General Relativity was an aether theory

[Croydon Bob]

Is variable c the only thing he says which is controversial?

Since arriving on this forum he hasn't so much been "controversial" as just ignorant:

I'm the super-skeptic.

I can demolish this stuff, but some of you will go into denial and start dismissing evidence just like our creationist friends.

Raise your game. And prepare for a shock when you find out that you aren't skeptics, you're suckers.

Not "suckers" enough to be taken in by your half-witted bollocks Mr John Duffield. Perhaps you should change your name to "Shortsight" as being farsighted isn't something you've managed here.

[tolman]

Since arriving on this forum he hasn't so much been "controversial" as just ignorant:

Quite.
Just as with creationists, it really takes more than just one or more ill-informed people with an agenda and/or delusions of grandeur to establish a controversy, it also requires that a meaningful number of other people without an agenda weigh in on both sides.

[Farsight]

Do you follow Farsight from forum to forum, PhysBang?

Yep, he's my very own personal troll.

[Farsight]

That's the oversimplified version we learn at school. I don't think you can really call it a "tortuous route" either.

That's one for another day. It's to do with Minkowski's wrench.

No. If you could stand a long way away and watch someone do an experiment close to the event horizon, then light might appear to be going slow, but to the person doing the experiment it would still be measured as moving at c.

Correct. You always measure the local speed of light to be the same because you use the motion of light to calibrate your clocks.

Since arriving on this forum he hasn't so much been "controversial" as just ignorant... Not "suckers" enough to be taken in by your half-witted bollocks Mr John Duffield. Perhaps you should change your name to "Shortsight" as being farsighted isn't something you've managed here.

I give the evidence, you dismiss it. Now who does that remind you of? Here's a clue: http://www.creationists.org/

Unfortunately, you are not alone. Mr. Duffield too does not appear to have the scientific knowledge or maths to understand the criticisms either; this may be why he hops from forums to forums and essentially evades replying to substantive criticism.

LOL, as if.

Here you go guys, here's PhysBang at his best: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/fo...topic=24337.75. I give the evidence and demolish every carping point he raises, but he refuses to acknowledge anything and ducks and dives telling his usual porkies. You want to check him out? Show him The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity and ask him to show you where Einstein talked about curved spacetime. He can't. Then ask him to comment on Einstein's Gravitational Field and The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with, and he waves his arms and puffs and blows and dismisses the paper and its references as the work of a crank. Meanwhile he offers no evidence himself, merely abuse. He's another CroydonBob, and I've had more rational discussions with some of our friends from the Middle East.

PS: Somebody ask him if he's Albert C Marshall, and whether he's worried that the stuff I say will harm his sales: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com/dis...=9780894640612&

[Farsight]

Regarding light in a medium, try looking at Cerenkov radiation.

Yep, love it Mulder:



I used to hope this demonstrated an opportunity for FTL travel. But now I understand the fundamental physics, I don't. We can't travel faster than light because of what pair production is telling us: we are made of light.

If you want to read something of related interest, check out Robert Close's "The Other Meaning of Special Relativity" at http://www.classicalmatter.org/Class...Relativity.doc.

[Mulder]

We can't travel faster than light because of what pair production is telling us: we are made of light.

I would say, rather than everything being light, is that all particles, including photons, are different energy states. Different particles represent quantised states of energy. Some of these states are unstable, so dropping to other quantum states in pair production or direct particle decay ie. going to different particles. As to what energy is ... who knows?

[Croydon Bob]

I give the evidence, you dismiss it.

Liar. Wrong yet again.

Now who does that remind you of? Here's a clue: http://www.creationists.org/

Yup. you behave a lot like a creationist. Particularly the bit where you stormed in here attacking us for holding a position that only exists in your sad little fantasies. Straw Man is an important element of creationist delusion and is essential to your trolling.

He's another CroydonBob,

Doesn't suffer fools gladly? Has spotted that John Duffield is a self-important twat?

[xris]

Liar. Wrong yet again.



Yup. you behave a lot like a creationist. Particularly the bit where you stormed in here attacking us for holding a position that only exists in your sad little fantasies. Straw Man is an important element of creationist delusion and is essential to your trolling.



Doesn't suffer fools gladly? Has spotted that John Duffield is a self-important twat?

I see you are your usual abusive self, with an endless supply of stupid childish faces.

[Farsight]

I would say, rather than everything being light, is that all particles, including photons, are different energy states.

Fair enough in that gamma rays aren't light, but you catch the drift. Neutrinos aren't light either, but think of their properties, and they're actually quite similar. Think rolling wave as opposed to transverse wave.

Different particles represent quantised states of energy. Some of these states are unstable..

OK, but put photons and neutrinos to one side. Now, how many stable particles are there? Rather surprising isn't it?

..so dropping to other quantum states in pair production or direct particle decay ie. going to different particles. As to what energy is ... who knows?

It's space itself. Straight up.

By the way, with a name like Mulder I imagine you're interested in the truth. Yep, it's out there. That thing I was saying about no faster than light travel begs a question. And that question is this: where's the mother ship?

Anyhow guys, I hope this has been an interesting one for you. General relativity was an aether theory. The speed of light is variable. And I meant what I said about being a super skeptic. There's stuff out there like fairies and angels and horoscopes, things that people believe in, despite the total lack of evidence. And there's other things too, like time travel and parallel worlds, and tiny vibrating strings.

[Croydon Bob]

I see you are your usual abusive self, with an endless supply of stupid childish faces.

My abusive self isn't the same as being you, a self-abuser. And I only used one face, how thick are you? Can't count beyond one?

[Croydon Bob]

Anyhow guys, I hope this has been an interesting one for you.

No. You're a pompous clueless twat without half the brains of most people on this forum.

[xris]

My abusive self isn't the same as being you, a self-abuser. And I only used one face, how thick are you? Can't count beyond one?

I wonder sometimes if the avatar certain posters use represents their true selves and if their juvenile attitude hides an even more childish stupidity...you know what? I think i may be right..You cant post without some abusive content or a stupid face to hide your inadequacy..

[Mulder]

It's space itself. Straight up.

That's simplistic. You can view space as a sea of virtual particles but there are still 'real' particles as well. I've no doubt they are all made of the same stuff though.

By the way, with a name like Mulder I imagine you're interested in the truth.

Absolutely! It's what usually gets me into trouble. Many people are content with a version of the truth whereas I'm only interested in the real thing.

Yep, it's out there. That thing I was saying about no faster than light travel begs a question. And that question is this: where's the mother ship?

Nope, you've lost me here ... I assume we're into metaphors which, as a truth-lover, I find distracting.

Anyhow guys, I hope this has been an interesting one for you. General relativity was an aether theory. The speed of light is variable. And I meant what I said about being a super skeptic. There's stuff out there like fairies and angels and horoscopes, things that people believe in, despite the total lack of evidence. And there's other things too, like time travel and parallel worlds, and tiny vibrating strings.

I understand your skepticism of superstring theory. It's been arouind a long time and we're still waiting for the evidence. Maybe just because a theory is beautiful, it doesn't always mean it's right.

There's not a total lack of evidence in fairies, angels and horoscopes, just good alternative theories that explain the observations better.

Apart variable c, which several physicists suspect might be the case and there is a limited amount of evidence for, what other controversial beliefs do you hold about relativity?

[davidrodway]

Farsught said "Fair enough in that gamma rays aren't light, but you catch the drift. Neutrinos aren't light either, but think of their properties, and they're actually quite similar. Think rolling wave as opposed to transverse wave"

Gamma radiation is made up of photons, being part of tyhe electromagntic spectrum, but a higher frequency, Neutrinos are not. What do you mean "Think of their properties". Rolling wave as opposed to transverse wave? How do you come up with that one? This is just trying to blind with non-science

[Croydon Bob]

you know what? I think i may be right..

What you think is not of value to anyone else.