On 8/9/2025 at 7:21 PM, Eric Smith said:

I'm sure you know the double slit experiment. You can get the same results with the double nail experiment.

A double-nail experiment (an interference setup similar to Young's experiment in which the screen is replaced by free space and the slits by nail-like obstacles) would not produce the same results, but the negative picture of the same results with blurry shadows replacing interference maxima.

Is that what you're trying to get at?

How this relates to aether, fields, and (of all things) consciousness is anybody's guess.

Your concern seems to be one of lexicon.

16 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Okay, lets talk some simple math. If E = mc² Then how is it that every few years somebody calculates a new value for 'c' which changes the entire results of the formula that everybody still thinks is the gospel of science?Of course it does, I'm not condemning it. It's a great accomplishment and the beginning, but it's not the end, don't forget that.

This seems like either a misinterpretation on your part or a misrepresentation of the facts. Are you talking about the refinements swansont mentioned? Why are you objecting to increasing accuracy as we keep testing and learning more?

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This seems like either a misinterpretation on your part or a misrepresentation of the facts. Are you talking about the refinements swansont mentioned? Why are you objecting to increasing accuracy as we keep testing and learning more?

It is not all increasing accuracy.

Some of the change is attributed to which fundamental constants we fix and which we adjust to suit.

The speed of light (in isolation) is a scalar (number).

Associated quantities epsilon and mu are only constant in an isotropic situation.

If non isotropy is considered they are not even scalars they are Tensors to take account of this.

On 8/15/2025 at 1:44 AM, swansont said:

On 8/14/2025 at 11:39 PM, Eric Smith said:

Okay, lets talk some simple math. If E = mc² Then how is it that every few years somebody calculates a new value for 'c' which changes the entire results of the formula that everybody still thinks is the gospel of science?

That’s easy: this doesn’t happen. Not since 1983, at least.

Prior to that experiments refined the value, but the changes were quite small.

The actual process you refer to started someway back before 1983

This reference comes from a Manchester Physics Series book whcih is sasly now out of print but I heartily recommend to @Eric Smith

As it contains good explanations of most of his queries.

Electromagnetic Radiation

F. H. Read

Wiley 1980

On 8/14/2025 at 6:39 PM, Eric Smith said:

  On 8/9/2025 at 2:37 PM, MigL said:

You have no idea what getting a PhD entails.
At that level, it is not memorizing presented facts in order to pass a test, but involves a great deal of original research, theoretical or experimental.
And his posts readily indicate he knows what he is talking about; yours, sadly, do not.

Of course it does, I'm not condemning it. It's a great accomplishment and the beginning, but it's not the end, don't forget that.

Not only do you not know what you are talking about, you don't seem to understand what others are telling you either.

On 8/19/2025 at 4:26 PM, MigL said:

Not only do you not know what you are talking about, you don't seem to understand what others are telling you either.

I understand it. I just don't agree with it.

On 8/9/2025 at 3:22 PM, Phi for All said:

This seems hypocritical, doesn't it? If science means to study and collect evidence in support of the work of the giants of science, doesn't it seem more probable that swansont's PhD studies and his work as a physicist on atomic clocks for the US Naval Observatory (GPS relies on relativity) represents a more trustworthy foundation for science knowledge? No offense, but you talk about "proof" and don't understand post-graduate studies and you make the same mistakes a LOT of people make trying to learn science from popular sources instead of taking courses.

I understand it, I'm just more critical of it. one person sees the glass as half empty and the other sees it as half full. I'm the half empty kind.

Those flat Earth people are obviously wrong because the Earth is a ball. I know it, you know it. But they do have SOME evidence that comes to the same observations we make on the globe earth, so we are forced to look at the other evidence they can't refute.

If gravity is nothing but a dielectric acceleration (magnetism) then the "gravity waves" are actually magnetic waves, with the same measurement. So I don't think the jury is out just yet.

2 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

I understand it. I just don't agree with it.

I understand it, I'm just more critical of it. one person sees the glass as half empty and the other sees it as half full. I'm the half empty kind.

Those flat Earth people are obviously wrong because the Earth is a ball. I know it, you know it. But they do have SOME evidence that comes to the same observations we make on the globe earth, so we are forced to look at the other evidence they can't refute.

If gravity is nothing but a dielectric acceleration (magnetism) then the "gravity waves" are actually magnetic waves, with the same measurement. So I don't think the jury is out just yet.

You have just demonstrated you don't understand the difference between gravitation and the electromagnetic interaction.

It's funny, but there is beginning to be a familiar smell about this tosh of yours.

With the advent of social media, people seem to think they can pick and choose facts to fit their world view, instead of having facts shape and modify their world view.

6 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

If gravity is nothing but a dielectric acceleration (magnetism)

What physics have you studied? In terms of college courses, not face book, YouTube or conspiracy websites.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by pinball1970
Missed a comma

8 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Those flat Earth people are obviously wrong because the Earth is a ball. I know it, you know it. But they do have SOME evidence that comes to the same observations we make on the globe earth, so we are forced to look at the other evidence they can't refute.

That’s why you can’t cherry-pick evidence. All of it must be considered

8 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

If gravity is nothing but a dielectric acceleration (magnetism) then the "gravity waves" are actually magnetic waves, with the same measurement. So I don't think the jury is out just yet.

“The jury is out” means a decision has not been reached. But not being out yet? It implies the trial is still ongoing. It’s not. Gravity does not behave as magnetism does. The jury rendered a decision quite a while ago.

I understand it

Back when I was teaching I learned that you can’t take someone’s word for it. The people who do not understand often lack the requisite ability to assess their understanding, much like in the Dunning-Kruger effect. As exchemist notes, your posts show that you do not understand.

Some of the previous discussion concerns the unalterability of some fundamental constants

On 8/15/2025 at 11:50 AM, studiot said:

Some of the change is attributed to which fundamental constants we fix and which we adjust to suit.
The speed of light (in isolation) is a scalar (number).

It is interesting to note that the one-way speed of light has never been measured, as a matter of fact, it cannot be measured due to causality considerations. We can only ever measure the round-trip speed of light from a reflection.
And although we have many other ways to conclude the value of c is fixed ( the original being J C Maxwell ), we have no empirical evidence that reflected light behaves the same as incident light.
( only principles such as Cosmological, Equivalence, Invariance of Relativity, etc. )

P.S. This arises from my interest in causality as of late.