I am so confused now, have i learned anything or have i just witnessed differing points of view
What you've learned, is that the so-called skeptics who hang around here aren't skeptics, they're cranks. The title of this thread is General Relativity was an aether theory, the clear-cut evidence is in Einstein's 1920 Leyden address at http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Ether_Relativity.htm where he says:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense".
But we don't see comments like "Very interesting, Farsight. I didn't know that". What we instead is outrage, abuse, and denial. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) and note where it says:
"No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief".
These so-called skeptics behave just like Young-Earth Creationists, only nastier. If the evidence doesn't fit their convictions, they duck and dive and rationalize it away, and find a way to dismiss it. Scarey.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Says the liar John Dickhead Duffield. Have you come back for more after being caught out misquoting, linking to pages that don't support your half-witted fantasies and contradicting yourself?
You have a belief that is not supported by the evidence and obsess about it. We see you for what you are and that makes you cry. Tough shit loony boy. Real skeptics aren't fooled by your nonsense. There's nothing "scarey" about laughing at your stupidity.
Thanks to the wonder of google, I just found that Mr. Duffield has just been relegated to pseudo-science on yet another forum and has been temporarily banned for dodging questions on another site.
And yet he will still maintain that he is the one who is right, even though every forum he visits with actual scientists dismisses him. (Even though the people who can follow the mathematics of general relativity cannot believe in Farsight's theory and even though Farsight obviously cannot follow the mathematics of general relativity.)
Isn't that the very definition of crank that Farsight tells people?
I think that you have pinpointed the very definition of an anti-science loony there.
I don't understand string theory, super-string theory, etc. I simply don't have the time and patience to get into it. Therefore I assume that people who have put far more effort into getting their heads around it (such as you and Cuddles) are probably right (but as a skeptic I'm also aware that you may have it all wrong, and it doesn't really matter to me either way).
Duffield doesn't understand any of it either. He's tried but it is too complicated for him. He concludes that it must therefore be wrong. That is what makes him a crank. It is exactly the same mentality that you see in a Creationist: "I don't understand evolution, therefore it is wrong"; or an anti-vaxer: "I don't understand how vaccines work, therefore they don't".
Indeed it is exactly the same attitude that drove the Flat Earth Society in the 20th Century (I understand that it is pretty much dead now). They couldn't understand how we could stick to the outside of a big ball. Therefore they didn't accept it was true and grasped desperately at the flimsiest of "evidence" to try to convince themselves that the world was flat.
Duffield can lie that we are like Creationists as much as he likes, he has no actual evidence to draw on (as with everything he says). The similarity between his opposition to what confuses him, and the Creationists' similar behaviour, is there for all to see.
It has never been proven that the speed the light is constant in the vacuum of space. It is only assumed. The test used to measure the speed of light was based on a high density narrow beam laser, reflecting against mirrors. EMR scatters according to the inverse square law. It does not travel in narrow beams as a laser. That's comparing apples to oranges.
Thermal imaging of stars show heat expanding from the source in uniform waves decreasing in density with distance, as with heat convection. This observation suggests that the volume of space is composed with some kind of fluid medium that is non-luminescent, such as a superfluid hydrogen.
I saw that this thread had been push-started by someone.
It's like having therapy to stop a nightmare and 7 months later something triggers the horror.
Indeed - and it's just more of the same old bullshit.I saw that this thread had been push-started by someone.
It's like having therapy to stop a nightmare and 7 months later something triggers the horror.
But the reawakening of this thread gives a welcome opportunity to note that last time he was here Mr John Dickhead Farsight was caught out lying and crawled off to lick his wounds. So far on his time travel thread he has been very stupid and constantly misrepresents and uses straw man, but he hasn't actually tried linking to things that don't say what he claimed, and he hasn't been lying about what other people said. So perhaps he has learnt something in the last year?
Well I'm glad the thread got bumped as I found it an entertaining read and an insight into one mans delusion.
In the last couple of pages of the other thread he has started doing this again. I wouldn't like to guess whether it is because he's too stupid to realise, or because he is so arrogant that he thinks nobody else will notice him lying. Either way, he's dragging his own name through the mud again.
LOL. I don't lie. And nor do I find the need to be abusive when confronted with scientific or historical evidence. Here's Einstein talking about the aether of general relativity in 1920:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."
You have great aether scientist in UK. He developed aether theory to very last detaill - Harold Aspden. He also develops gravitation forces from electrical interactions between matter particles with those of eather. Predictions drawed from his theory are more precise than those of Einstein GRT. Based on aether he draws gravity constant, and famous energy equation. Aether is also basically infinite source of energy, therefore one day we may be forced to get back to 19 c. theory of eather, but it is here on table.
Here basic doubts cocncerning GTR and Michael Morley experiment interpretation are briefly presented - http://www.esotericscience.com/Aether.aspx
Theroy of dr Aspden can be studied directly from his papers: http://www.aspden.org
He himslef is shortly presented here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Harold_Aspden
greetings
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks