illuusio

just checked. v14a stated FTEP create ether around masses. Is it created in the horizontal direction?

Ou.. current version is 22 You can get it from the link in my signature. Mmm... and masses include atom nucleus as well.

So the ether is flowing away from the earth,the earth as the center? Flowing to where? What creates ether to replace the ones that flow away?

Check my theory there is explanation for what you just asked.

vertical as in longitudinal?

Nope. Vertical is in this case up to the air

Did you misread Fizeau's experiment?

http://en.wikipedia....zeau_experiment

 

 

No I didn't. M-M result doesn't conflict Fizeau's experiment. M-M experiment could only detect ether "wind" which is horizontal that's why negative result for moving ether.

Dueling cranks.

How do you distribute to the topic Should I go and whine to admins..? LOL

Tesla was obviously on the right tracks. But what's that all government stuff? I don't believe that there would be any resistance or hiding if somebody makes a working apparatus based on ether. Hmm... I can be wrong also... Where is Ning Li???

If this message is removed don't call 911

Ok, nobrainer, I'm ready to read your theory!

Is there some place I can find the paper of yours?

The math and predictions have been done and you are dripping with insults, no reason to play with you. Insults show lack of ability to hold a respectful discussion.

I agree but you started it I promise to read your theory with open mind and give some valid feedback, ok? Do you have a link to it? Or can you attach it into this thread? I read it tomorrow now it's time to sleep, cu!

Show me proof of debunking this:

1. The universe is run by a process of mass and energy decay into gravitational waves.

2). New law- when in-phase waves collide they form the action of changing into a single amplitude which creates the reaction of this contact force, gravity.

You show me proof of debunking this:

1. The universe is run by tiny man-bear-bigs. They so tiny that modern or future science can't detect them

2. My salad bowl must be washed or does it...?

And these create at least gravitation, maybe my car, maybe.

Give me some equations first, ok?

The fresnel stuff of a stationary theory... I read what you wrote about it and really, you have not said one concrete piece of evidence that convinces me that you know what you are talking about. And if you could have debunked my theory, it would havenonly taken one post as I have done with yours.

Your "theory" is the worst word salad ever with hint of hand waving You don't have ANY equations to get some predictions, I have, plenty. Beat that.

Anyone can explain one piece of a pie with an imaginary constant but that does not explain the fundamental process nor does it explain all the other problems with our observations, gravitational lensing of dark matter, then requires a different constant and inflation a different and dark energy a different.

You can't beat me in this- you will have to try something else

Beating your "theories" is child's play to me Dark matter is not need. Have you read my theory?

In conclusion,

By thinking out of the box, where others can not precieve to venture and by using the resources available today, the universe can be shown to follow Newton's laws of motion with respect to wave to wave interaction.

When Einstein proposed a senerio where matter warps time and space and this warpage creates gravity he admitted he did not know the mechanism.

By showing a wave to wave constructive interference is a contact force and by knowing time is a forward action, entropy increases, a new physics law becomes evident and the explanations for unknown phenomenon become evident such as space with out mass can warp radiation, currently known as dark energy. The extra missing mass in the galactic rotation problem can be solved by modifying general relativity as Prof. Ma and Wang have done. Dark energy, inflation, relative time all become actions of mass formation and decay into a wave. Time, space and gravity are treated as wave functions of mass and energy as they decay into the aether, the gravitational wave, creating space and as waves join increasing in amplitude there is a reaction to wavefront formation which locally and in space is gravitation, unmasking the idenity of dark matter and revealing the reason for forward time.

Galactic rotation problem can be solved just by modifying the "constant" G. It can be done simpler

So I don't feel any need for Ether, or even for Nature to have an underlying

'physical' context to be understood, just math with the correct text. So I reject the notion that there is an Ether.

To me that sounds kind of defence. Well, I can't understand that so there is no need for that. You understand what I mean?

There is no "error". M-M showed we are not moving through the ether. Bradley previously showed we are not stationary wrt an ether.

 

You claim something different — M-M's null result is because the earth creates an ether, and yet have previously declared you will offer no proof of this. Have you changed your mind? Because otherwise this runs afoul of Speculations rule #1.

Yes M-M showed that we are not moving through the ether, actually we create the ether and it's dragging a little. So? There is no evidence that there can't have ether. Actually there is experiment (Fizeau experiment) which proves ether (other than my experiment).

Here is five reasons that Fresenal's theory fails,

1). It cannot explain inflation

2). It can not explain time in one forward direction

3) it can not explain the universe expanding at an increasing rate of acceleration.

4). It can not explain the actions holding galaxies together called dark matter

5). It can not explain increasing entropy

So it fails by observation and reason

How these pointers are related to partially dragging ether?

According to you, they should work perfectly in the horizontal plane but not at all in the vertical plane. That's not what happens.

If reality doesn't agree with your ideas, it isn't because reality has made a mistake.

 

 

Do you have some kind of reference to claim that they don't work perfectly in horizontal plane? On surface of Earth I mean.

"If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it?"

Yes, pretty much.

These things

http://en.wikipedia....laser_gyroscope

are used in all 3 dimensions for navigation and such.

If the ether was real and the ether drag effect was real we would crash a lot of planes.

 

You can stop trolling now.

Right... those "things" don't function as perfectly as they should function and I wonder why... I refer to lock-in, specially with low rotating speed.

!

Moderator Note

Given that you've already declared that you will not discuss any proof of the ether, there's really no potential discussion here. I can't think of a reason that this thread should remain open. Can you provide a reason?

What a heck you are talking about? Talking about Michelson-Morley's possible system error is totally good topic, don't you think my friend?

This is not a debunking of aether theories, nor does it address any of the ideas brought forth by Tesla being that the experiment predates the concept.

 

 

 

 

EM is not particle based. As I understand it is a fundamental force, the essence of EM is truly unknown.

Fundamental force alright but no not so effective from long range.

 

 

i seem to prefer gravity as described by interactions of electromagnetism, it was nikola tesla's announcement of his supposed "dynamic theory of gravity" which first proposed that space is interpenetrated by electromagnetism (as if it is the fabric of everything), in his time they used the term "Ether" or "Aether" derived from the greek word that means "material that fills the universe", he further exclaims that matter has an inherent dielectric property that creates attraction and thus describes gravity.

 

Interpenetrated by electromagnetism? What is that electromagnetism? Free electrons? Free protons? We should detect those particles.

Your response is way too personal which is sad and against the rules of forum. The idea that M-M experiment is based on wrong idea at the first place is significant. If you can't see the picture you need a glasses.

If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it?

Here is more information on Fresnel's ether (search) -> http://redshift.vif....DF/v05n3nas.pdf

THE reason why there is partial ether-dragging detected is due to vertical position (related to Earth) of water movement.

You have already failed to demonstrate your claims on multiple occasions, so I am going to call you out on this early to save everyone here a lot of time.

 

Prove it, or for the love of God, stop posting crap threads.

Stick to the issue here Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error?

Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion.

 

 

Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion.

 

 

Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion.

Mmm... it's eating you up that I won't disclose my experiment But can you agree that M-M experiment is wrongly executed? Who says that ether wind should be horizontal?

Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment

Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid

I'm back from my one week ban First of all I'm VERY happy about it, so many thanks to hypervalent_iodine!!! You provocated me and because of that I got banned. So why thank?

Well... I almost revealed my ether experiment to you guys! That would have been HUGE mistake, I mean HUGE!!! But during the ban I got information from friend of mine that I shouldn't reveal anything related to that experiment. That's because of patent issues. So I'll disclosure my experiment after I got the patent or before that if I make that pending patent public because of commercial product.

So... from my behalf this thread can be closed because I won't disclosure that ether proving experiment at this point.

One more time, thank you hypervalent_iodine!!!

Wow, two whole months?

 

The moderators of this site place a great deal of store in politness, so I'm not sure I can really express my opinion of your 'theories'.

If you have something to tell related to my theory do it with message (in case of being not polite). And if don't have anything constructive (negative or positive) to say, I put you on my ignore list. I'll come back to this thread after finishing my experiments and sending my patent application. I'm lucky that I live in modern days. Few hundreds years ago my destination would have been quite different

!

Moderator Note

illuusio,

 

This is going to end up exactly like your other thread unless you start coughing up some evidence and stop avoiding the issue. This is your one and only chance. After this, it's thread closure.

LOL If you can't wait few days you are impatient. You can close this thread if you desire to do so. Closing this thread doesn't effect my progress in any way, loss is in your side.

If we are moving with it, then why would the light shift, as we see in aberration?

 

Now that I think of what you have said, I think that you are not quite understood aberration of light. Why mixing ether at all with AoL? Sure ether causes light to bend, but not that much in case of Earth. AoL is related to finite speed of light with velocity of observer and his telescope (tube).

It doesn't matter that it won't work. Illuusio will claim it does, but he'll always be too busy to provide any evidence or results.

Nonsense! I have used two months of my free time to create underlying theory and bunch of experiments. I have to ease my pace now due to other commitments. But I have the blueprint for my ether proving experiment done and few preliminary tests executed. Now I need some additional material and more time to finish. The result is already in my knowledge and there is the ether.