Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:03 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:23 pmThe first 3 dimensions relate to the measurement of extension.
And position; x,y and z will identify a location relative to some arbitrary point.
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:23 pmThe 4th is qualitatively different and should not be uttered in the same breath since is has no concern with the measurement of extension but is wholly about duration.
Well, if you want to locate an event, you have to include t. It's no good knowing where the party is if you don't know when it's happening.
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:23 pmThe past and future have no existence.
As it happens I agree with you, but the block universe and growing block universe are taken seriously in some quarters.
This is because SOME PARTS of the, so called, "block universe" and/or "growing block universe" are ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. Just like ONLY SOME PARTS of nearly ALL, if not ALL, "theories" are ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. Those PARTS have to be worked out and/or decided though. Which, by the way, is Truly EASY, that is; once you learn HOW to do it, correctly.

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:42 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:23 pmAether, like all scientific abstractions, is just a model. It cannot be said to "exist".
If you've been following the thread, or at least have read the OP, you will be aware that in my view 'spacetime' and 'quantum fields' are essentially aether models; so is the Higgs Field, any of which can be said to exist; it just might be the case that they don't.
ANY 'thing' can be said to exist, which is just what "physicists" say, and do. BUT, this does NOT mean that they ACTUALLY EXIST, AT ALL. Like, for example, the three absurd examples just given here.
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:42 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:23 pmA model has to fulfil the requirement of fittness and consistency. The question is does the model of aether work, or does it not
Yup, I've made that point already.
So, what is THE ANSWER?

Or, better still, how about defining what 'aether' is, mean to be, EXACTLY?

Once 'you', human beings, work this out and DO inform "others" of what this 'aether' thing is MEANT TO BE, and ONLY THEN, can 'we' inform 'you' if 'aether' exists or not.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:11 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:30 amI've always liked 'quantum field'.
Good choice.
WHY do you say this?

Or, are 'you' just sub, or un, consciously wanting to share YOUR BELIEFS with "others"?
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:11 pm
attofishpi wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:30 amI have to say uwot, you kinda blew me away with a statement in the other thread that nobody can explain gravity or probably ever will. (something to that effect)
The problem is more that anyone can explain gravity. There could be any number of explanations that are entirely consistent with the evidence.
And, do NOT forget that the, so called, "evidence" is just more or less an INTERPRETATION ONLY, to begin with.

So called, "evidence" is usually only looked for, to back up and support one's ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS.
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:11 pm That being so, there is no way to determine which one is correct.
LOL What a VERY SHORT SIGHTED view of things.

Once 'you' learn to define the words that you actually use and talk about, then determining what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY procedure.
uwot wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 3:11 pm The appeal of falsificationism is that you can at least eliminate some candidates; but for every weed you pull up another bunch spring up.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:19 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:07 pmIf a scientist is intellectually honest, (s)he would be smart enough to recognize that people shouldn't require to be politicians in order to participate with equal respect. Science shouldn't require belonging to a privileged class.
The thing is there is nothing to stop liars, cheats and nutjobs becoming scientists and inevitably some do.
So, are you saying and meaning that we can NOT trust "scientists"?

If no, then what are you ACTUALLY saying and meaning, here?
uwot wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:19 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:07 pmAnd respect is earned.
The surest way to get respect in science is to come up with a new model that is more accurate or simpler to work with than the stuff it replaces - something that makes the lives of scientists easier; any character flaws you have will be forgiven. Newton for example was a brilliant scientist, and by all accounts a sexually repressed religious freak and all round horrible human being.
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Sep 08, 2020 4:07 pmBy the way, have you updated your book yet on the stuff you and I discussed? Did you try altering that part where you were expressing an intuitive way to understand gravity? I saw attofishpi's response and it reminded me about that.
The book is in pieces at the moment, to be honest. My plan for this year was to do a promotional tour complete with drugs, groupies and trashed hotel rooms - Rolls Royce in the swimming pool, that kinda thing. Then Covid 19 came along and saved me from myself, so instead I went off on a wild goose chase, completely revamping the book, spending huge amounts of energy on very elaborate graphics before deciding I like the simpler look. So now I'm putting it all back together, aiming to finish by the end of this month. Cheers again for your input.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 3:01 pmSo, are you saying and meaning that we can NOT trust "scientists"?

If no, then what are you ACTUALLY saying and meaning, here?
uwot wrote: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:19 amThe book is in pieces at the moment, to be honest. My plan for this year was to do a promotional tour complete with drugs, groupies and trashed hotel rooms - Rolls Royce in the swimming pool, that kinda thing. Then Covid 19 came along and saved me from myself, so instead I went off on a wild goose chase, completely revamping the book, spending huge amounts of energy on very elaborate graphics before deciding I like the simpler look. So now I'm putting it all back together, aiming to finish by the end of this month. Cheers again for your input.
There's no simple formula for which scientists to trust. I'm trying to summarise some of the less batshit physics/cosmology stuff in a cartoon book. Here's chapter 1 of the latest version:
https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 4:11 pm
Age wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 3:01 pmSo, are you saying and meaning that we can NOT trust "scientists"?

If no, then what are you ACTUALLY saying and meaning, here?
There's no simple formula for which scientists to trust.
And, in a sense, this applies to ALL adult human beings, in the days when this was written. However, when 'you', adult human beings, start becoming Truly Honest human beings, then each one of those ones can, simply, be trusted, including those ones who are called "scientists".

So, there REALLY IS one simple formula for which "scientists", and for which human beings, to trust.
uwot wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 4:11 pm I'm trying to summarise some of the less batshit physics/cosmology stuff in a cartoon book. Here's chapter 1 of the latest version:
https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html
But WHY try to summarize ANY, so called, "batshit physics/cosmology stuff"?

WHY NOT just summarize 'that', which is ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, only?

In my five seconds or so of perusal in your cartoon book I noticed that you are still just re-repeating the same old "current", to your days, so called, "knowledge", which is just thought, or which is believed, to be true, but which is obviously ACTUALLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. But, then again, you did NOT specify how those, so called, "scientists" define the words they use, like, for example, the word 'Universe'.

Also, you are just summarizing the "currently held beliefs and assumptions", to 'you', again which are just PLAIN Wrong, just like those who summarized the "currently held beliefs and assumptions", to 'them', that the earth is at the center of the Universe.

If you want to KNOW what is False and Wrong in your cartoon book, then you WILL ask the necessary clarifying questions.

Contrary to popular belief the Universe is NOT and could NOT expand.

No wonder it takes 'you', human beings, so long to make 'paradigm shifts', especially considering what you are showing here, which is; 'you', human beings, just keep repeating what is believed to be true, in the "current" days, but if, and when, looked at properly is ACTUALLY False and Wrong.

I have ALREADY informed you of WHAT is false and wrong in your cartoon book, and WHY it is false and wrong, but you will continue repeating the same "current (to you) knowledge" as though it is true, right, and correct. Just like those who continued to repeat that the earth is at the center of the Universe, even though they were being informed that their "current knowledge" was False and Wrong.

Some people just choose to NOT make a change in 'paradigms', and so we just have to wait for those ones to die out, and for new ones to come along. A lot of 'paradigms' take a completely unnecessarily to long a time before the shift is made.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 4:11 pm The book is in pieces at the moment, to be honest. My plan for this year was to do a promotional tour complete with drugs, groupies and trashed hotel rooms - Rolls Royce in the swimming pool, that kinda thing. Then Covid 19 came along and saved me from myself, so instead I went off on a wild goose chase, completely revamping the book, spending huge amounts of energy on very elaborate graphics before deciding I like the simpler look. So now I'm putting it all back together, aiming to finish by the end of this month. Cheers again for your input.

I'm trying to summarise some of the less batshit physics/cosmology stuff in a cartoon book. Here's chapter 1 of the latest version:
https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html
I noticed that you have changed some of your wording, in attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic, but these changed words do NOT hide and conceal what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, and which you are just 'trying to' back up and support. You, however, just can NOT back up and support 'that', which is actually NOT true.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 5:05 amI noticed that you have changed some of your wording, in attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic...
No Age, I'm trying to make it clearer. The observations are unambiguous - the more distant the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted. The Doppler effect explains red-shift in terms of relative motion. If the Doppler effect is the reason for the observed red-shift, then the more distant the galaxy, the greater the relative velocity. That is consistent with an expanding universe. My clarifying question to you is which part of that chain of reason is the weakest link? Is it:
1. The galactic red-shift is an illusion?
2. The Doppler effect does not explain variations in frequency?
3. Expansion does not account for differences in relative motion?

You might want to refer to pages 4 and 5: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 5:05 amI noticed that you have changed some of your wording, in attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic...
No Age, I'm trying to make it clearer.
LOL You are NOT doing a very good job then. For example, what does the word 'it' here refer to EXACTLY?

If you want to make things CLEARER, then say what you ACTUALLY mean.

What, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' say and make clearer here?
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am The observations are unambiguous
I KNOW.

I have continually told you this.

I have also continually told you that it is the 'interpretations', which are Wrong, False and Incorrect, and NOT the 'observations', themselves. How many times do I have to inform you of this before this becomes UNDERSTOOD?
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am - the more distant the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted.
As I said and wrote previously;
I noticed that you have changed some of your wording,

I also provided the reasons for you changing some of your wording, that is;
in an attempt to 'try to' make what you are saying now seem more believable or more realistic, but these changed words do NOT hide and conceal what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, and which you are just 'trying to' back up and support.


Oh, and by the way, when did this 'unambiguous observation' change? Last time you wrote it was NOT "the more distant the galaxy, the more its light is red-shifted"?

Also, what does "more its light is red-shifted" ACTUALLY MEAN?

Because the 'it' word here infers or implies that 'that' galaxies OWN light is more red-shifted.

Therefore, are you now 'trying to' suggest that the red-shift, and the blue-shift, and that that shift is 'more red' or 'more blue' depending on the distance the galaxy is from earth/the observer, and that this applies to ALL and EVERY galaxy? Or, are you 'trying to' suggest something else here?

If it is the latter, then 'what', EXACTLY, are you now 'trying to' suggest is true, right, and correct?

Is it correct, or incorrect, that there are some galaxies, which are further away than other galaxies are to earth, but which are blue-shifted, while the closer galaxies are red-shifted?

Your completely Honest answer here would be much appreciated.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am The Doppler effect explains red-shift in terms of relative motion. If the Doppler effect is the reason for the observed red-shift, then the more distant the galaxy, the greater the relative velocity.
Considering that this has NOT YET been tested AND verified, then this "the greater the relative velocity" is ONLY what is ASSUMED to be what is happening and occurring, and true.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am That is consistent with an expanding universe.
You, STILL, have NOT YET comprehended what I have be saying and alluding to.

And this is because you just want to be HEARD instead of wanting to LISTEN.

Also, here is now where we get to the original and currently held BELIEF, which is causing all of these added on and extra words, in an attempt to 'try to' and make what you are saying more believable and more realistic/more true.

The 'expanding Universe theory', is just PLAIN Wrong and False, but as I alluded to earlier, this ALL DEPENDS on how one defines the word 'Universe' here.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am My clarifying question to you is which part of that chain of reason is the weakest link? Is it:
1. The galactic red-shift is an illusion?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 2. The Doppler effect does not explain variations in frequency?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 3. Expansion does not account for differences in relative motion?
NO.

AND, if these are the ONLY clarifying questions you can ask here, then this just SHOWS OWN BELIEF here, and REVEALS FURTHER just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am You might want to refer to pages 4 and 5: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... ter-1.html
I am using those pages as references to what I am POINTING OUT and ALLUDING TO.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 5:05 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am My clarifying question to you is which part of that chain of reason is the weakest link? Is it:
1. The galactic red-shift is an illusion?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 2. The Doppler effect does not explain variations in frequency?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 3. Expansion does not account for differences in relative motion?
NO.
So: Red-shift is a genuine phenomenon.
The Doppler effect explains galactic red-shift.
Therefore that the universe is expanding is a tenable hypothesis.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 5:05 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am My clarifying question to you is which part of that chain of reason is the weakest link? Is it:
1. The galactic red-shift is an illusion?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 2. The Doppler effect does not explain variations in frequency?
NO.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 6:19 am 3. Expansion does not account for differences in relative motion?
NO.
So: Red-shift is a genuine phenomenon.
Yes.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 am The Doppler effect explains galactic red-shift.
Not necessarily.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 am Therefore that the universe is expanding is a tenable hypothesis.
NO.

By the way, you have just provided MORE PROOF of what your BELIEF IS.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amSo: Red-shift is a genuine phenomenon.
Yes.
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amThe Doppler effect explains galactic red-shift.
Not necessarily.
Since you accept that red-shift is a genuine phenomenon, what alternative to the Doppler effect do you propose as a cause?
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amTherefore that the universe is expanding is a tenable hypothesis.
NO.
Why is the expanding universe hypothesis untenable?
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 amBy the way, you have just provided MORE PROOF of what your BELIEF IS.
I'm not hiding what my belief is. I believe the Big Bang hypothesis is the best explanation of galactic red-shift. If you have a better explanation, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly.
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:32 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amSo: Red-shift is a genuine phenomenon.
Yes.
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amThe Doppler effect explains galactic red-shift.
Not necessarily.
Since you accept that red-shift is a genuine phenomenon, what alternative to the Doppler effect do you propose as a cause?
None.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:32 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amTherefore that the universe is expanding is a tenable hypothesis.
NO.
Why is the expanding universe hypothesis untenable?
BECAUSE of HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

'Theories' will NEVER substitute for ACTUALITY.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:32 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 amBy the way, you have just provided MORE PROOF of what your BELIEF IS.
I'm not hiding what my belief is. I believe the Big Bang hypothesis is the best explanation of galactic red-shift.
Yes, we KNOW, already.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:32 am If you have a better explanation, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly.
I have a MUCH BETTER explanation. But I also do NOT want you to adjust 'your beliefs', "accordingly". Unless, of course, you adjust to having NO 'beliefs', AT ALL. That way you can learn and understand 'things' FAR QUICKER and MUCH BETTER.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:52 amI have a MUCH BETTER explanation. But I also do NOT want you to adjust 'your beliefs', "accordingly". Unless, of course, you adjust to having NO 'beliefs', AT ALL.
I'll start with you. I don't believe you. Now what?
Age
Posts: 20192
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:24 am
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:52 amI have a MUCH BETTER explanation. But I also do NOT want you to adjust 'your beliefs', "accordingly". Unless, of course, you adjust to having NO 'beliefs', AT ALL.
I'll start with you. I don't believe you. Now what?
Whilst you do not believe me, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can change that BELIEF.

I have ALREADY LEARNED to NOT even bother wasting time to try to change "another's" BELIEF. I am in NO rush. So, either you will CHANGE, and become CURIOUS once more, or just die out, with "others" coming forward wanting to learn, and understand. Either way does NOT bother me AT ALL.

I can just keep observing 'you', adult human beings, continually expressing what 'you' BELIEVE is true, and then just POINT OUT and SHOW WHERE and HOW through those BELIEFS the human brain DISTORTS what is ACTUALLY REAL and True.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:52 amI have a MUCH BETTER explanation. But I also do NOT want you to adjust 'your beliefs', "accordingly". Unless, of course, you adjust to having NO 'beliefs', AT ALL.
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 11:24 amI'll start with you. I don't believe you. Now what?
Whilst you do not believe me, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can change that BELIEF.
Isn't that a good thing? Should I "adjust to having NO 'beliefs', AT ALL" or not?
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:52 amI have ALREADY LEARNED to NOT even bother wasting time to try to change "another's" BELIEF.
Have you given any thought to why you might be wasting your time? It's question I am asking myself at this very moment.
Post Reply