studiot Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I don't read bible so I don't know story of the mote and the beam. You have no need to be concerned for my health I'm respected member of Finnish society and living balanced life. But that was not all I said. You have not answered my comment on the core of this thread. The part you have replied to is of no value, taken out of context as you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) If that extrapolate is your (scientific) method then I hope you think that through again I don't know if they are right and I don't have to. I have done my own experiment but that's not in focus now. But is MME measuring unmeasurable? This is interesting graph! https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=theory%20of%20everything&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q I wonder why...? OK, so the better the equipment used, the less well it gives the result that you predict. And you still think that's good for your "theroy"? It's not an interesting graph. It's a bad attempt to distract attention from the issue . If you have done an experiment please post it so we can actually comment on it. Edited October 7, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) OK, so the better the equipment used, the less well it gives the result that you predict. And you still think that's good for your "theroy"? It's not an interesting graph. It's a bad attempt to distract attention from the issue . If you have done an experiment please post it so we can actually comment on it. We are not talking about my experiment here and I can't reveal it because of the patent issues. My theory doesn't have any exact predictions (at the moment) related to the extended MME so it's interesting to see how stable apparatus can be made and what is the fringe movements with it There will be movement, I put my money on that. But that was not all I said. You have not answered my comment on the core of this thread. The part you have replied to is of no value, taken out of context as you have. So what experiments you do mean? Any links? Edited October 7, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 We are not talking about my experiment here and I can't reveal it because of the patent issues. My theory doesn't have any exact predictions (at the moment) related to the extended MME so it's interesting to see how stable apparatus can be made and what is the fringe movements with it There will be movement, I put my money on that. OK, Do that. Put your money on it: spend some cash, buy the kit, do the experiment. If you are right then the Nobel prize will pay off the expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 My theory doesn't have any exact predictions You don't have a theory. You have delusions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 You don't have a theory. You have delusions. LOL You ran out valid scientific arguments, nice. You can now roll on your back on the floor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 LOL You ran out valid scientific arguments, nice. You can now roll on your back on the floor You still don't have a theory. And , while I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis, I'm inclined to agree with the statement that you are delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 You still don't have a theory. And , while I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis, I'm inclined to agree with the statement that you are delusional. And another one Could you at least try to stick with the topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 ! Moderator Note ACG52 and John CuthberComments about the person rather than the argument are not acceptable in any circumstance - please restrict yourselves to criticising the theory rather than speculating about the poster themselves. You don't have a theory. You have delusions. You still don't have a theory.And , while I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis, I'm inclined to agree with the statement that you are delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 OK, fair enough, but Illuusio still doesn't have a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 OK, fair enough, but Illuusio still doesn't have a theory. Well, can you reveal your definition of a theory? I think that I do have a theory, but that's not the point. The point is MME measured horizontal ether wind and didn't find one. How in Earth it took that long before somebody tried it vertically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 How long it took isn't the issue. They looked, and they didn't find it. It isn't there. Re theory, take your pick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_in_physics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 How long it took isn't the issue. They looked, and they didn't find it. It isn't there. Re theory, take your pick http://en.wikipedia....c_organizations http://en.wikipedia....ries_in_physics You don't believe your own eyes? Well, I can't beat that If we speak of my theory, it surely does give predictions. I think that you haven't read the latest version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 please restrict yourselves to criticising the theory rather than speculating about the poster themselves. There's no theory there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 There's no theory there. mmm... that's original Keep on rocking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 You don't believe your own eyes? Well, I can't beat that If we speak of my theory, it surely does give predictions. I think that you haven't read the latest version. I do believe my own eyes. I just don't see a theory. I see a bizarre prediction that the MME wouldn't work if you balanced it on its end. I also saw the video that shows directly that this idea is wrong. And I know from the way that ring gyros work that the idea must be wrong. What do you think I have seen that I am missing the point of? As for the predictions: yes I know it makes them . You mentioned one: you say that the MME shouldn't work vertically. But it does. That's enough to falsify the theory once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 As for the predictions: yes I know it makes them . You mentioned one: you say that the MME shouldn't work vertically. But it does. That's enough to falsify the theory once and for all. Ok, so it seems that there won't be any fruits left for this conversations with you. You are ignoring evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That won't do. You said I was ignoring what I see then you say I'm ignoring the evidence. Well, what evidence am I ignoring? It seems like you are seeing evidence I can't. Tell us what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 If that extrapolate is your (scientific) method then I hope you think that through again I don't know if they are right and I don't have to. I have done my own experiment but that's not in focus now. But is MME measuring unmeasurable? Well, if the experiment is right, then you will be right and vice versa. It's quite important. hmm...it's maybe the same dilemma as 1+1+1 and 3P2 . Both gives the same answer but they are different in theory. Is there a simple way to test your theory, without creating a whole new apparatus? (putting all the eggs in one basket is always a bad idea) i.e. devise a simple and elegant experiment that tests the fundamental idea of your theory, the ether. Vertical MME should cut it nicely. Pen lasers? You did spend the money to create the apparatus already, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 That won't do. You said I was ignoring what I see then you say I'm ignoring the evidence. Well, what evidence am I ignoring? It seems like you are seeing evidence I can't. Tell us what it is. You can't deny fringe movement with seen two extended MME, can you? What your eyes see? What you think other people see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 You can't deny fringe movement with seen two extended MME, can you? What your eyes see? What you think other people see? I can see very little fringe movement with the better apparatus. I could, at a pince calculate how much you would expect (give a few assumptions) I'm willing to bet that the numbers would tally. (My hunch is, btw, based on having made and used interferometers so I'm not just guessing) I also know that with a ring gyro you don't get that effect. So I don't see anything other than the expected experimental error. You seem to be seeing something that's not really there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ! Moderator Note It's pretty obvious this is just an end-around of discussing matter from closed threads and that no evidence is forthcoming (as usual). So, closed, as per moderator consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts