General Relativity was an aether theory

[Croydon Bob]

Easy, there you go: http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-82895.html

That link doesn't back up your claim. Which isn't a surprise coming from you. I suggest you provide some better evidence or admit you were wrong... which also applies to pretty much everything you say.

Oh, this is fun, I'm wiping tears from my eyes here.

Most of the loony trolls we get here don't enjoy being outwitted. That makes you unusual in one respect at least.

[PhysBang]

I'll respond to you in detail later PhysBang.

That's doubtful. You will probably provide more irrelevant links and some cherry-picked quotations.

Meanwhile you really need to try to understand empty space in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, and also understand what interpretation means. Your understanding of what the maths is telling you isn't correct. You probably don't even realise that what you have is an interpretation, you think it's truth. Ever heard of the Weinberg field interpretation as opposed to the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler geometrical interpretation? Most people have been educated on the latter, and don't know it's only an interpretation.

Can you demonstrate that the field interpretation tells us to use a preferred reference frame? Can you demonstrate that the field interpretation has anything to do with an aether?

Alternatively have a read of The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. The trick is to think for yourself instead of letting other people do it for you.

You don't really make the whole "think for yourself" point when you link to the papers of another well-known crackpot.

[Mulder]

That's the whole point of what I've been saying. The ideas are old ideas, backed up by evidence showing Einstein talking about aether and homogeneous space. It isn't new. It even goes back as far as Newton, but is dismissed by guys like PhysBang as alchemy.

There is a big difference between science and the history of science. While I find the history interesting, it is the science people leave behind which is most important. Newton, Aristotle, whoever, may have first predicted the Big Bang but what matters now is the current theory and its failings and successes.

So all this quoting who said what is irrelevant to the actual science. Unless they put it in their theories and it got tested and was proved right, it doesn't count. The rest is history.

Because that's not why I'm here. I'm here to show you that even people who consider themselves to be rational and skeptical can exhibit the same traits as the suckers who swallow spiritualism. They just swallow a different brand of snake oil, that's all. Not all of them, not all of the time, just some.

So you've come here to prove that all humans behave like humans. Thanks for the lesson but, like most other stuff you've said, it's not an original or little known idea.

I notice that you cling to your own ideas without conceding much, in spite of any counter arguments provided. So are you a perfect example of the 'point' you've come here to make?

The point is that here's something backed by evidence that's new to people here, and yet people cling to a wrong conviction and attempt to dismiss the evidence that general relativity was an aether theory. Then when forced to acknowledge it, people then dismiss the conclusion it delivers because they still seek to cling to conviction.

I'm aware that Einstein said lots of things that never went into his published work. He was an imginative man, which is how he came up with relativity while workaday scientists in labs didn't.

The price of such imagination is that most such ideas will be wrong. There is even a book on Einstein's Mistakes. He declared his cosmological constant his 'biggest blunder' (although I imagine you think it wasn't one at all).

But, again, what matters is not what he thought about his work but the work itself. Science is not quotes from scientists, it is theory and observation.

There you go. I show you how General Relativity has been massaged into something different to your current understanding, and you find a way to say it doesn't matter. See how it works? Don't forget that Einstein won his Nobel prize for quantum mechanics, and the arguments he had with Bohr concerned the interpretation, not quantum theory itself.

I must have missed that.

Good science requires a mixture of skepticism and creativity. The creativity produces the ideas and the skepticism weeds the ones that actually work. Get the wrong balance and you have either a 'workaday' scientist, only able to test other's ideas (which is nevertheless vital) or someone whose ideas simply depart from reality completely (I've come across several of those).

[Cuddles]

Huh? I'm happy enough that we aren't the only intelligent life in the universe, but I don't think they can travel faster than light. You know why? Because that's what's they're made of.

Wow, yet more stupidity from you. Not only do you believe aliens are visiting us, but you think they're made of light. And you expect anyone to believe any of your crap actually makes sense?

Easy, there you go: http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-82895.html

You're not very good at this, are you? I'll give you a hint, I asked you to find a quote showing I "believe in" string theory, not just another one defending its status as a legitimate theory against another crackpot like yourself.

Abandoned? Well blow me, and there was my new Scientist telling me it was the only game in town. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/...g-country.html

Ah, I see the problem. Your understanding of science comes from tabloids like New Scientist. I'll give you another free hint - New Scientist contains far more crackpottery and opinion pieces by crackpots, philosophers and axe-grinders than it does real science.

So you can't list the predictions of string theory?

No, not all of them and not in a medium like this. Remember (OK, not remember, that would imply you actually already knew it), we're dealing with a large set of fundamental physics theorems here. Predictions are not of the "a dropped weight falls x distance in y time" variety. They're of the "decay rate of x particle you've probably never heard of is y seconds resulting in z different possible decay modes to particles a through m, with a production cross-section t". That's why this stuff is called "physics" and not "internet forum pointlessness". If you want to understand string theory, you're going to have to learn an awful lot more than you currently do. I'm not about to try teaching you a physics degree here. This is the kind of stuff you don't see until masters level, if then.

So you believe in a "theory" that you don't understand.

No. Firstly, I don't believe in anything. Secondly, I understand string theory a lot better than you, although certainly not as well as many theoretical physicists. Thirdly, even being very generous and assuming you meant that I accept string theory based on the evidence and weren't dishonestly trying to imply some kind of religious belief, I don't do that either. String theory is an interesting bit of theory, but I don't think it's actually correct.

You see, this is you problem. Well, one of them. You don't actually pay any attention to what people say, you just imagine what you'd like them to say and act as if that were actually the case. At no point have I said, or even implied, that I support string theory. I have simply explained that it is a valid theory that makes real predictions, and that you are an idiot who doesn't even understand basic physics, let alone the more advanced stuff like this.

Along with branes and dimensions that you can't see, and for which no evidence exists.

And this is how you make yourself look even more stupid. It's not possible to support string theory and M-theory at the same time. They're two entirely different, incompatible sets of theories. If I really did believe in string theory as you like to pretend, it would not be possible for me to also believe in branes. Perhaps you should consider making less of an idiot of yourself from time to time.

[quite]And you can't list its predictions. Because it doesn't have any. Because it's isn't a theory. Because it's pseudoscience.[/quote]

Love it. A nutjob who believes magic aliens made of light are visiting Earth is accusing something of being pseudoscience. It would be hilarious if... no... wait... it is hilarious.

Oh, this is fun, I'm wiping tears from my eyes here.

Indeed. Uncontrollable laughter is often a symptom of mental problems. I strongly suggest you get the help you so clearly need.

[brianp]

BrianP: Pete Brown has a PhD in physics. He posts on forums as pmb, and is a good bloke. Have a look at his material on Geocities, it's good stuff. See http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/

Yes, I've read that page on the freebie host, "geocities", and his physics articles linked from it, but all I see about "Pete" is his name, a freebie e-mail address and, in one case, a residential address. Nothing about his career, current position, qualifications etc. Your assertion that he's a "good bloke" isn't really evidence. So, I repeat, who is this Peter M Brown?

[Cuddles]

I changed my mind. Here is a little education for you:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0108/0108005v2.pdf

This paper provides equations for predicting the mass of Higgs particles given a 6 dimensional gauge space, that can be applied to certain string theories. Interestingly, it does so without using supersymmetry.

Here is another paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9907/9907476v1.pdf

This one includes supersymmetry and is based on the flipped SU(5) gauge group. It makes specific predictions about the mass of Higgs particles as well as 2nd and 3rd generation quarks and leptons. Of course, that's in addition to the base predictions of the SU(5) group, which no doubt you already know all about being the expert in string theory that you are.

None of this sort of stuff is particularly hard to find. Given that you can find it with a couple of seconds on Google, it's really amazing the number of people who claim there aren't any predictions.

[Mulder]

I wonder if finding the Higgs would screw up Farsight's theory?

[Trinoc]

I wonder if finding the Higgs would screw up Farsight's theory?

I think it comes ready-screwed.

[davidrodway]

i have looked up and down, in and out, and side to side, but cannot find it. can someone please for fuxxxs sake tel me what far sight side or whatever he or she wants to be known as is saying, or what everyone else is disagreeing with - including farwhatsit themself? i like a good argument - but what the f are we arguing about? And pleasae provide the maths - that means all of you. i want equations.

[PhysBang]

Well, there are really two things being discussed here.

One is whether or not General Relativity is an aether theory. Now there are a number of things that could mean. When Einstein says that GR is an aether theory, he says right out that he means that there is a medium for light that can be changed by physical interaction. He is also clear that the medium he identifies is nothing more than "space" (and in his mathematics, he is clear that space is always defined as part of spacetime). The relevant equations are simply the way that Einstein uses tensors to represent changes in physical systems. What counts as space thus depends on the system of coordinates that one uses to provide a basis for the tensors.

One could also, as Farsight means, say that an aether theory is one with a preferred reference frame, a rest frame for all electromagnetic activity.

The other thing being discussed here is Farsight's own pet theory. See http://www.relativityplus.info/ or, if you would like to spend a couple of dollars, http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-T...2773306&sr=1-1

However, if it's equations you want, I fear that both of those sources will disappoint you.

[Farsight]

Well, there are really two things being discussed here. One is whether or not General Relativity is an aether theory...

Whoa, there's only one thing being discussed here. And that's whether General Relativity was an aether theory. And since we can read:

"..according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."

..it really is cut and dried. See Einstein's 1920 Leyden address at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm for details.

One could also, as Farsight means, say that an aether theory is one with a preferred reference frame, a rest frame for all electromagnetic activity.

I'm not big on aether myself, I prefer to talk of space. But the preferred reference frame is the CMBR.

The other thing being discussed here is Farsight's own pet theory...

It isn't "my" theory. I've just joined a few dots, and I dedicate my contribution to the unsung heroes of physics. There's a lot of people out there who have been somewhat overlooked, remember? Here's a few, I'm sure there's more:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903045
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/ people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/
http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html
http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.htm
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0101/0101098.pdf
http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/
http://www.mathpages .com/rr/s2-11/2-11.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/science/ galloway.pdf
http://www.arxdtf.org/
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/ 9610/9610066v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/ 0012059
http://www.geocities.com/gssandhu_1943/index.html
http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/pdf RFN/Aether_Why.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/GravP.html
http://photontheory.com/pte.html
http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidwtalmage/quantum2.htm
http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518
http://laps.noaa .gov/albers/physics /na/
http://www.promedia.net/users/greebo/price.htm
http://classicalmatter.com/ClassicalMatterWaves.html
http://www.unitytheory.info/

However, if it's equations you want, I fear that both of those sources will disappoint you.

And sadly, equations don't cut it. As Hawking said, each equation in the book will halve its sales. See http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Q...s/Hawking.html for evidence.


You know guys, I'm a little surprised here. A good skeptic looks for the evidence, and if there isn't any, he's skeptical. What he doesn't do is swallow the fairy-tale snake-oil that is unsupported by evidence, and then persuade himself to dismiss the evidence that challenges it.

JJ, this is something you should talk about at that conference. As a super-skeptic, "Paranormal and Anomalous Experiences" cuts no ice with me: http://www.ukskeptics.com/conference-2009.php

[Farsight]

I think it comes ready-screwed.

This is rather sad. Poor old JJ. There he is, lining up the black-clad waitresses and the canapés for his pandering-to-the-paranormal party, sending out all the emails to guys like me and maybe making a few bob. But what he doesn't quite appreciate is that it's all for naught, because he's got a bunch of sherry-swilling vagrants right there on his own his front lawn.

Here's an example. Remember I said to Cuddles: So you can't list the predictions of string theory? He said:

No, not all of them and not in a medium like this. Remember we're dealing with a large set of fundamental physics theorems here... That's why this stuff is called "physics" and not "internet forum pointlessness". If you want to understand string theory, you're going to have to learn an awful lot more than you currently do. I'm not about to try teaching you a physics degree here. This is the kind of stuff you don't see until masters level, if then.

Blah blah, flim flam flannel, huff puff. That's a no then. LOL!

Come on guys, don't you get it yet? Look for the evidence, and when you don't find it, be skeptical. Note that he spots he's been caught out and then backpedals, but only gives more flimflam: This paper provides equations for predicting the mass of Higgs particles followed by it makes specific predictions about the mass of Higgs particles. Did any of you spot the sleight of hand? There ain't no Higgs particles. One could just as well predict the mass of angels.

JJ: I think you need a moderator here. Somebody skeptical, not like these suckers. And somebody who offers logic and evidence instead of the sort of abuse that drives people away from this UK Skeptics forum.

[tolman]

Whoa, there's only one thing being discussed here.

No, there are many things being discussed, including the likely scientific value of your book.

For example, you said:

I show you how General Relativity has been massaged into something different to your current understanding, and you find a way to say it doesn't matter.

Which actually seems to be the opposite of the point you were supposedly trying to make at the start.
Either you're too stupid to recognise (or arrogant to admit) you made a mistake, or you don't even bother reading what people (including yourself) actually write.
Whichever one or more of those things is the case, it's hardly likely to endear your overall argument to people, and does make you seem more likely to be a crank than you appeared at first.

It isn't "my" theory. I've just joined a few dots, and I dedicate my contribution to the unsung heroes of physics.

Your contribution? To science?
When do you start?

And sadly, equations don't cut it. As Hawking said, each equation in the book will halve its sales. See http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Quotations/Hawking.html for evidence.

But that's really referring to someone
a) who is generally recognised as extraordinarily bright
b) who does know what he's talking about
c) who was writing a book to be bought (and sometimes actually read) by people of whom many knew relatively little science

Someone who was hoping for a theory to be taken seriously by scientists and not merely bought by elements of the general public might well decide that a few equations could help convince people that they weren't just rambling on about things they simply didn't understand.

You know guys, I'm a little surprised here. A good skeptic looks for the evidence, and if there isn't any, he's skeptical. What he doesn't do is swallow the fairy-tale snake-oil that is unsupported by evidence, and then persuade himself to dismiss the evidence that challenges it.

Now you're just lying.
You're not remotely surprised.
You came here with a completely preconcieved attitude, (you're the super skeptic, everyone else is inferior) which you have stuck to all along.

If you want to learn some lessons on book-marketing, I suggest that you look at the actual scientists who do sell books, and see how many of them go out of their way to make an online spectacle of themselves, starting off confrontational and arrogant, failing to put any kind of clear argument, haranguing people (incorrectly) for stances they don't take and beliefs they don't have, and ending up looking like a muddle-headed crank.

[PhysBang]

Whoa, there's only one thing being discussed here. And that's whether General Relativity was an aether theory. And since we can read:

"..according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."

..it really is cut and dried. See Einstein's 1920 Leyden address at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm for details.

yes, see that document for the details. The details in the document show that GR is not an aether theory in the sense that an aether theorist would recognize it. As Einstein says, GR is only an aether theory in the sense that space has physical qualities. According to GR, space does not have a preferred reference frame for electromagnetic phenomena, which is what every aether theorist means by "aether theory".

I'm not big on aether myself, I prefer to talk of space. But the preferred reference frame is the CMBR.

This is simply nonsense. Not only is there no evidence that all electromagnetic phenomena take place in the reference frame of the CMB. Indeed, since our planet is not at rest with respect to the CMB and we cannot detect this through looking at the behaviour of EM phenomena is excellent evidence that the CMB is not a preferred reference frame for EM phenomena. Again, your scientific positions make sense only if one ignores the science.

It isn't "my" theory. I've just joined a few dots, and I dedicate my contribution to the unsung heroes of physics.

Just because someone says something that physicists do not find valuable does not make them a hero. Some people are legitimately wrong, some people are liars for their own edification, and some people are simply mentally ill. That you ally yourself with these people does nothing to improve your credibility.

There's a lot of people out there who have been somewhat overlooked, remember? Here's a few, I'm sure there's more:

Did you think that nobody would look at these links? This collection of links has little to do with your work, except for the couple of links to the cranks. You again show your hideously bad scholarship: you simply spam with links rather than take the time to explain anything. Since we know that you claim support from papers that you haven't read, we can guess that you have little knowledge of what is behind these links. Since many of them do not work, this seems proven.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903045

This has nothing to do with anything you are arguing here. It is dishonest of you to include it in this list.

http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/ people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf

This link doesn't work, just like your theory.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/

When you link to geocities, everyone loses. Your link is to the website of someone we have already discussed in this thread and identified as a crank.

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/Relativity/Relativity.html

Another crank. If your theory is anything like Robert A. Close's theory, then it is a crank theory.

http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.htm

This is a basic, introductory page about electricity. You are making bizarre claims that are not grounded in basic claims about electricity. Nowhere on this page will one find evidence for your bizzarre theory that electrons are made of photons.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0101/0101098.pdf

This is a string theory paper. You have already claimed that you think string theory is grossly incorrect, so why are you attempting to get support from a string theory paper?

http://home.att.net/~SolidUniverse/

Embarrassingly, this is the same crank again.

http://www.mathpages .com/rr/s2-11/2-11.htm

This page is about something that is part of standard relativity theory has nothing to do with your theory and has nothing to do with aether theory.

http://www.wbabin.net/science/ galloway.pdf

Doesn't work.

http://www.arxdtf.org/

I honestly do not know this person or his work. Not immediately crazy-looking, though the chosen address is a little suspect.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/ 9610/9610066v1.pdf

Once one fixes this link, one finds a paper advocating a turn to gauge-invariance as the basis for a successor theory of gravity. Exceptionally mainstream. One has to note that nothing in your theory has anything to do with gauge-invariance.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/ 0012059

This is an interesting paper, but not scientifically. The only citation for this paper is another paper by the same author. That paper seems to get some aspects of standard cosmology grossly wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/gssandhu_1943/index.html

Classic crank writing.

http://www.aethertheory.co.uk/pdf RFN/Aether_Why.pdf

Does not work.

http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/GravP.html

Wow. Looks cranky!

http://photontheory.com/pte.html
http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html

Finally, something that supports your "everything is made of photons" idea! Oops, it doesn't. It says that it's interaction between photons, and you don't have interaction between photons.

http://www.geocities.com/davidwtalmage/quantum2.htm

An ambitious paper that seeks to address everything in the universe... except empirical evidence.

http://ag-physics.org/gravity/

This site is a crank site for a great reason: it commits to the existence of something that is simple not detectable! Not only that, despite what it claims, it cannot also generate time dilation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3518

An interesting look at some historical theories. But all these theories have long been abandoned for good reasons. Sciama was the one who abandoned his own theory on the basis of the evidence. Still it is not a link about someone who actually puts forward good science that is ignored. Dicke, Sciama, and Dirac were all taken quite seriously.

http://laps.noaa .gov/albers/physics /na/

Once we fix this URL, we get a list of papers. What do any of them have to do with anything?

http://www.promedia.net/users/greebo/price.htm

Now this guy is, unfortunately, a little off his rocker. One can see this based on his reading list and his survivalist stance. Of course, his physics isn't all bad.

http://classicalmatter.com/ClassicalMatterWaves.html

This is the third time that Robert A Close is used. This is getting pathetic.

http://www.unitytheory.info/

Can you explain the difference between that link and the following? http://www.timecube.com/

And sadly, equations don't cut it. As Hawking said, each equation in the book will halve its sales. See http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Q...s/Hawking.html for evidence.

You provided a link, but you still got the quotation incorrect! Hawking didn't say that was true, he simply reported that somebody told him that. However, it is nice to see that you would rather make money (or be popular) than be correct.

You know guys, I'm a little surprised here. A good skeptic looks for the evidence, and if there isn't any, he's skeptical. What he doesn't do is swallow the fairy-tale snake-oil that is unsupported by evidence, and then persuade himself to dismiss the evidence that challenges it.

But what about all the evidence in favour of dark matter that you ignore? What about all the equations that Einstein does use? A good skeptic also pays attention to the evidence that is there.

JJ, this is something you should talk about at that conference. As a super-skeptic, "Paranormal and Anomalous Experiences" cuts no ice with me: http://www.ukskeptics.com/conference-2009.php

Here's an example. Remember I said to Cuddles: So you can't list the predictions of string theory? [/quote] He did give links to some of those predictions. The difficulty with giving the predictions of string theory is that there really are quite a bit of them and they are very specific to technical aspects of physics. But as I pointed out, Lee Smolin, who you reference a lot, designs tests for thing like string theory as his primary job. If you actually took him seriously, you would know of his work.

This paper provides equations for predicting the mass of Higgs particles followed by it makes specific predictions about the mass of Higgs particles. Did any of you spot the sleight of hand? There ain't no Higgs particles. One could just as well predict the mass of angels.

You are making the claim that there are no Higgs particles. You have no evidence for this claim. I, for one, are skeptical of your claim. And you still have made no effort to really answer my questions of your position.

[Trinoc]

This is rather sad. Poor old JJ. There he is, lining up the black-clad waitresses and the canapés for his pandering-to-the-paranormal party, sending out all the emails to guys like me and maybe making a few bob. But what he doesn't quite appreciate is that it's all for naught, because he's got a bunch of sherry-swilling vagrants right there on his own his front lawn.

<snip>

Oh boy, here we go! We are all poor, pathetic fools because we don't accept Farsight's ideas!