The Big Bang is Wrong

[Viveka]

You're not answering my question, why do you think a short-term event is not a gravitational wave and is a detection of this 'AEther'?

Because an AEther and Einstein's theories are diametrically opposed, and the result was positive, which thereby disproves Einstein and affirms an AEther.

They are diametrically opposed, however they can coexist as an observation of "Positive" or "Negative", much in the same manner as Yin and Yang. Einstein's Relativity is fundamentally, and I would like to see a physicist deny this simple observation, a study of "darkness".

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

[Eodnhoj7]

Because an AEther and Einstein's theories are diametrically opposed, and the result was positive, which thereby disproves Einstein and affirms an AEther.

They are diametrically opposed, however they can coexist as an observation of "Positive" or "Negative", much in the same manner as Yin and Yang. Einstein's Relativity is fundamentally, and I would like to see a physicist deny this simple observation, a study of "darkness".

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Relativity is an observation of "deficiency" in physical structure and is about the observation of "flux" or "instability".. All its "evidence" is strictly and literally and observation of the dark. It is a theory about "darkness".

[Viveka]

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Relativity is an observation of "deficiency" in physical structure and is about the observation of "flux" or "instability".. All its "evidence" is strictly and literally and observation of the dark. It is a theory about "darkness".

That's kind of like calling Buddhist Emptiness 'nothingness'. Not even is that wrong, but it gives a bad meaning to something never tasted. Those who have tasted it cannot describe it except to approximate it in a philosophy that deals with a view and method. Zen exists for the very reason that it can be experienced without description. The same goes for the AEther; it can be something described, but it is very difficult, and it would require peering into something that is meta-phsyical itself, and can only be understood through approximations. A structure of idealism is what the AEther is when it comes to philosophy and understanding of the dimensions in a non-physical immaterial way.

[Eodnhoj7]

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Relativity is an observation of "deficiency" in physical structure and is about the observation of "flux" or "instability".. All its "evidence" is strictly and literally and observation of the dark. It is a theory about "darkness".

That's kind of like calling Buddhist Emptiness 'nothingness'. Not even is that wrong, but it gives a bad meaning to something never tasted. Those who have tasted it cannot describe it except to approximate it in a philosophy that deals with a view and method. Zen exists for the very reason that it can be experienced without description.

Buddhist "emptiness" is strictly a deficiency in "created" observations (a weak grade of the Taoist concept of the "tulpa") In these respects reality exists as its own, much in the same manner light can exist without darkness yet darkness is strictly a gradation of light...or the artificial synthesis of all light waves.

[Viveka]

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Relativity is an observation of "deficiency" in physical structure and is about the observation of "flux" or "instability".. All its "evidence" is strictly and literally and observation of the dark. It is a theory about "darkness".

That's kind of like calling Buddhist Emptiness 'nothingness'. Not even is that wrong, but it gives a bad meaning to something never tasted. Those who have tasted it cannot describe it except to approximate it in a philosophy that deals with a view and method. Zen exists for the very reason that it can be experienced without description. The same goes for the Darkness. It is something that is undefinable and approximate in meaning. Darkness itself isn't understandable by looking at light, as the candle flame and everything else is composed of light hitting something. The absence of light is darkness, but other than that it is un-findable.

Likewise, Relativity is not a theory of 'darkness' otherwise it would be experienced by a person. It's strange that we never 'evolved' to experience 4-dimensions of space-time as it is described analytically and non-experientially in mathematics--especially if we always existed in 4-d spacetime.

[davidm]

*cough*

Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames.

[Viveka]

*cough*

Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames.

What the heck is a non-inertial reference frame, and where did Einstein talk about these in his theories? Non-inertial means that there is something there, but it isn't matter, right? How is that possible in the first place if the AEther is wrong?

[Eodnhoj7]

You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Relativity is an observation of "deficiency" in physical structure and is about the observation of "flux" or "instability".. All its "evidence" is strictly and literally and observation of the dark. It is a theory about "darkness".

That's kind of like calling Buddhist Emptiness 'nothingness'. Not even is that wrong, but it gives a bad meaning to something never tasted. Those who have tasted it cannot describe it except to approximate it in a philosophy that deals with a view and method. Zen exists for the very reason that it can be experienced without description. The same goes for the Darkness. It is something that is undefinable and approximate in meaning. Darkness itself isn't understandable by looking at light, as the candle flame and everything else is composed of light hitting something. The absence of light is darkness, but other than that it is un-findable.

Likewise, Relativity is not a theory of 'darkness' otherwise it would be experienced by a person. It's strange that we never 'evolved' to experience 4-dimensions of space-time as it is described analytically and non-experientially in mathematics--especially if we always existed in 4-d spacetime.

I don't want to get the thread off track...just PM me all of this.

[davidm]

*cough*

Propagation of light in non-inertial reference frames.

What the heck is a non-inertial reference frame, and where did Einstein talk about these in his theories? Non-inertial means that there is something there, but it isn't matter, right? How is that possible in the first place if the AEther is wrong?

Holy ... wut?

I mean, seriously ... you're asking what a non-inertial frame is? And suggesting that Einstein did not talk about such frames? ...

Holy ... effing ... I can't even ...

[davidm]

Inertial frame: you are driving in constant uniform motion along a road and drinking coffee from a Styrofoam cup. You and the coffee behave exactly as if you are at rest -- there is no experiment you can perform to prove otherwise. Galilean relativity.

Non-inertial frame: you hit the brakes of your car to avoid hitting a goat that just wandered across the road. The coffee sloshes all over your face.

[Viveka]

*cough*

What the heck is a non-inertial reference frame, and where did Einstein talk about these in his theories? Non-inertial means that there is something there, but it isn't matter, right? How is that possible in the first place if the AEther is wrong?

Holy ... wut?

I mean, seriously ... you're asking what a non-inertial frame is? And suggesting that Einstein did not talk about such frames? ...

Holy ... effing ... I can't even ...

Inertial frame: you are driving in constant uniform motion along a road and drinking coffee from a Styrofoam cup. You and the coffee behave exactly as if you are at rest -- there is no experiment you can perform to prove otherwise. Galilean relativity.

Non-inertial frame: you hit the brakes of your car to avoid hitting a goat that just wandered across the road. The coffee sloshes all over your face.

Okay. It deals with fictitious forces from my cursory reading of the Wikipedia article.

"In a non-inertial reference frame in classical physics and special relativity, the physics of a system vary depending on the acceleration of that frame with respect to an inertial frame, and the usual physical forces must be supplemented by fictitious forces.[7][8] In contrast, systems in non-inertial frames in general relativity don't have external causes, because of the principle of geodesic motion.[9] In classical physics, for example, a ball dropped towards the ground does not go exactly straight down because the Earth is rotating, which means the frame of reference of an observer on Earth is not inertial. The physics must account for the Coriolis effect—in this case thought of as a force—to predict the horizontal motion. Another example of such a fictitious force associated with rotating reference frames is the centrifugal effect, or centrifugal force"

In other words, in whatever theory the idea of non-inertial reference frames came from, the centifigual force that is easily explained by Classical Physics and an AEther is a fictitious force.

IN FACT, non-inertial frames goes against the very first postulate of Special Relativity. I don't see why you're baffled by my misunderstanding of such since it never existed in Special Relativity except for possibly people other than Einstein who expanded upon Special Relativity.

[davidm]

IN FACT, non-inertial frames goes against the very first postulate of Special Relativity.misunderstanding of such since it never existed in Special Relativity except for possibly people other than Einstein who expanded upon Special Relativity.

SR only considers inertial frames.

[Greta]

Also, where did the singularity come from? Nothing?

You might need to read Lawrence Krauss's work.

Why don't you present an argument instead of telling me to read someone's work? Or at least give a synopsis of what his work is and what it entails for my argument.

Talk about attitude. At times this place can be like a sheltered workshop for the socially awkward.

I was trying to work out if you were aware of Krauss and his ideas. Are you aware of the concept of primordial fluctuations?

[Eodnhoj7]

You might need to read Lawrence Krauss's work.

Why don't you present an argument instead of telling me to read someone's work? Or at least give a synopsis of what his work is and what it entails for my argument.

Are you aware of the concept of primordial fluctuations?

Flux, or movement, resulting in matter right?

With matter fundamentally being both actual and potential movement resulting in further matter (in over simplified terms) ?

"Since the fluctuations are believed to arise from inflation, such measurements can also set constraints on parameters within inflationary theory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_fluctuations

Matter is strictly perpetual movement then. Agree/Disagree?

[Arising_uk]

...
You're darn right it's an observation of 'positive' and 'negative'--results that disprove Einstein and affirm an AEther--that is.

Just think if LIGO was made back when the Michelson-Morley experiment was occurring: Einstein would have had his shit blasted to the garbage bin!

Do you seriously think that is the LIGO results contradicted the MM experiment and proved the existence of an ether the physicists there would not have been crowing about it to the heavens? As at the very least it would be worth a Nobel prize.