifiable, predictions.
Parsimony also dictates that when using the model of a perfect fluid, one must accept the complete model and not just pick and choose those aspects which agree with empirical evidence. Equating successive contractions of the Riemann tensor to derivatives of density and pressure of a fluid does not absolve the modeler from accounting for the fluid itself.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 06:32 PM)
Then they aren't equivalent, are they? And if they aren't equivalent, they WILL have different, verifiable, predictions.
They certainly do have different predictions, but those predictions certainly do not match the empirical evidence. Integrating for the potential energy of the vacuum is estimated to be at least 10^120 orders of magnitude off if curvature of space-time is due simply to "energy".
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 11:48 AM)
Parsimony also dictates that when using the model of a perfect fluid, one must accept the complete model and not just pick and choose those aspects which agree with empirical evidence. Equating successive contractions of the Riemann tensor to derivatives of density and pressure of a fluid does not absolve the modeler from accounting for the fluid itself.
Your speculating that the old aether is something real. Your speculating that ideal fluids are real. Your speculating that some ideal fluid actually is that old aether nonsense. You don't have a proof. You're just writting down TmnA and saying I can write down TmnA there so Aether exists. Have you lost your mind?
Your speculating that the old aether is something real. Your speculating that ideal fluids are real. Your speculating that some ideal fluid actually is that old aether nonsense. You don't have a proof. You're just writting down TmnA and saying I can write down TmnA there so Aether exists. Have you lost your mind?
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 06:57 PM)
Have you lost your mind?
If you have a real question about utilizing perfect fluids as models for gravitational fields, I will be happy to answer. If you are under the impression that aether theories aren't making a quiet comeback in cosmology I suggest you read the Dark Energy Task Force report and realize that meany cosmologists are starting to look at cosmological fluids. If you just want to keep up this line of insults I am not going to bother responding to you.
If you have a real question about utilizing perfect fluids as models for gravitational fields, I will be happy to answer. If you are under the impression that aether theories aren't making a quiet comeback in cosmology I suggest you read the Dark Energy Task Force report and realize that meany cosmologists are starting to look at cosmological fluids. If you just want to keep up this line of insults I am not going to bother responding to you.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 12:02 PM)
If you have a real question about utilizing perfect fluids as models for gravitational fields, I will be happy to answer. If you are under the impression that aether theories aren't making a quiet comeback in cosmology I suggest you read the Dark Energy Task Force report and realize that meany cosmologists are starting to look at cosmological fluids. If you just want to keep up this line of insults I am not going to bother responding to you.
Fine dont respond then nutter. No, Aether is still fringe in cosmology and you are in no position to pretend it should be me asking you the questions about it. You're after all just a high schooler with wikipedia under your belt with an Avengers Dark Energy Task Force report. You are insane.
Fine dont respond then nutter. No, Aether is still fringe in cosmology and you are in no position to pretend it should be me asking you the questions about it. You're after all just a high schooler with wikipedia under your belt with an Avengers Dark Energy Task Force report. You are insane.
QUOTE
old Aether
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 12:52 PM)
They certainly do have different predictions, but those predictions certainly do not match the empirical evidence. Integrating for the potential energy of the vacuum is estimated to be at least 10^120 orders of magnitude off if curvature of space-time is due simply to "energy".
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
QUOTE (boit+)
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
QUOTE (boit+Jul 21 2012, 07:13 PM)
old Aether
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
Works for me Bolt.
What I am pointing out is that the EFE is a differential equation relating curvature to derivatives (tensor) of pressure and densities. Since we can add a constant to the equation, it doesn't matter if those derivatives of pressure and density are up from zero or down from the amount set by the constant. It is only the magnitudes of the change that are important. Equating those changes in density to energy density and then integrating at low velocities would still give the same outcome.
QUOTE
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
Works for me Bolt.
What I am pointing out is that the EFE is a differential equation relating curvature to derivatives (tensor) of pressure and densities. Since we can add a constant to the equation, it doesn't matter if those derivatives of pressure and density are up from zero or down from the amount set by the constant. It is only the magnitudes of the change that are important. Equating those changes in density to energy density and then integrating at low velocities would still give the same outcome.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 07:19 PM)
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
QUOTE (boit+)
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
Of course not, otherwise I would have posted equations for how to do it plus the empirical evidence. Besides, without tex on these boards it would be a pain for someone to even try.
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
Of course not, otherwise I would have posted equations for how to do it plus the empirical evidence. Besides, without tex on these boards it would be a pain for someone to even try.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 01:24 PM)
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
Of course not, otherwise I would have posted equations for how to do it plus the empirical evidence.
Then you appear to talking out of your ass_umptions.
Then you appear to talking out of your ass_umptions.
QUOTE (boit+Jul 21 2012, 07:13 PM)
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
Here Bolt, if you would like to discuss scalar fields with me, this is a good example of someone doing this:
Instabilities in the Aether
Here Bolt, if you would like to discuss scalar fields with me, this is a good example of someone doing this:
Instabilities in the Aether
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 21 2012, 07:19 PM)
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
That's why no one has solved quantum gravity yet. But I suppose you are now going to claim you have?
QUOTE (boit+)
How about the new Aether for a change. The non physical variety much talked about here sometimes back?
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
Boit,
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.[/QUOTE]
Boit,
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it.
John Barrows is mixing religious belief with cosmology. That's really on the fringe in my book. Somebody called the WAP physics intelligent design. Don't really agree with that but physicists that do are fringe in my book..
Interesting article. The Templeton Foundation: A sceptics take
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
So why did you pick that paper?
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.
Boit,
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 12:56 PM)
The "non physical" is not available to the tools of physics. That is strictly metaphysical, by definition.[/QUOTE]
Boit,
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 08:01 PM)
Boit,
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies [/QUOTE]
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it.
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
Synthesin and waitedavid appear to not have been keeping up to date on cutting edge cosmology theories. Don't let them bully you into submission.
Some Inflationary Einstein-Aether Cosmologies [/QUOTE]
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it.
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
IMO any discussion about aether become very emotional, becaus such discussions involve many vaguely defined concepts.
What is the exact meaning of Existence for example. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, and to me it is a bit pathetic to witness nonargued fights like | yes there is / no there is not | for example.
The application of the use of Ideal/perfect fluid, or for that sake any use of idelisations IMO distract any deeper insight, because idealisations are being brought into use for the simple sake that they are being needed in order for physicists to be able to put Universe on calculus (calculate or shut up), but at the same time common sense is being violated. Concepts like absolute entanglement and perfect fluid, respectively, are incommensurable, and this by itself calls for a more subtle philosophical way of thinking IMO.
Aether cannot be discussed in any meaningful way, IMO, without scrutinizing concepts like existence, consciousness, scale, to the point of optimal succinctness. I am of the conviction that aether cannot be measured or observed within a scale defined by human physical senses (where physical is being used in its mainstream context).
Modern aether ideas must therefore be discussed out from the premise that aether express itself in a scale not observable and not measurable to human physical senses, but only to human mind, and therefore must insight into aether be gained by human mind senses. This implicate among others that absolutely well defined entities cannot be used in the insight. Idealisations are useful but incomplete, likewise math is useful but incomplete as tool.
This is why I use the metaphor of Object of Sameness as a usefull metaphor (works for me), when trying to get insight in aether (insight is a strictly personak quality of course) And this is why I use a model being based on visualisations and not on math and calculus.
What is the exact meaning of Existence for example. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, and to me it is a bit pathetic to witness nonargued fights like | yes there is / no there is not | for example.
The application of the use of Ideal/perfect fluid, or for that sake any use of idelisations IMO distract any deeper insight, because idealisations are being brought into use for the simple sake that they are being needed in order for physicists to be able to put Universe on calculus (calculate or shut up), but at the same time common sense is being violated. Concepts like absolute entanglement and perfect fluid, respectively, are incommensurable, and this by itself calls for a more subtle philosophical way of thinking IMO.
Aether cannot be discussed in any meaningful way, IMO, without scrutinizing concepts like existence, consciousness, scale, to the point of optimal succinctness. I am of the conviction that aether cannot be measured or observed within a scale defined by human physical senses (where physical is being used in its mainstream context).
Modern aether ideas must therefore be discussed out from the premise that aether express itself in a scale not observable and not measurable to human physical senses, but only to human mind, and therefore must insight into aether be gained by human mind senses. This implicate among others that absolutely well defined entities cannot be used in the insight. Idealisations are useful but incomplete, likewise math is useful but incomplete as tool.
This is why I use the metaphor of Object of Sameness as a usefull metaphor (works for me), when trying to get insight in aether (insight is a strictly personak quality of course) And this is why I use a model being based on visualisations and not on math and calculus.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 01:13 PM)
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it. [/QUOTE]
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
Yes they are fringe. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
Yes they are fringe. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 08:13 PM)
Your speculations are not what constitutes up to date. Aether is still fringe. Deal with it. [/QUOTE]
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
Who cares what you listen to? That's your business. If you need 'clarification' [is it worth a crap or not] for your aether theory of gravity submit it to a reputable journal for peer review and publication.
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones?
Who cares what you listen to? That's your business. If you need 'clarification' [is it worth a crap or not] for your aether theory of gravity submit it to a reputable journal for peer review and publication.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 21 2012, 09:11 PM)
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones? [/QUOTE]
Yes they are fringe. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I dont have a problem as long as you acknowledge that they are fringe to YOUR understanding of physics. If I started talking about 2 dimensional electron gases and you attemtped to hold yourself up as some paragon of physics and stated that was fringe also, then I would call you out on that also.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones? [/QUOTE]
Yes they are fringe. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
I dont have a problem as long as you acknowledge that they are fringe to YOUR understanding of physics. If I started talking about 2 dimensional electron gases and you attemtped to hold yourself up as some paragon of physics and stated that was fringe also, then I would call you out on that also.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 21 2012, 10:04 PM)
Cambridge University and Caltech submit papers on Aether theories.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones? [/QUOTE]
Who cares what you listen to? That's your business. If you need 'clarification' [is it worth a crap or not] for your aether theory of gravity submit it to a reputable journal for peer review and publication.
Exactly where did I ask for clarification? I asked for debate on scalar fields and cosmological fluids to determine whether I have missed anything in the historical context. This needs to be done BEFORE a paper is submitted. This is exactly what forums are designed for. What you have submitted so far in this thread is not even remotely close to what was asked for in the original post. You are under no obligation to debate but nor are you under one to type.
Waitedavid states they are fringe.
Should one listen to waitedavid and avoid aether theories or study up on scalar fields and determine why they are being researched at leading universities? Waitedavid do you have any published papers that I can compare to these other "fringe" ones? [/QUOTE]
Who cares what you listen to? That's your business. If you need 'clarification' [is it worth a crap or not] for your aether theory of gravity submit it to a reputable journal for peer review and publication.
Exactly where did I ask for clarification? I asked for debate on scalar fields and cosmological fluids to determine whether I have missed anything in the historical context. This needs to be done BEFORE a paper is submitted. This is exactly what forums are designed for. What you have submitted so far in this thread is not even remotely close to what was asked for in the original post. You are under no obligation to debate but nor are you under one to type.
QUOTE (niels+Jul 21 2012, 09:04 PM)
IMO any discussion about aether become very emotional, becaus such discussions involve many vaguely defined concepts.
What is the exact meaning of Existence for example. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, and to me it is a bit pathetic to witness nonargued fights like | yes there is / no there is not | for example.
The application of the use of Ideal/perfect fluid, or for that sake any use of idelisations IMO distract any deeper insight, because idealisations are being brought into use for the simple sake that they are being needed in order for physicists to be able to put Universe on calculus (calculate or shut up), but at the same time common sense is being violated. Concepts like absolute entanglement and perfect fluid, respectively, are incommensurable, and this by itself calls for a more subtle philosophical way of thinking IMO.
Aether cannot be discussed in any meaningful way, IMO, without scrutinizing concepts like existence, consciousness, scale, to the point of optimal succinctness. I am of the conviction that aether cannot be measured or observed within a scale defined by human physical senses (where physical is being used in its mainstream context).
Modern aether ideas must therefore be discussed out from the premise that aether express itself in a scale not observable and not measurable to human physical senses, but only to human mind, and therefore must insight into aether be gained by human mind senses. This implicate among others that absolutely well defined entities cannot be used in the insight. Idealisations are useful but incomplete, likewise math is useful but incomplete as tool.
This is why I use the metaphor of Object of Sameness as a usefull metaphor (works for me), when trying to get insight in aether (insight is a strictly personak quality of course) And this is why I use a model being based on visualisations and not on math and calculus.
Niels,
General Relativity has very definite notations for fluids and their tensors, borrowed from hydrodynamics. This is one of the great conundrums in that the cosmological constant can be modeled as an isotropic homogenous fluid, but if it is the energy of the vacuum is very arbitrarily finely tuned.
Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.
What is the exact meaning of Existence for example. There is no universally accepted definition of existence, and to me it is a bit pathetic to witness nonargued fights like | yes there is / no there is not | for example.
The application of the use of Ideal/perfect fluid, or for that sake any use of idelisations IMO distract any deeper insight, because idealisations are being brought into use for the simple sake that they are being needed in order for physicists to be able to put Universe on calculus (calculate or shut up), but at the same time common sense is being violated. Concepts like absolute entanglement and perfect fluid, respectively, are incommensurable, and this by itself calls for a more subtle philosophical way of thinking IMO.
Aether cannot be discussed in any meaningful way, IMO, without scrutinizing concepts like existence, consciousness, scale, to the point of optimal succinctness. I am of the conviction that aether cannot be measured or observed within a scale defined by human physical senses (where physical is being used in its mainstream context).
Modern aether ideas must therefore be discussed out from the premise that aether express itself in a scale not observable and not measurable to human physical senses, but only to human mind, and therefore must insight into aether be gained by human mind senses. This implicate among others that absolutely well defined entities cannot be used in the insight. Idealisations are useful but incomplete, likewise math is useful but incomplete as tool.
This is why I use the metaphor of Object of Sameness as a usefull metaphor (works for me), when trying to get insight in aether (insight is a strictly personak quality of course) And this is why I use a model being based on visualisations and not on math and calculus.
Niels,
General Relativity has very definite notations for fluids and their tensors, borrowed from hydrodynamics. This is one of the great conundrums in that the cosmological constant can be modeled as an isotropic homogenous fluid, but if it is the energy of the vacuum is very arbitrarily finely tuned.
Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.
John Barrows is mixing religious belief with cosmology. That's really on the fringe in my book. Somebody called the WAP physics intelligent design. Don't really agree with that but physicists that do are fringe in my book..
Interesting article. The Templeton Foundation: A sceptics take
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
So why did you pick that paper?
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 21 2012, 11:34 PM)
John Barrows is mixing religious belief with cosmology. That's really on the fringe in my book. Somebody called the WAP physics intelligent design. Don't really agree with that but physicists that do are fringe in my book..
Interesting article. The Templeton Foundation: A sceptics take
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
So why did you pick that paper?
As nothing more than n example of a discussion of it. If you are digging for an ulterior dogmatic motive, you are barking up the wrong tree. I simply dont like sloppy science. Stress energy tensors of fluids are derivatives of pressure and densities. Telling me that matter has more energy than the quantum vacuum seems to be counter to empirical evidence.
Interesting article. The Templeton Foundation: A sceptics take
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html
So why did you pick that paper?
As nothing more than n example of a discussion of it. If you are digging for an ulterior dogmatic motive, you are barking up the wrong tree. I simply dont like sloppy science. Stress energy tensors of fluids are derivatives of pressure and densities. Telling me that matter has more energy than the quantum vacuum seems to be counter to empirical evidence.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 11:51 PM)
As nothing more than n example of a discussion of it. If you are digging for an ulterior dogmatic motive, you are barking up the wrong tree. I simply dont like sloppy science. Stress energy tensors of fluids are derivatives of pressure and densities. Telling me that matter has more energy than the quantum vacuum seems to be counter to empirical evidence.
Crackpot bullshit. You're the newest dunce stool candidate. There's an orbit waiting just for you.
Crackpot bullshit. You're the newest dunce stool candidate. There's an orbit waiting just for you.
[QUOTE=JMessenger,Jul 21 2012, 03:13 PM] Yes they are fringe. Why is this so hard for you to understand? [/QUOTE]
I dont have a problem as long as you acknowledge that they are fringe to YOUR understanding of physics. If I started talking about 2 dimensional electron gases and you attemtped to hold yourself up as some paragon of physics and stated that was fringe also, then I would call you out on that also.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science. [/QUOTE]
No its just plain speculative fringy and you're a nut.
I dont have a problem as long as you acknowledge that they are fringe to YOUR understanding of physics. If I started talking about 2 dimensional electron gases and you attemtped to hold yourself up as some paragon of physics and stated that was fringe also, then I would call you out on that also.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science. [/QUOTE]
No its just plain speculative fringy and you're a nut.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 22 2012, 06:21 AM)
Crackpot bullshit. You're the newest dunce stool candidate. There's an orbit waiting just for you.
How eloquent you are in the demonstration of your adeptness in Riemannian geometry. Truly an astounding scholar. I applaud you sir.
How eloquent you are in the demonstration of your adeptness in Riemannian geometry. Truly an astounding scholar. I applaud you sir.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 22 2012, 06:52 AM)
I dont have a problem as long as you acknowledge that they are fringe to YOUR understanding of physics. If I started talking about 2 dimensional electron gases and you attemtped to hold yourself up as some paragon of physics and stated that was fringe also, then I would call you out on that also.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science. [/QUOTE]
No its just plain speculative fringy and you're a nut.
Sad.
Ykur attitude dissuades others from learning about why what Lorentz put forth was non-covariant but despite this why a certain niche of cosmologists are looking at cosmological fluids and scalar fields.
I presented an equation which should be interesting in its reduction to a scalar field. You have ignored this and instead focused on calling me a nutter and then doubled down when presented with mainstream papers.
You are either a fraud that is decent eith mathematics or, if you actually have a degree in physics, a good example of how not to perform science. [/QUOTE]
No its just plain speculative fringy and you're a nut.
Sad.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 05:44 AM)
How eloquent you are in the demonstration of your adeptness in Riemannian geometry. Truly an astounding scholar. I applaud you sir.
All you got is specilation and insults. Yeah thats going to convince me of your kooky fringe aether, uh huh.
All you got is specilation and insults. Yeah thats going to convince me of your kooky fringe aether, uh huh.
So is waitedavid, synthesin and brucep the best that phyforum.com has to offer for debate? Anybody else out there familiar with tensors?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 06:04 AM)
So is waitedavid, synthesin and brucep the best that phyforum.com has to offer for debate? Anybody else out there familiar with tensors?
What debate? You're speculating about kooky fringe aether existing and when you're called on that you throw insults and cry about getting insulted back. Not much of a debate really.
What debate? You're speculating about kooky fringe aether existing and when you're called on that you throw insults and cry about getting insulted back. Not much of a debate really.
QUOTE (JMesshead+)
Not much of a debate really.
What do you expect? ..... dealing with below average vacuous imbeciles such as yourself never extends conversationally to anything other than mockery. It's entirely your fault, go deal with it.
What do you expect? ..... dealing with below average vacuous imbeciles such as yourself never extends conversationally to anything other than mockery. It's entirely your fault, go deal with it.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 07:04 AM)
So is waitedavid, synthesin and brucep the best that phyforum.com has to offer for debate?
You can't complain when you completely ignore stuff:
You can't complain when you completely ignore stuff:
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
Since you haven't addressed this, we can only assume you are engaged in unsupportable speculation. Like I said, Niels may want to play that game with you.
Since you haven't addressed this, we can only assume you are engaged in unsupportable speculation. Like I said, Niels may want to play that game with you.
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Jul 22 2012, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE (JMesshead+)
Not much of a debate really.
What do you expect? ..... dealing with below average vacuous imbeciles such as yourself never extends conversationally to anything other than mockery. It's entirely your fault, go deal with it.
Thanks Lady Elizabeth, was wondering if that was the normal greeting here.
What do you expect? ..... dealing with below average vacuous imbeciles such as yourself never extends conversationally to anything other than mockery. It's entirely your fault, go deal with it.
Thanks Lady Elizabeth, was wondering if that was the normal greeting here.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 03:20 PM)
You can't complain when you completely ignore stuff:
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
Since you haven't addressed this, we can only assume you are engaged in unsupportable speculation. Like I said, Niels may want to play that game with you.
You are quoting statements made by you and I don't see any question marks for me to address. Secondly, I take it from your remark about vacuum energy that you are not familiar with Zel'dovich or his late 1960s papers concerning the cosmological constant. These papers are very well known in the quantum gravity community as they are some of the first to note problems that arise attempting to cross the "domain of applicability". I would suggest you read these before posting further. If Niels would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to.
Since you haven't addressed this, we can only assume you are engaged in unsupportable speculation. Like I said, Niels may want to play that game with you.
You are quoting statements made by you and I don't see any question marks for me to address. Secondly, I take it from your remark about vacuum energy that you are not familiar with Zel'dovich or his late 1960s papers concerning the cosmological constant. These papers are very well known in the quantum gravity community as they are some of the first to note problems that arise attempting to cross the "domain of applicability". I would suggest you read these before posting further. If Niels would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 12:44 PM)
How eloquent you are in the demonstration of your adeptness in Riemannian geometry. Truly an astounding scholar. I applaud you sir.
You claim to have discovered an aether theory which is equivalent to GR. So submit it to a reputable journal for peer review. Since the aether isn't a 'new theoretical concept' and the 'notion of aether' has been empirically falsified it becomes empirically necessary to proof 'aether' IS real natural phenomena.
Without even reading the aether theory my peer review begins
Empirical confirmation geodetic effect = 1.
Empirical confirmation aether = 0.
You probably think they're both equivalent models but ..... Empirical confirmation of spacetime geometry as real natural phenomena = 1 and empirical confirmation of aether as real natural phenomena = 0. The scientific results from the Gravity Probe B empirically confirms the geometric model of gravitational physics.
Personally [1] I think Jmessenger = Jesus messenger. [2] You should submit the aether gravitational theory to a reputable journal for peer review. [3] Quit making claims without any evidence supporting such claims. [4] Quit claiming aether theory detractors are 'intellectually unqualified' for making comments on some bullshit you've chosen to post on a public science forum.
You claim to have discovered an aether theory which is equivalent to GR. So submit it to a reputable journal for peer review. Since the aether isn't a 'new theoretical concept' and the 'notion of aether' has been empirically falsified it becomes empirically necessary to proof 'aether' IS real natural phenomena.
Without even reading the aether theory my peer review begins
Empirical confirmation geodetic effect = 1.
Empirical confirmation aether = 0.
You probably think they're both equivalent models but ..... Empirical confirmation of spacetime geometry as real natural phenomena = 1 and empirical confirmation of aether as real natural phenomena = 0. The scientific results from the Gravity Probe B empirically confirms the geometric model of gravitational physics.
Personally [1] I think Jmessenger = Jesus messenger. [2] You should submit the aether gravitational theory to a reputable journal for peer review. [3] Quit making claims without any evidence supporting such claims. [4] Quit claiming aether theory detractors are 'intellectually unqualified' for making comments on some bullshit you've chosen to post on a public science forum.
Just can't stop yourself from typing brucep?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 11:36 AM)
You are quoting statements made by you and I don't see any question marks for me to address. Secondly, I take it from your remark about vacuum energy that you are not familiar with Zel'dovich or his late 1960s papers concerning the cosmological constant. These papers are very well known in the quantum gravity community as they are some of the first to note problems that arise attempting to cross the "domain of applicability". I would suggest you read these before posting further. If Niels would like to discuss this I would be more than happy to.
My quote was a direct refute of this:
Is the Higgs field - if it exists - an aether?
No, an aether by definition is the medium of light propogation. If you call something else an aether then you are just playing word games.
My quote was a direct refute of this:
QUOTE (JMessenger @ Jul 21 2012+ 12:52 PM)
Integrating for the potential energy of the vacuum is estimated to be at least 10^120 orders of magnitude off if curvature of space-time is due simply to "energy".
You cannot make such an assertion unless someone has already solved quantum gravity. Doing so can only be speculative, as you;ve yet to offer the least bit of evidence for your claims of equivalence.
You cannot make such an assertion unless someone has already solved quantum gravity. Doing so can only be speculative, as you;ve yet to offer the least bit of evidence for your claims of equivalence.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 22 2012, 06:02 PM)
You claim to have discovered an aether theory which is equivalent to GR. So submit it to a reputable journal for peer review. Since the aether isn't a 'new theoretical concept' and the 'notion of aether' has been empirically falsified it becomes empirically necessary to proof 'aether' IS real natural phenomena.
Without even reading the aether theory my peer review begins
Empirical confirmation geodetic effect = 1.
Empirical confirmation aether = 0.
You probably think they're both equivalent models but ..... Empirical confirmation of spacetime geometry as real natural phenomena = 1 and empirical confirmation of aether as real natural phenomena = 0. The scientific results from the Gravity Probe B empirically confirms the geometric model of gravitational physics.
Personally [1] I think Jmessenger = Jesus messenger. [2] You should submit the aether gravitational theory to a reputable journal for peer review. [3] Quit making claims without any evidence supporting such claims. [4] Quit claiming aether theory detractors are 'intellectually unqualified' for making comments on some bullshit you've chosen to post on a public science forum.
Dear Bruce,
Without commenting on any statements concerning an aether in this thread but just as a reaction to your post:
Is the Higgs field - if it exists - an aether?
You state that an aether (= every sort of?) has been falsified. That only concerns an aether that would be like a sea in which we are swimming. It doesn't concern a sea that goes right tru us. And it certainly doesn't concern the falsifying of an aether containing our actual building blocks. So you state something as a scientific fact that simply isn't a scientific fact.
Without even reading the aether theory my peer review begins
Empirical confirmation geodetic effect = 1.
Empirical confirmation aether = 0.
You probably think they're both equivalent models but ..... Empirical confirmation of spacetime geometry as real natural phenomena = 1 and empirical confirmation of aether as real natural phenomena = 0. The scientific results from the Gravity Probe B empirically confirms the geometric model of gravitational physics.
Personally [1] I think Jmessenger = Jesus messenger. [2] You should submit the aether gravitational theory to a reputable journal for peer review. [3] Quit making claims without any evidence supporting such claims. [4] Quit claiming aether theory detractors are 'intellectually unqualified' for making comments on some bullshit you've chosen to post on a public science forum.
Dear Bruce,
Without commenting on any statements concerning an aether in this thread but just as a reaction to your post:
Is the Higgs field - if it exists - an aether?
You state that an aether (= every sort of?) has been falsified. That only concerns an aether that would be like a sea in which we are swimming. It doesn't concern a sea that goes right tru us. And it certainly doesn't concern the falsifying of an aether containing our actual building blocks. So you state something as a scientific fact that simply isn't a scientific fact.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 06:23 PM)
My quote was a direct refute of this:
You cannot make such an assertion unless someone has already solved quantum gravity. Doing so can only be speculative, as you;ve yet to offer the least bit of evidence for your claims of equivalence.
I can't make the assertion that the energy densities in the theories do not match until someone solves how they do? This isn't even my assertion, it is well known and has been called "the worst prediction in the history of physics". Yet you are "refuting" that estimation of error. Wow.
You cannot make such an assertion unless someone has already solved quantum gravity. Doing so can only be speculative, as you;ve yet to offer the least bit of evidence for your claims of equivalence.
I can't make the assertion that the energy densities in the theories do not match until someone solves how they do? This isn't even my assertion, it is well known and has been called "the worst prediction in the history of physics". Yet you are "refuting" that estimation of error. Wow.
QUOTE (kristalris+Jul 22 2012, 11:29 AM)
Is the Higgs field - if it exists - an aether?
No, an aether by definition is the medium of light propogation. If you call something else an aether then you are just playing word games.
Just to make a point here to all reading this thread...
It wasn't MY idea to model matter using hydrodynamic (fluidic) tensors
It wasn't MY idea to equate the derivatives of fluidic densities to the derivatives of energy densities
It wasn't MY idea to create a differential field equation that incorporates a constant so that when the tensor in the equation is equated to derivatives of fluidic densities and pressures, the constant must represent a homogeneous and isotropic fluid
If by pointing this out, due to this equation that wasn't MY idea, changes in energy density can either be proportional to changes in fluidic densities or inversely proportional, makes calculus a crackpot theory then I will still stick with the calculus.
It wasn't MY idea to model matter using hydrodynamic (fluidic) tensors
It wasn't MY idea to equate the derivatives of fluidic densities to the derivatives of energy densities
It wasn't MY idea to create a differential field equation that incorporates a constant so that when the tensor in the equation is equated to derivatives of fluidic densities and pressures, the constant must represent a homogeneous and isotropic fluid
If by pointing this out, due to this equation that wasn't MY idea, changes in energy density can either be proportional to changes in fluidic densities or inversely proportional, makes calculus a crackpot theory then I will still stick with the calculus.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 22 2012, 06:45 PM)
No, an aether by definition is the medium of light propogation. If you call something else an aether then you are just playing word games.
Well Wikipedea names it, in this context:
"Aether (classical element), the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere."
To which I agree, your definition is not known to me. So if that has been falsified something has been falsified that isn't relevant to the stated problem.
Well Wikipedea names it, in this context:
"Aether (classical element), the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere."
To which I agree, your definition is not known to me. So if that has been falsified something has been falsified that isn't relevant to the stated problem.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 22 2012, 06:45 PM)
No, an aether by definition is the medium of light propogation. If you call something else an aether then you are just playing word games.
So you are now the final arbiter of naming conventions in science. Does quintessence pass your review?
So you are now the final arbiter of naming conventions in science. Does quintessence pass your review?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 06:19 PM)
Just can't stop yourself from typing brucep?
That's because you need to learn how to listen and quit making the claim that you have an aether theory of gravity. We know that your first post doesn't support that claim. So send it to a reputable journal for peer review. The fact that you're reduced to arguing in a public science forum makes me think you tried and got 'bounced' on review. Actually I don't think you've submitted anything for peer review. Nothing to submit.
That's because you need to learn how to listen and quit making the claim that you have an aether theory of gravity. We know that your first post doesn't support that claim. So send it to a reputable journal for peer review. The fact that you're reduced to arguing in a public science forum makes me think you tried and got 'bounced' on review. Actually I don't think you've submitted anything for peer review. Nothing to submit.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 12:31 PM)
I can't make the assertion that the energy densities in the theories do not match until someone solves how they do? This isn't even my assertion, it is well known and has been called "the worst prediction in the history of physics". Yet you are "refuting" that estimation of error. Wow.
You don't read too well, do you? I never refuted that estimation. Here, try reading it one more time before I explain:
They certainly do have different predictions, but those predictions certainly do not match the empirical evidence. Integrating for the potential energy of the vacuum is estimated to be at least 10^120 orders of magnitude off if curvature of space-time is due simply to "energy".
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated. [/QUOTE]
No doubt, the cosmological constant is "widely considered" to be vacuum energy, but there is no working theory to support this. Without support, "widely considered" merely constitutes an appeal to the majority and it is all only speculation.
The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain". Well, cranks are as cranks do.
I can't be straw manning what you insist upon reiterating with every post.
Uh, no you are incorrect about this also:
[QUOTE[The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain".[/QUOTE]
The cosmological constant is also "widely considered" to be the leading candidate for the accelerating expansion, although it certainly did not predict it. You very much seem to be getting defensive that the theory is starting to show flaws. Instead of trying to understand why, you attack those who point it out.
You don't read too well, do you? I never refuted that estimation. Here, try reading it one more time before I explain:
QUOTE (synthsin75+)
QUOTE (JMessenger @ Jul 21 2012+ 12:52 PM)
They certainly do have different predictions, but those predictions certainly do not match the empirical evidence. Integrating for the potential energy of the vacuum is estimated to be at least 10^120 orders of magnitude off if curvature of space-time is due simply to "energy".
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR.
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
QUOTE
So you are now the final arbiter of naming conventions in science. Does quintessence pass your review?
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 22 2012, 08:09 PM)
That's because you need to learn how to listen and quit making the claim that you have an aether theory of gravity. We know that your first post doesn't support that claim. So send it to a reputable journal for peer review. The fact that you're reduced to arguing in a public science forum makes me think you tried and got 'bounced' on review. Actually I don't think you've submitted anything for peer review. Nothing to submit.
Summary: No, I can't stop myself.
Summary: No, I can't stop myself.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 08:37 PM)
You don't read too well, do you? I never refuted that estimation. Here, try reading it one more time before I explain:
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR. [/QUOTE]
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
This is your statement:
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated.
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR. [/QUOTE]
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
This is your statement:
QUOTE
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 02:44 PM)
This is your statement:
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated.
No doubt, the cosmological constant is "widely considered" to be vacuum energy, but there is no working theory to support this. Without support, "widely considered" merely constitutes an appeal to the majority and it is all only speculation.
The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain". Well, cranks are as cranks do.
I can't be straw manning what you insist upon reiterating with every post.
QUOTE
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated.
No doubt, the cosmological constant is "widely considered" to be vacuum energy, but there is no working theory to support this. Without support, "widely considered" merely constitutes an appeal to the majority and it is all only speculation.
The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain". Well, cranks are as cranks do.
I can't be straw manning what you insist upon reiterating with every post.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 08:37 PM)
You don't read too well, do you? I never refuted that estimation. Here, try reading it one more time before I explain:
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR. [/QUOTE]
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
What you actually should be stating is this: General Relativity does have vacuum energy within its domain but does not correctly predict effects from the theorized energy levels.
It has nothing to do with "domain of applicability", it just is simply unknown why it does not work within that domain correctly.
GR's domain of applicability does not include vacuum energy, so it does not make any such predictions. Hell, there isn't even a consensus within the QM community of how the vacuum energy should be renormalized when dealing with the implications of GR. [/QUOTE]
Like I've said, and you've apparently agreed, quantum gravity has not been solved. Until it is, we have no way of knowing how the vacuum energy even should be renormalized for use in the GR domain.
What part of this do you not understand? You're claiming there is a discrepancy that we haven't even figured out how to successfully relate to each other. This implies that you think you have done so. If not, as many here have already pointed out, then you are only speculating.
No, he just knows how that word is meant to be used in the proper context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
The Higgs field, if it exists, doesn't provide any more of a universal frame of reference than the EM field does. That is the whole point of any aether theory.
What you actually should be stating is this: General Relativity does have vacuum energy within its domain but does not correctly predict effects from the theorized energy levels.
It has nothing to do with "domain of applicability", it just is simply unknown why it does not work within that domain correctly.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 03:12 PM)
What you actually should be stating is this: General Relativity does have vacuum energy within its domain but does not correctly predict effects from the theorized energy levels.
It has nothing to do with "domain of applicability", it just is simply unknown why it does not work within that domain correctly.
No, there is no evidence that the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy are equivalent.
Simple as that.
It has nothing to do with "domain of applicability", it just is simply unknown why it does not work within that domain correctly.
No, there is no evidence that the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy are equivalent.
Simple as that.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 09:11 PM)
This runs counter to mainstream physics as the cosmological constant is widely considered to be vacuum energy, and thus is very much in the same domain.
You are basing your entire counter argument on a strawman you have built up through "implying" extra meaning to what I have actually stated. [/QUOTE]
No doubt, the cosmological constant is "widely considered" to be vacuum energy, but there is no working theory to support this. Without support, "widely considered" merely constitutes an appeal to the majority and it is all only speculation.
The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain". Well, cranks are as cranks do.
I can't be straw manning what you insist upon reiterating with every post.
Uh, no you are incorrect about this also:
[QUOTE[The cosmological constant problem is entirely a problem with how the vacuum energy should relate to the domain of GR, so you can't seriously claim they are "in the same domain".[/QUOTE]
The cosmological constant is also "widely considered" to be the leading candidate for the accelerating expansion, although it certainly did not predict it. You very much seem to be getting defensive that the theory is starting to show flaws. Instead of trying to understand why, you attack those who point it out.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 03:19 PM)
The cosmological constant is also "widely considered" to be the leading candidate for the accelerating expansion, although it certainly did not predict it. You very much seem to be getting defensive that the theory is starting to show flaws. Instead of trying to understand why, you attack those who point it out.
Just like a crank to avoid addressing criticisms of their own claims. But go right ahead giving these elementary physics history lessons in lieu of supporting your claim. Implied ad hominems do nothing but demonstrate your own hypocrisy in whinging about them aimed at you.
Hey, as soon as you start providing anything but pure speculation, I'll take it seriously. So far you seem to be a run-of-the-mill GR denier, with your talk of "the theory is starting to show flaws".
Just like a crank to avoid addressing criticisms of their own claims. But go right ahead giving these elementary physics history lessons in lieu of supporting your claim. Implied ad hominems do nothing but demonstrate your own hypocrisy in whinging about them aimed at you.
Hey, as soon as you start providing anything but pure speculation, I'll take it seriously. So far you seem to be a run-of-the-mill GR denier, with your talk of "the theory is starting to show flaws".
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 09:18 PM)
No, there is no evidence that the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy are equivalent.
Simple as that.
So your solution is to stop thinking. Should someone else start thinking your solution is to stop them also from thinking. If they refuse to stop thinking then they are cranks.
The DOE, NASA and NSF , all cranks according to your standards, state:
An alternative explanation of the accelerating expansion of the Universe is that
general relativity or the standard cosmological model is incorrect. We are driven
to consider this prospect by potentially deep problems with the other options. A
cosmological constant leaves unresolved one of the great mysteries of quantum
gravity and particle physics: If the cosmological constant is not zero, it would be
expected to be 10^120 times larger than is observed. A dynamical fluid picture
usually predicts new particles with masses thirty-five orders of magnitude smaller
than the electron mass. Such a small mass could imply the existence of a new
observable long-range force in nature in addition to gravity and electromagnetism.
Regardless of which (if any) of these options are realized, exploration of the
acceleration of the Universe’s expansion will profoundly change our
understanding of the composition and nature of the Universe.
Simple as that.
So your solution is to stop thinking. Should someone else start thinking your solution is to stop them also from thinking. If they refuse to stop thinking then they are cranks.
The DOE, NASA and NSF , all cranks according to your standards, state:
An alternative explanation of the accelerating expansion of the Universe is that
general relativity or the standard cosmological model is incorrect. We are driven
to consider this prospect by potentially deep problems with the other options. A
cosmological constant leaves unresolved one of the great mysteries of quantum
gravity and particle physics: If the cosmological constant is not zero, it would be
expected to be 10^120 times larger than is observed. A dynamical fluid picture
usually predicts new particles with masses thirty-five orders of magnitude smaller
than the electron mass. Such a small mass could imply the existence of a new
observable long-range force in nature in addition to gravity and electromagnetism.
Regardless of which (if any) of these options are realized, exploration of the
acceleration of the Universe’s expansion will profoundly change our
understanding of the composition and nature of the Universe.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 09:30 PM)
Hey, as soon as you start providing anything but pure speculation, I'll take it seriously.
Last time I offered arguments concerning tensors, scalar fields, cosmological fluids and energy levels, your only reaction was to state those are all fringe theories. I don't think you have any clue how science is performed.
Last time I offered arguments concerning tensors, scalar fields, cosmological fluids and energy levels, your only reaction was to state those are all fringe theories. I don't think you have any clue how science is performed.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 21 2012, 11:09 PM)
Niels,
General Relativity has very definite notations for fluids and their tensors, borrowed from hydrodynamics. This is one of the great conundrums in that the cosmological constant can be modeled as an isotropic homogenous fluid, but if it is the energy of the vacuum is very arbitrarily finely tuned.
Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.
Quote JMessenger
@Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.@
Yes, on that I am painfully aware, and my question is, IF it is possible to discuss the soundness and validity of one cosmological model over another, purely on the basis of calculus and experimets and observations within the limitations set by physical scale ? the scale that is equivalent to human physical senses, which IMO in this context probably is the photon / electron scale.
General Relativity has very definite notations for fluids and their tensors, borrowed from hydrodynamics. This is one of the great conundrums in that the cosmological constant can be modeled as an isotropic homogenous fluid, but if it is the energy of the vacuum is very arbitrarily finely tuned.
Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.
Quote JMessenger
@Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.@
Yes, on that I am painfully aware, and my question is, IF it is possible to discuss the soundness and validity of one cosmological model over another, purely on the basis of calculus and experimets and observations within the limitations set by physical scale ? the scale that is equivalent to human physical senses, which IMO in this context probably is the photon / electron scale.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 03:36 PM)
Last time I offered arguments concerning tensors, scalar fields, cosmological fluids and energy levels, your only reaction was to state those are all fringe theories. I don't think you have any clue how science is performed.
So now you're just going to boldly lie your way out of addressing anything put to you, as I NEVER said anything about those being "fringe theories".
Typical crank evasion.
And this is a complete straw man, as none of these have made any claims about an aether theory being equivalent to GR. That's your claim that you have yet to substantiate in the least little bit.
So now you're just going to boldly lie your way out of addressing anything put to you, as I NEVER said anything about those being "fringe theories".
Typical crank evasion.
QUOTE
The DOE, NASA and NSF , all cranks according to your standards...
And this is a complete straw man, as none of these have made any claims about an aether theory being equivalent to GR. That's your claim that you have yet to substantiate in the least little bit.
QUOTE (niels+Jul 22 2012, 10:39 PM)
Quote JMessenger
@Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.@
Yes, on that I am painfully aware, and my question is, IF it is possible to discuss the soundness and validity of one cosmological model over another, purely on the basis of calculus and experimets and observations within the limitations set by physical scale ? the scale that is equivalent to human physical senses, which IMO in this context probably is the photon / electron scale.
I think I get the gist of what you mean. I don't think using the physical scale as we sense it is good for physics. There are too many things which are common sense but, after careful analysis, turn out not to be the reality of the universe we live in. Those physical senses will tell you that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that we are made of "stuff". Most of the mass of atoms appears to be within empty space. However, we have to be also be careful about not assuming too much which can lead to red herrings, such as epicycles.
The good thing is I think we have the privilege to be alive during what will turn out to be one of the great eras in physics. Now that we are able to peer into the farthest reaches of the universe, our physics models are either coming apart (dark energy) or coming to a blind alley (some particle physicists consider a standard model Higgs as the worst possible outcome as it doesn't suggest any new physics).
Will you ever be able to get a consensus based on human physical senses? No, as geocentrists apparently are still out there. I look for the consensus from well reasoned mathematical arguments, simply because those are the ones that anyone should be able to follow, and if desired repeated.
I actually had never heard of aether theory not that long ago. I only call it that since a: It uses the same fluid tensors as GR and
b: tends to draw a crowd.
@Without calculus, there is no way to make quantifiable predictions or to determine that our current theories are inconsistent with observations. Those predictions are what we use to determine whether we adopt one cosmological model over another.@
Yes, on that I am painfully aware, and my question is, IF it is possible to discuss the soundness and validity of one cosmological model over another, purely on the basis of calculus and experimets and observations within the limitations set by physical scale ? the scale that is equivalent to human physical senses, which IMO in this context probably is the photon / electron scale.
I think I get the gist of what you mean. I don't think using the physical scale as we sense it is good for physics. There are too many things which are common sense but, after careful analysis, turn out not to be the reality of the universe we live in. Those physical senses will tell you that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that we are made of "stuff". Most of the mass of atoms appears to be within empty space. However, we have to be also be careful about not assuming too much which can lead to red herrings, such as epicycles.
The good thing is I think we have the privilege to be alive during what will turn out to be one of the great eras in physics. Now that we are able to peer into the farthest reaches of the universe, our physics models are either coming apart (dark energy) or coming to a blind alley (some particle physicists consider a standard model Higgs as the worst possible outcome as it doesn't suggest any new physics).
Will you ever be able to get a consensus based on human physical senses? No, as geocentrists apparently are still out there. I look for the consensus from well reasoned mathematical arguments, simply because those are the ones that anyone should be able to follow, and if desired repeated.
I actually had never heard of aether theory not that long ago. I only call it that since a: It uses the same fluid tensors as GR and
b: tends to draw a crowd.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 22 2012, 08:37 PM)
Summary: No, I can't stop myself.
The reason you're avoiding my comments is? The other half of theoretical physics is experimental physics. Scary stuff for crackpots living 'the fantasy'.
The reason you're avoiding my comments is? The other half of theoretical physics is experimental physics. Scary stuff for crackpots living 'the fantasy'.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 22 2012, 11:44 PM)
The reason you're avoiding my comments is?
Lack of substance.
Lack of substance.
Neils,
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 12:19 AM)
Lack of substance.
You can't because you're afraid of empirical evidence. Like all crackpots making big claims from atop a wet cardboard soap box. You're first post was a load of bullshit that stinks more now than when it flowed out of your mouth. Jesus Messenger.
You can't because you're afraid of empirical evidence. Like all crackpots making big claims from atop a wet cardboard soap box. You're first post was a load of bullshit that stinks more now than when it flowed out of your mouth. Jesus Messenger.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 12:50 AM)
Neils,
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
Niels can't tie his shoes. Maybe your aether is niels 3D pixel nonsense.
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
Niels can't tie his shoes. Maybe your aether is niels 3D pixel nonsense.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 23 2012, 05:04 AM)
You can't because you're afraid of empirical evidence. Like all crackpots making big claims from atop a wet cardboard soap box. You're first post was a load of bullshit that stinks more now than when it flowed out of your mouth. Jesus Messenger.
That is funny . J.M. s
I see where Niel could get that . Little strings loosing up when they reach absolute zero. Waves . Little segments of little waves . Yeah he must watch the discovery channel . Science for public consumption . It is scientists fault for packaged science for consumption . The Producers Must sell enough advertising to stay flush . Or could it be a business struggling for viability also . Lot of cuts these days .
Disclaimer : I support the Discovery channel, if not monetarily then by my patronage as a watcher
That is funny . J.M. s
I see where Niel could get that . Little strings loosing up when they reach absolute zero. Waves . Little segments of little waves . Yeah he must watch the discovery channel . Science for public consumption . It is scientists fault for packaged science for consumption . The Producers Must sell enough advertising to stay flush . Or could it be a business struggling for viability also . Lot of cuts these days .
Disclaimer : I support the Discovery channel, if not monetarily then by my patronage as a watcher
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 23 2012, 05:08 AM)
Niels can't tie his shoes. Maybe your aether is niels 3D pixel nonsense.
You are absolutely correct. I am an elderly guy with a stiff back.
You are absolutely correct. I am an elderly guy with a stiff back.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 12:50 AM)
Neils,
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
Such a pleasure to get a seriuos feed back, very rare in this place when you are dealing with deep problems like why physics breaks down at zero, and how differentiabilyty neccesitate continuity, and exactly what continuous is likely to be, and how Riemannian geometry operates with the concetp of null set, p.p., and the integration of local contributions WHATEVER LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE.
To me the art of calculus shadow for a deeper insight in the structure of the medium. Everything hitherto, IMO would seem to be an acceptance of the conceopt that absolute accuracy can be managed, whereas this assumption IMO is the root of chonundrum when trying to identify define and explain the nature of the medium.
Even if you aren't familiar with Riemannian geometry or advanced calculus, you can still have an input if you are able to read science history.
It is often said that curvature of space-time is due to energy density (and pressure) but this isn't technically what the Einstein field equations state. What they state is the the curvature is due to a change in density and pressure of a perfect fluid, and it is assumed that these are equivalent to energy density and a pressure. While this accounts for gravitational lensing and the perihelion of Mercury, it is also nice in that the reduction to a 3 dimensional scalar field gives us Newtonian gradient vector when we do this. This seems to be the same reason that extra cosmological fluids are used in an attempt to modify GR. This has a direct bearing on the cosmological constant since the symbol Lambda has no subscripts. Therefore it represents a perfect fluid where the densities and pressures do not change. Since when matter "vanishes" there should be nothing left but the cosmological constant, and since an isotropic fluid density in GR should represent an isotropic energy density this is why it is considered as representing vacuum energy.
However, as I stated before, there is no a priori reason why we cannot assume that the stress-energy tensor is a reduction in fluidic densities from that perfect fluid constant. The outcomes should be equivalent (at least for small radii). This begs the question of what are the exact motivations for assuming that energy density in GR is proportional instead of inversely proportional to fluid densities.
Thus anyone can try to understand what energy density in GR means, and ask themselves if we are looking at it from the best viewpoint.
Such a pleasure to get a seriuos feed back, very rare in this place when you are dealing with deep problems like why physics breaks down at zero, and how differentiabilyty neccesitate continuity, and exactly what continuous is likely to be, and how Riemannian geometry operates with the concetp of null set, p.p., and the integration of local contributions WHATEVER LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE.
To me the art of calculus shadow for a deeper insight in the structure of the medium. Everything hitherto, IMO would seem to be an acceptance of the conceopt that absolute accuracy can be managed, whereas this assumption IMO is the root of chonundrum when trying to identify define and explain the nature of the medium.
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jul 23 2012, 05:21 AM)
That is funny . J.M. s
I see where Niel could get that . Little strings loosing up when they reach absolute zero. Waves . Little segments of little waves . Yeah he must watch the discovery channel . Science for public consumption . It is scientists fault for packaged science for consumption . The Producers Must sell enough advertising to stay flush . Or could it be a business struggling for viability also . Lot of cuts these days .
Disclaimer : I support the Discovery channel, if not monetarily then by my patronage as a watcher
I do not understand your post.
I see where Niel could get that . Little strings loosing up when they reach absolute zero. Waves . Little segments of little waves . Yeah he must watch the discovery channel . Science for public consumption . It is scientists fault for packaged science for consumption . The Producers Must sell enough advertising to stay flush . Or could it be a business struggling for viability also . Lot of cuts these days .
Disclaimer : I support the Discovery channel, if not monetarily then by my patronage as a watcher
I do not understand your post.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 23 2012, 05:04 AM)
You can't because you're afraid of empirical evidence. Like all crackpots making big claims from atop a wet cardboard soap box. You're first post was a load of bullshit that stinks more now than when it flowed out of your mouth. Jesus Messenger.
Without empirical evidence we have no way to test whether theories make appropriate predictions. General Relativity did not predict accelerating expansion. Bad mouthing everyone who points out empirical evidence that is contrary to a theory does not help your credibility.
Without empirical evidence we have no way to test whether theories make appropriate predictions. General Relativity did not predict accelerating expansion. Bad mouthing everyone who points out empirical evidence that is contrary to a theory does not help your credibility.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 22 2012, 10:40 PM)
And this is a complete straw man, as none of these have made any claims about an aether theory being equivalent to GR. That's your claim that you have yet to substantiate in the least little bit.
These organizations state:
Explain to me the difference between the word "aether" and "dynamical fluid".
These organizations state:
QUOTE
Another possibility is that the dark energy is some kind of dynamical fluid, not
previously known to physics. In this case the equation of state of the fluid would
likely not be constant, but would vary with time, or equivalently with redshift z or
with a = (1+z)−1, the scale factor (or size) of the Universe relative to its current
scale or size. Different theories of dynamical dark energy are distinguished
through their differing predictions for the evolution of the equation of state.
previously known to physics. In this case the equation of state of the fluid would
likely not be constant, but would vary with time, or equivalently with redshift z or
with a = (1+z)−1, the scale factor (or size) of the Universe relative to its current
scale or size. Different theories of dynamical dark energy are distinguished
through their differing predictions for the evolution of the equation of state.
Explain to me the difference between the word "aether" and "dynamical fluid".
Dark energy lol all energy is dark at least until it hits something.
Space is nothing.
Space is nothing.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jul 23 2012, 02:30 PM)
Dark energy lol all energy is dark at least until it hits something.
Space is nothing.
Nothing? Meaning it has no properties in and of itself?
Space is nothing.
Nothing? Meaning it has no properties in and of itself?
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 06:36 AM)
Without empirical evidence we have no way to test whether theories make appropriate predictions. General Relativity did not predict accelerating expansion. Bad mouthing everyone who points out empirical evidence that is contrary to a theory does not help your credibility.
You claim to be a grad student of field theory and down know that accelerated expansion was predicted by general relativity before it was observed??? Really????
You just tiped your hand.
You claim to be a grad student of field theory and down know that accelerated expansion was predicted by general relativity before it was observed??? Really????
You just tiped your hand.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 23 2012, 03:01 PM)
You claim to be a grad student of field theory and down know that accelerated expansion was predicted by general relativity before it was observed??? Really????
You just tiped your hand.
Ah wow. I think a conversation with you and your conspiracy theories is coming back now.
No, accelerating expansion was most definitely not predicted, not by you, not by anyone that I am aware of. There is no evidence that NASA or anyone else did a cover up. The 2011 Nobel prize was given out for the discovery of the accelerating expansion and unless you can produce some verifiable evidence that this was fraudulently obtained, you will remain alone in your conviction.
You just tiped your hand.
Ah wow. I think a conversation with you and your conspiracy theories is coming back now.
No, accelerating expansion was most definitely not predicted, not by you, not by anyone that I am aware of. There is no evidence that NASA or anyone else did a cover up. The 2011 Nobel prize was given out for the discovery of the accelerating expansion and unless you can produce some verifiable evidence that this was fraudulently obtained, you will remain alone in your conviction.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 08:21 AM)
Ah wow. I think a conversation with you and your conspiracy theories is coming back now.
No, accelerating expansion was most definitely not predicted, not by you, not by anyone that I am aware of. There is no evidence that NASA or anyone else did a cover up. The 2011 Nobel prize was given out for the discovery of the accelerating expansion and unless you can produce some verifiable evidence that this was fraudulently obtained, you will remain alone in your conviction.
At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane. Oh and I think Bruce is right that you are a magic sky zombie worshiper. And I'm also sure you're that mpc755 nutter.
No, accelerating expansion was most definitely not predicted, not by you, not by anyone that I am aware of. There is no evidence that NASA or anyone else did a cover up. The 2011 Nobel prize was given out for the discovery of the accelerating expansion and unless you can produce some verifiable evidence that this was fraudulently obtained, you will remain alone in your conviction.
At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane. Oh and I think Bruce is right that you are a magic sky zombie worshiper. And I'm also sure you're that mpc755 nutter.
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 23 2012, 03:23 PM)
At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane. Oh and I think Bruce is right that you are a magic sky zombie worshiper. And I'm also sure you're that mpc755 nutter.
No, I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking about.
Accelerated expansion has been understood almost as far back as when Einstein wrote the cosmological constant in the field equations decades before the effect was observed.
The catch is that you haven't paid attention to history and motives.
Lets say for example and agency like nasa comes along and says we want you to give us money. Einstein's field equations with the cosmological constant predict accelerated expansion. And in accordance with the theory sure enough we've already observed what we understood all along to be the outcome. But we want you to give us money to research what we already know and have observed anyway.
How effective do you think this would be?
Or they can neglect all that history and say we've observed something mysterious. The expansion is accelerating. We will call this spooky thing dark energy as it is sooo mysterious. We'd like some research money to come to understand this mystery.
Now which approach do you think is going to be more effective on the ignorant masses holding the purse string? About the only thing they could have done better was throw the term "god" in it somehow by saying the energy must be mediated by some kind of god particle, and then maybe more of those looney tune republicans would pitch in their dollars.
waitedavid stated: "Or they can neglect all that history and say we've observed something mysterious. The expansion is accelerating. We will call this spooky thing dark energy as it is sooo mysterious. We'd like some research money to come to understand this mystery." and then "At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane."
OK...
No, I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking about.
Accelerated expansion has been understood almost as far back as when Einstein wrote the cosmological constant in the field equations decades before the effect was observed.
The catch is that you haven't paid attention to history and motives.
Lets say for example and agency like nasa comes along and says we want you to give us money. Einstein's field equations with the cosmological constant predict accelerated expansion. And in accordance with the theory sure enough we've already observed what we understood all along to be the outcome. But we want you to give us money to research what we already know and have observed anyway.
How effective do you think this would be?
Or they can neglect all that history and say we've observed something mysterious. The expansion is accelerating. We will call this spooky thing dark energy as it is sooo mysterious. We'd like some research money to come to understand this mystery.
Now which approach do you think is going to be more effective on the ignorant masses holding the purse string? About the only thing they could have done better was throw the term "god" in it somehow by saying the energy must be mediated by some kind of god particle, and then maybe more of those looney tune republicans would pitch in their dollars.
waitedavid stated: "Or they can neglect all that history and say we've observed something mysterious. The expansion is accelerating. We will call this spooky thing dark energy as it is sooo mysterious. We'd like some research money to come to understand this mystery." and then "At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane."
OK...
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 08:41 AM)
waitedavid stated: "Or they can neglect all that history and say we've observed something mysterious. The expansion is accelerating. We will call this spooky thing dark energy as it is sooo mysterious. We'd like some research money to come to understand this mystery." and then "At least you've proven to everyone here now that you are insane."
OK...
So what part of you ignoring history, especialy the fact that the exact solution to the field equations for a cosmological constant predicted accelerated expansion, and especialy worshiping a magic sky zombie isn't insane about you?
OK...
So what part of you ignoring history, especialy the fact that the exact solution to the field equations for a cosmological constant predicted accelerated expansion, and especialy worshiping a magic sky zombie isn't insane about you?
QUOTE (waitedavid137+Jul 23 2012, 03:46 PM)
Positive λ also corresponds to a positive energy density, λg₀₀ > 0, (sign convention). So aside from the large pressure terms the matter isn't all that interesting.
QED
You aren't stating anything that isn't already well known. What you are failing to grasp is that there is no way to calculate λ or why it should even be there. You are just regurgitating equations.
QED
You aren't stating anything that isn't already well known. What you are failing to grasp is that there is no way to calculate λ or why it should even be there. You are just regurgitating equations.
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 02:38 PM)
Nothing? Meaning it has no properties in and of itself?
yes VOID
yes VOID
QUOTE (JMessenger+Jul 23 2012, 08:55 AM)
You aren't stating anything that isn't already well known. ...
EXCEPT TO YOU. You're the one who said it wasn't known. Damn you have a short attention span.
EXCEPT TO YOU. You're the one who said it wasn't known. Damn you have a short attention span.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.