Jump to content

Tres Juicy

Senior Members
  • Posts

    732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tres Juicy

  1. Nothing here convinces me you are using the terminology the way actual physicists use it. i.e. it's word salad.

     

    It's gone beyond that now, it's become word soup designed to mask the fact that he has no evidence or even mathematical knowledge to back up what he's saying

  2. Post 27 (emphasis added):

     

     

    Wow...

     

    This would require an incredibly complex motion of the aether...

     

    Why would the aether be specifically "attached" to one planet in the entire universe?

     

    Why would anyone think that?!

  3. If there was a fixed ether, why is there aberration? We are not in motion wrt the ether, according to you, and aberration is the result of motion.

     

     

    Are you (Illuusio) suggesting that not only is there an aether but it is stationary in relation to the Earth (accounting for its orbit and rotation)?

  4. You don't have a theory, come back when you do....

     

    This is reminiscent of those historical reenactment societies, playing out old battles knowing the outcome...

     

    Aether is dead, lets not drag its corpse around in some farcical 'weekend at Bernies'esque charade just for a nostalgia trip - let it go.

     

    This isn't the "long dead theory reenactment society".

  5. I'm not requiring patent for the ether itself but for an application based on ether. My application based on ether also verifies that there is ether otherwise it wouldn't work.

     

     

    The "Aether wheelbarrow" - No more carrying heavy aether in you pockets or shoes...

  6. No one has preformed an experiment to "determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy" because the entire idea of aether has been disproven

     

    - NOT...

     

    Well played! My argument falls to pieces at this stroke of genius...

     

    .....And I am also sorry but you are wrong in your word salad blanket statement that there is no aether because of hearsay.

     

    It would be wrong to base my argument on heresay - that's why I have based it on the evidence available.

     

     

    FYI

    ....There is no way that the concept of an aether was eliminated in the respect from being generated from within all mass and energy establishing the laws of physics as a

    contact force wave function generated from with in mass and energy.

     

    Whilst I am tempted to say "word salad" at this point I will instead say this: This argument is flawed on so many levels. The aether concept has been disproven entirely - This is like saying "There is no way that the concept of unicorns was eliminated in the respect from being generated from within rainbows".

     

    But what do you know... It has been shown indirectly in the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics..

    So if the big bang created space, via the gravitational wave and each piece of mass and energy decay creating more space then space would be increasing as a direct relationship as mass and energy decrease. Could this fundamental action be the essence of how we measure time and space? And if this wave interaction is a contact force and the waves, interconnected as generated waves from sources, form wavefronts then the universe is flattening or losing degrees of three dimensional freedom as the stacking waves align increasing in amplitude aligning waves of gravity that bring all the universe along a plane.

    Or "What goes up must go down, dimensionally speaking" -CMT

     

    I have to say it here though... Word salad

     

    Is NOT word salad...

     

    I beg to differ

     

    Also, is Illusio the same person?

  7. The Aether;

    Michelson and Morley proved beyond approach that they could not find the aether, period. They did NOT set up any experiment to determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy. This is fact, not word salad.

     

     

    Nobody has done an experiment to "determine if the aether is generated from within all mass and energy" because the entire idea of aether has been disproven time and time again.

     

    And I'm sorry but

     

    Could the term what goes up must come down" be a dimensional statement? If so how?

    Time, space and gravity have relative changes. How?

     

    Is word salad...

  8. unfortunately, life doesn’t scale hammers... dose it?

    when was the last time the proverbial "falling brick" magically scaled down in size to make it survivable?

    thus you have to scale up to survive the falling bricks (tada! the magic of evolution)

     

    that’s exactly why it is a fair test, because nature doesn’t care if you are big or small, and drops rocks on people

     

     

     

     

     

    redundancy is useful

    size allows redundancy

    simply put

    if you have 1 of something and it fails, you die

    if you have 2 of something and it fails, you survive

    that’s why being bigger is an advantage over being smaller

     

    You're still missing the point. You can't use one scenario to decide what's best for all organisms.

     

    Not only that but pretty much any way you measure it ants are far more successful than elephants.

     

    Also, life does scale the "hammer". How often does an Ant take massively disproportionate damage?

  9. true, but that is a one off scenario

    in most cases the larger creature will survive more damage to its body then a smaller creature

    there is more body to damage, but less can cause any significant damage to the body

     

    ok and to simplify the analogy (this makes the analogy realistically infeasible, and imposible)

     

     

    one creature is a tine microscopic amoeba

    the other horrendously mutated amoeba the size of a bus

     

    there these 2 creatures can be compared in fitness because they are the same species

    unfortunately AMOEBA DO NOT SCALE PROPERLY TO THAT SIZE, they suffer metabolic failure from being too big

    thus we must use another species(say an elephant, an intern, and an amoeba),

     

    and use a test that allows a comparison of damage resistance of the organisms without accounting for their natural environments (a savannah, a basement, and a petridish (note the lack of cliffs))

    this is exactly what i meant by being petty...

     

     

    also take your wonderfully resistant amoeba, put it on a DRY counter, under a uv lamp for a minute

     

    im sure an elephant and a lab tech would survive that

     

    You seem to have misunderstood the use of the word "fit".

     

    Not only that, your arguement is flawed:

     

    in most cases the larger creature will survive more damage to its body then a smaller creature

    there is more body to damage, but less can cause any significant damage to the body

     

    Let's say we have an elephant and an ant. If we hit them both with the same hammer and the same force this is not a fair test of who can withstand the most damage.

     

    Scale the hammer and force down proportionally to the size of the ant and you will find that proportionally the ant has a far greater damage resistance than the elephant.

  10. i can back this up with simple logic

     

    we have 2 creatures

    one is an amoeba small single celled tiny

    the other is a elephant

     

    we take a hammer and hit both with said hammer repeatedly

    the amoeba survives the first 25 hits, but eventually goes "splat"

    the elephant survives the first 38 hits then gores and tramples out intrepid research intern

    (the elephant is relevantly unharmed, the inters was weak, it has a small bruise in its side)

    the intern also survives after 22 surgeries, and an extended hospital stay

     

    yes it is an extreme example

    but dose this get the point across

    big things are harder to kill, because they are big,

    as in bigger then you are, as in if you attach them you go "splat"

     

    also you know what i meant, dont be petty, we can compare the fitness of two species, not mathematically, but conceptually

     

    This is possibly the single worst strawman I've ever seen

  11. Could this process be the very nature of the aether in which electromagnetic waves need to propagate?

     

    There is no aether as proved by the Michelson Morley experiment and various more recent experiments.

     

    Did Michelson and Morley's experiments in the 1880's imagine and test for an aether generated from within mass and energy?

     

    No, they simply imagined that all waves needed a medium to propagate through and since light could travel through a vacuum that there must be something else there - an "aether"

     

    The physics laws are local laws mostly, could it be because the laws are generated locally?

    Could the speed of light be constant because the light arrives at the observer who is somehow governing the speed? If so how?

     

    What?! Observers govern the speed of light? No

     

     

    Could by understanding an aether show that the Galaxy clusters are are moving at an increasingly accleratingly rate? If so how??

     

    There will never be an "understanding of aether" because it does not exist

     

    Could the term what goes up must come down" be a dimensional statement? If so how?

    Time, space and gravity have relative changes. How?

     

    Word salad...

  12.  

    The fact that it did happen I realise. However the extent to which seems impossible.

     

     

    Roll a dice a billion times and record the outcome of each roll (Eg: Roll 1 = 3 roll 2 = 5.... Etc.) when you finish calculate the probability of getting the outcome you just got.

     

    It will be such a miniscule probability that it could be said to be near impossible, yet it just happened.

     

    The fact is, whatever the outcome, the odds were against it.

  13. What do you think about building sealed long tunnels for trains, that after they are being built, there are pumps vacuuming it out of air, at high percentages of the atmospheric density. Suppose the train is sealed too and compressed like airplanes, and there are sealed passages in the stations connecting the train to to open world, to let people get in and out of the train. What do you think about reducing drag and fuel consumption in this model?

     

     

     

    The benefit of reduced fuel consumption would very likely be heavily out weighed by the cost of maintaining an adequate vacuum.

  14.  

     

    And the silly drawing with the big ball making an indentation in a rubber sheet, while the little ball rolls down; only works if you have Sir Isaac Newton's gravity under the rubber sheet to pull the balls down. Otherwise the balls would drift of into space instead. It also ignores the fact that when two masses attract one another, it can't be "down hill" in both directions.

     

     

     

    It seems you have rather missed the point of this analogy. The rubber sheet in this instance is space, with the curvature as gravity. It's not possible to "drift" off of the sheet, because the sheet is space.

     

    You certainly don't need gravity acting under the sheet...

     

    Also, the is no "down hill" although gravity is mutually attractive.

  15. Millikan's oil drop experiment shows that it is possible to create artificial gravity in space, and that it is possible to create zero gravity on earth.

     

     

    No, Millikans experiment has not in any way replicated or created "anti gravity".

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

     

    Also, if gravity were an electromagnetic force moving toward the center of gravity of objects (rather than eminating from them) due to positive and negative charges this would be observable. If all objects were (-) and all gravitons (+) then objects themselves would repel each other at certain distances.

     

    Not to mention that relativity already explains why gravitation is instant, in that space is curved around massive objects...

  16. Though I do not know the actual link for the site, scientists recently were able to transport a particle hundreds of miles, therefore creating teleportation. While this is not the same as time travel, the ability to move any sized amount of matter through space would indicate that time travel would not be impossible. If a particle could be transported over great distances, it may also be able to be transported between timelines, in theory allowing time travel to be possible.

     

    Also, it is not impossible to meet yourself by time travel. (the bold is not meant to be insulting)

     

     

    Time does not work like this. While it is technically possible to move forward in time faster than usual there is no way to go back - the past is not a place you can travel to.

     

    When you think about it travel backward in time makes no sense at all.

  17. I am currently designing a project and the only thing stopping my idea from working is magnets interfering with other magnets. Is there some sort of material that i can use to put between the magnets (along with other parts of the project) so that the magnetic fields that pass through are much weaker.

     

     

    Are you trying to stop them from attracting or repelling?

     

    Repulsion can be negated.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.