Leaderboard

It showed that there was no detectable ether. The "aether wind" it was looking would have been the result of the Earth moving with respect to the aether. Of course, there would have been no wind if the Earth was at rest with respect to the aether. However, the Earth orbits the Sun in a circle, and thus it would only be possible for it to be at rest with respect to the aether at one particular time of the year. Since the experiment gives the same result no matter what time of the year it is performed, this is not an option. As to accuracy, it was accurate enough to detect the expected motion with respect to the aether, if it existed. But the accuracy of the original experiment is moot as it has been repeated since to much higher degrees of accuracy without giving any different results. I know that there are some out there that seem to think that if they could just find some flaw in the original M&M experiment, the whole of Relativity would come crashing down to its foundations. This simply is not the case. Relativity is supported by so many various and independent experiments and observations that it is far too late to put that particular genie back into its bottle. For instance, It has been suggested that Mendel "fudged" some the result for his Pea breeding experiments, as they were just a bit too perfect. But even if he had, it wouldn't have changed the validity of the Laws of genetics he discovered.

I received this PM from @Golden Rule Groupie but am putting it into the open since I don’t know them, it was unsolicited, and I’m sure better answers than mine are available. First, lacking religion does not mean one wanders aimlessly. I’d address this fundamental misunderstanding rapidly instead of trying to find a new religion. Many millions of people around the world without religion, myself included, lead very full fulfilling and enjoyable lives. Suggesting religion is what keeps us all from meandering aimlessly through life is ignorant in the extreme. Perhaps,it’s helpful for some, but it’s hardly prequisite. That said, you may wish to explore humanism for your son, or just teach him to find strength and meaning from within instead of looking to organized outsiders to provide it externally. I’m also curious what others here recommend.

Whether or not there is does not even matter. The function G that maps every N to 2 does the trick in 1 iteration.

Yes this is true as some quantities are pseudovectors, not vectors. This is, as you say, correctly handled by using quaternions. Mathematically quaternions were superceeded by tensors.

I looked at you referenced video and the author seems to have different aims in mind from your question. Looking at my screenshot you can see black dots on the base of the jar where particles have fallen. I am not sure if you understood my previous comment that smoke is a two phase disperse system and removing air takes away some if not all the second phase, leaving a one phase system, which is not dispersed. Carbohydrate compounds produce water vapour and carbon dioxide when burned so there will have been an increase in gas present duringand after burning, but wth a different chemical composition. The reading on the pressure gauge was not shown at this stage. All in all a poorly designed experiment with no clear aim surprising outcome.

I would argue that, due to the supernatural aspects of most religions, and certainly any of them that use Jesus, it's religion that offers a vague, wandering, unreasonable path to knowledge. Consider that the more a person uses blind faith in an unknowable god as their main way to accept which knowledge to believe in, the farther off the path of reason they wander. Without reason to aim their lives, these people have only guesswork, hope, and firm conviction to lead them. Many of them will actually tell you they're stronger because of this. Reason helps us decide what to do with the information we glean about the natural world. If our aim is to learn the most we can about ourselves and our environments in order to decide how best we can use our lives, then religion is far too subjective and vague (over 9000 sects of Christianity alone), which makes it vulnerable to manipulation, bias, and misinformation. I would advise any young person to insist on going to college to partake of accumulated human knowledge, and bond with their fellow human knowledge seekers. You can always keep an open mind about god(s); just focus on the people in your life until a god actually becomes observable to science. This is the humanism iNow spoke of.

As usual Dim, theres at least a hundred ways of interpreting what you say.

And people often forget that Bradley measured stellar aberration ca 1725, so we already knew we were not at rest with any purported aether. M-M would have fully expected to confirm a ~30 km/s number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

The reason is that DM only interacts gravitationally. "Normal" matter also interacts via electromagnetic forces (the particles bump into each other). This allows it to cool down and form small, dense clumps like stars and planets. Dark matter requires much longer to form loose, large scale structures. We know this because the initial hypothesis for dark matter is that it only interacts gravitationally (hence "dark"). And it turns out in that case, you naturally get the density distribution required to reproduce the rotation curves we see. If it behaved like a [baryonic] gas, then ti would collapse (like the other material in the galaxy) to form structures paralleling (or oven overlaying) the normal matter structures in the galaxy. There is other evidence supportive of this, for example that simulations of the formation of the large scale structure of the universe only work when dark matter (that only interacts gravitationally) mis added to the mix in the observed proportion. I really do want to get back to some of the details in the OP and the later posts but I am on holiday and so only have very little time!

Yes, I realise that. I was talking about both, since they both interact gravitationally. And probably the major part of baryonic matter is actually a plasma and gas. And I'm simply saying if DM interacts gravitationally, why would it not act like normal matter.

Again, can you take your mythical crap to the appropriate forum/ Oh and reported.

On the first page of the Discourse on Method, Descartes wrote the following. Intelligence is the best distributed thing in the world, because no one complains about having little and all people consider that they have enough. We believe that this phrase exudes irony. But in a universe where something elementary, like the photon, exhibits conduct that deserves to be qualified as intelligent, where there are signs of intelligence in plants, in minerals and in all animal organisms, we can write without irony the same phrase. Some people harbor in their minds the idea of a god and other people do not. In my life I met people in enough variety and quantity to have a statistical sample. We assume that I form a function of two variables. The dependent variable is the degree of mental adherence to the belief in a god. The independent variable is the amount of intelligence of the person. In the statistical sample of my experience, a Gauss bell would appear when plotting that function. That is, my less intelligent acquaintances and my more intelligent acquaintances do not adhere to the idea of a god. My acquaintances who have intermediate intelligences adhere to that idea. I do not take into account what people say to be good to those who listen. I keep in mind the behaviors. The behavior sample is represented by a Gaussian bell. Why is the lack of intelligence and maximum intelligence inadequate to believe in a god? Politics is another issue where those two extremes of intelligence fail. The same applies to surgery and other manual health services, such as kinesiology, nursing, etc. Obviously there are privileges reserved for intermediate intelligence, completely inaccessible for low and maximum intelligence. If I wanted to gather, for my personal purposes, most of the population, I would create an institution whose distinctive flag was the idea of a god. And I would create it by pure pragmatism, regardless of my personal stance on that idea. To analyze from science and from philosophy the idea of a cosmic being, the first step is to get rid of everything that the pragmatic institutions teach, that congregate people under a flag to lead the masses more easily, with the same ease of the shepherd leading a flock. To analyze from science and from philosophy the idea of a cosmic being, equanimity is essential, a faculty that is at the antipodes of pragmatism. Can I achieve equanimity? In my personal case, that is impossible. Can I achieve a condition that imperfectly substitutes for equanimity, even if it partially serves to analyze the idea of a god? I guess so. And I suppose that sometimes I have reached that condition, which helped me to make the idea of a god pass through the scientific-philosophical filter. At the exit of the filter there are no reasons that guarantee the existence of a universal being. But when I do not demand guarantees, I find in science and philosophy indications of an appreciable probability with respect to the existence of that being.

The Micheson/Morley experiment was conducted to show that the ether [the medium thought to be needed for light to traverse in] did exist. It failed and showed that no medium did exist. The experiment done at that time was the most accurate available. But of course like all scientific experiments, they are continually repeated. https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet 14 Sep 2009 "Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. The laws of physics appear to be the same for all processes occurring in laboratories moving at constant speed and for any orientation – a fundamental concept known as Lorentz symmetry. It takes its name from the Dutch physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, who was attempting to explain the null result of Albert Michelson and Edward Morley’s famous experiment. Then in 1905, Albert Einstein used Lorentz symmetry as a postulate of his special theory of relativity. Lorentz symmetry has so far withstood the tests of time, but in recent years physicists have begun to question whether it is indeed an exact symmetry of nature. They are motivated primarily by the development of string and loop quantum gravity theories, which try to make gravity compatible with quantum physics and allow for the possibility that Lorentz symmetry might not hold exactly. In order to develop these and other theories, physicists need to know if and when the speed of light is different in different directions. Michelson and Morley tackled this problem by splitting light into two beams that travel at right angles to each other, are reflected by mirrors and then recombined with each other to produce an interference pattern, which depends on different lengths of the two paths. A change in this pattern as the interferometer is rotated would suggest that the speed of light is different in different directions." more at link.

As much as you and RedBarron don't get it, in fact his contraption does generate some gravity. But it's not measurable...a small motor rotating will generate a force which mathematically could be expressed as gravitational pull but the values are miniscule beyond measurement and certainly beyond your comprehension judging by your previous posts in the other thread. This is complete nonsense. Present a model and stop coninuing a moronic subject which was closed by a mod.

A 0.1 solar mass red dwarf could burn for 10 trillion years or so. A planet orbiting around such a small star and still be in the Goldilocks zone would be almost assuredly tidally locked.

I saw this yesterday, made a mental note to change it for you, then immediately forgot. If it hasn’t been done in the next 12 hours or so, shoot me a PM. Edit: it was easier to do on my phone than I anticipated, so it’s done now.

Are you really interested in all these questions you are asking? Or do you have a motive? or an agenda? I mean are you really interested in learning?

This is a political thread on whether Aussie politics at this time is democratic and fair with regards to the electorate. It is not about discussing foolish gullible mythical beliefs that has its own section under the religious banner.

Electromagnetism is the combination of the strong force, being supplied by the proton - magnetism - and the weak force supplied by the electron - electricity - coming together to found electromagnetism. Basically, friction leads to activity. If we are to observe that without motion, there is nothing, as there are no bonds, then we need friction, supplied by the constant struggle between protons for electrons. This is the fundamental force of, well, everything.

But it will only be truly fair when Jesus Christ returns.

I am Australian and I think it doesn't matter really who become prime minister. Just wait for Jesus Christ second coming the one true king and prime minister of the world, that is what the world is waiting for!

You will see when He returns. But for now OK I will stop writing now. And I give you a downvote down for reporting me.