General Relativity was an aether theory

[dalriada]

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

So, to sum up: Amateur physicist argues with professional Physicists, comes off worse, gets stroppy, seeks refuge in alcohol.

For me the real question is do people still drink Sherry?
(People who aren't your granny I mean...)

[Croydon Bob]

and maybe making a few bob.

Now you've hit the nail on the head. JJ is making a clone army of Bobs. I am the prototype. Soon skeptic Bobs will take over Croydon... and then the World! Bwah hah ha.

It makes as much sense as anything you've said. But what would I know? I'm a "sucker" for not believing the rambings of an internet loony. While you are "Super Skeptic" because... er... you're not skeptical.

[polomint38]

Now you've hit the nail on the head. JJ is making a clone army of Bobs. I am the prototype. Soon skeptic Bobs will take over Croydon... and then the World! Bwah hah ha.

It makes as much sense as anything you've said. But what would I know? I'm a "sucker" for not believing the rambings of an internet loony. While you are "Super Skeptic" because... er... you're not skeptical.

You are the prototype? I hope they have ironed out the problems there seem to be quite a few.

[Croydon Bob]

You are the prototype? I hope they have ironed out the problems there seem to be quite a few.

I wasn't confused. You misunderstood the signals.

[Cuddles]

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

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

I posted this 4 days before your post. I can no longer describe you as just a crank, you are a liar, plain and simple. The fact that you actually go on to refer to the evidence I posted while denying I posted any evidence is just plain bizarre.

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.

You claimed string theory makes no predictions. I provided links to two papers that make specific predictions. The fact that you believe their predictions are wrong is irrelevant - your claim was completely and utterly wrong, and has been proven as such. That you now accuse others of back-pedalling while you're wildly flailing around trying to find a way out of the giant hole you've dug for yourself is really rather amusing.

[Farsight]

Call that a prediction? The Higgs particle itself is just another prediction. It was proposed in 1964, which is forty-five years ago. And guess what? There's no evidence for its existence. So do excuse me for not taking that one seriously. Now come on, list the predictions of string theory. Then you can tell us all about those unseen dimensions and ten-dimensional branes, and show all the UK skeptics the supporting evidence.

Physbang: come on, help him out. List the predictions of string theory.

The details in the document show that GR is not an aether theory in the sense that an aether theorist would recognize it.

That absolutely cuts no ice. There's no wriggling away from the evidence:

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

But what about all the evidence in favour of dark matter that you ignore?

I don't ignore evidence. Start a thread, give what you consider to be the evidence for dark matter, and I'll explain why it isn't. By the way, I take a dim view of you calling all those people cranks. I'm an easy going sort of a guy, but you might want to rein it in a little because anonymity is no protection, and others might not be quite so easy going. See http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...0888#post70888

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.

The Higgs particle was predicted forty five years ago. We have no evidence for it. So my skepticism trumps yours. Easily.

And you still have made no effort to really answer my questions of your position.

Sorry, ask them again and I'll respond. By the way, what do you do for a living? What's your field?

[PhysBang]

Physbang: come on, help him out. List the predictions of string theory.

He's done a decent job already. Why don't you try this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=6462 http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=4346 It should be perfect, since you won't have to read.

That absolutely cuts no ice. There's no wriggling away from the evidence:

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

Yes, Einstein said that after he pointed out that GR wasn't an aether theory in any other sense. You are doing a paradigm example of cherry-picking: you ignore the context Einstein explicitly gives for the passage you cite.

I don't ignore evidence.

Except for every sentence in which Einstein explains how GR is not an aether theory.

Start a thread, give what you consider to be the evidence for dark matter, and I'll explain why it isn't.

You bring these things up, the burden should be on you to explain why every major cosmologist and astrophysicist and all their data are wrong.

By the way, I take a dim view of you calling all those people cranks.

Too bad, but they are cranks. You should be able to see why.

The Higgs particle was predicted forty five years ago. We have no evidence for it. So my skepticism trumps yours. Easily.

Do you know the reason why we should not have expected to find such a particle so far?

Sorry, ask them again and I'll respond. By the way, what do you do for a living? What's your field?

Just look back one or two pages. You were the one who promised a greater response. What I do is irrelevant.

[DrS]

By the way, I take a dim view of you calling all those people cranks. I'm an easy going sort of a guy, but you might want to rein it in a little because anonymity is no protection, and others might not be quite so easy going. See http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/sho...0888#post70888

Calling someone a crank might be deemed opinion or name-calling, but it is not libel. Why does the above quote sound vaguely threatening? Why am I not surprised?

[Farsight]

Physbang: I followed your links, all I get is Turok talking about his bouncing universe:

Neil Turok, Perimeter Institute
The evidence that the universe emerged 14 billion years ago from an event called 'the big bang' is overwhelming. Yet the cause of this event remains deeply mysterious. In the conventional picture, the 'initial singularity' is unexplained. It is simply assumed that the universe somehow sprang into existence full of 'inflationary' energy, blowing up the universe into the large, smooth state we observe today. While this picture is in excellent agreement with current observations, it is both contrived and incomplete, leading us to suspect that it is not the final word. In this lecture, the standard inflationary picture will be contrasted with a new view of the initial singularity suggested by string and M-theory, in which the bang is a far more normal, albeit violent, event which occurred in a pre-existing universe. According to the new picture, a cyclical model of the universe becomes feasible in which one bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles. The presentation will also review exciting recent theoretical developments and forthcoming observational tests which could distinguish between the rival inflationary and cyclical hypotheses.

..and a guy called Arkani-Hamed giving a very basic old talk about the LHC:

Nima Arkani-Hamed, Institute for Advanced Study
Will big questions be answered when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) switches on in 2007? What will scientists find? Where might the research lead? Nima Arkani-Hamed, a noted particle theorist, is a Professor of Physics at Harvard University. He investigates a number of mysteries and interactions in nature – puzzles that are likely to have experimental consequences in the next few years via particle accelerators, like the LHC, as well as cosmological observations.

No list of string theory predictions. Hmmn. What a surprise.

Yes, Einstein said that after he pointed out that GR wasn't an aether theory in any other sense. You are doing a paradigm example of cherry-picking: you ignore the context Einstein explicitly gives for the passage you cite.

I'm not cherry picking at all. But you're clutching at the "context" straw when the very title of Einstein's 1920 Leyden address is Ether and the General Theory of Relativity. Here, check for yourself at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm

"Mach’s idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events".

Deny it all you like, wriggle and squirm and howl your outraged "nonsense" , but the evidence is there. General relativity was an aether theory.

You bring these things up, the burden should be on you to explain why every major cosmologist and astrophysicist and all their data are wrong.

It isn't every major cosmologist. Ah, I get it, if somebody doesn't agree with the dark matter hypothesis, in you're book they're just a crank. And no, the burden shouldn't be on me. The burden should be on those who advance the hypothesis: show us the evidence.

Do you know the reason why we should not have expected to find such a particle so far?

The given reason is large mass along with inadequate collider energies. But what do you mean find? Don't you mean make, like the ephemeral pile-up called the signature of the Z-boson with its lifetime of 3×10 −25 seconds. I've said it before and I'll say it again, short-lived particles are not in the same league as stable particles, and more important than anything else, is to understand pair production and the electron. It absolutely beats me why it's been totally glossed over and people like you simply aren't interested.

By the by, do you know the Higgs Field is just a modern name for aether? It's just space. But whatever, you do know that pair production converts a massless photon into an electron and a positron. They have mass. And they are quite literally made of light. It's obvious, and it's time you woke up and smelt the coffee: the photon is boson enough, and the symmetry between momentum and inertia is trivial. It merely depends on who you say is moving, and that's why relativity is so important. See The Trouble with Physics, page 105. Mass is just a measure of energy that isn't moving in aggregate with respect to you. That's why a photon bouncing back and forth inside a mirrored bock increases the mass of the box+photon system. Space has its vacuum energy, and when there's a gradient in the energy density, we observe gravity. All so simple. You'll wake up to it one day.

OK, I'm off to bed.

[PhysBang]

Calling someone a crank might be deemed opinion or name-calling, but it is not libel. Why does the above quote sound vaguely threatening? Why am I not surprised?

Farsight likes to threaten libel on a regular basis.

[DrS]

Again, why am I not surprised ...

[Farsight]

Calling someone a crank might be deemed opinion or name-calling, but it is not libel. Why does the above quote sound vaguely threatening? Why am I not surprised?

It's not vaguely threatening, it's a friendly heads-up because so many individuals were involved. As we learned recently, those who advocate free speech in science do not have carte-blanche freedom to maliciously discredit those to whom they do not wish to extend the selfsame privilege.

[tolman]

And no, the burden shouldn't be on me. The burden should be on those who advance the hypothesis: show us the evidence.

Science already has its hypotheses and theories.
If you have better ones, you go and try to convince scientists your ideas are better.

However, unless you have a strange psychological need to fail, don't start off acting like an arrogant dickhead the way you have here, since that's pretty much asking for failure.

[PhysBang]

Physbang: I followed your links, all I get is Turok talking about his bouncing universe:

Neil Turok, Perimeter Institute
The evidence that the universe emerged 14 billion years ago from an event called 'the big bang' is overwhelming. Yet the cause of this event remains deeply mysterious. In the conventional picture, the 'initial singularity' is unexplained. It is simply assumed that the universe somehow sprang into existence full of 'inflationary' energy, blowing up the universe into the large, smooth state we observe today. While this picture is in excellent agreement with current observations, it is both contrived and incomplete, leading us to suspect that it is not the final word. In this lecture, the standard inflationary picture will be contrasted with a new view of the initial singularity suggested by string and M-theory, in which the bang is a far more normal, albeit violent, event which occurred in a pre-existing universe. According to the new picture, a cyclical model of the universe becomes feasible in which one bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles. The presentation will also review exciting recent theoretical developments and forthcoming observational tests which could distinguish between the rival inflationary and cyclical hypotheses.

..and a guy called Arkani-Hamed giving a very basic old talk about the LHC:

Nima Arkani-Hamed, Institute for Advanced Study
Will big questions be answered when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) switches on in 2007? What will scientists find? Where might the research lead? Nima Arkani-Hamed, a noted particle theorist, is a Professor of Physics at Harvard University. He investigates a number of mysteries and interactions in nature – puzzles that are likely to have experimental consequences in the next few years via particle accelerators, like the LHC, as well as cosmological observations.

No list of string theory predictions. Hmmn. What a surprise.

Like always, you judge things by a cursory glance rather than actually taking the time to learn.

I'm not cherry picking at all. But you're clutching at the "context" straw when the very title of Einstein's 1920 Leyden address is Ether and the General Theory of Relativity. Here, check for yourself at: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...Relativity.htm

Even your chosen link says that you are cherry-picking. Look at the commentary: "This address has been frequently misunderstood as positing that a return of the ether theory." You are ignoring the context pointed out by the authors of that web page and cherry-picking a single passage from the overall lecture.

It isn't every major cosmologist.

Please, find a major cosmologist who disagrees with dark matter. Even the Quasi-Steady State theorists are now using both dark matter and dark energy.

Ah, I get it, if somebody doesn't agree with the dark matter hypothesis, in you're book they're just a crank. And no, the burden shouldn't be on me. The burden should be on those who advance the hypothesis:

Yes, you are advancing a hypothesis that is not backed up by evidence. If someone came around claiming that the moon wasn't made of rock, they too would have the burden of proof. There is a mounting pile of evidence for dark matter that you are claiming we should ignore, but you have no reason for this claim.

The given reason is large mass along with inadequate collider energies. But what do you mean find? Don't you mean make, like the ephemeral pile-up called the signature of the Z-boson with its lifetime of 3×10 −25 seconds. I've said it before and I'll say it again, short-lived particles are not in the same league as stable particles, and more important than anything else, is to understand pair production and the electron. It absolutely beats me why it's been totally glossed over and people like you simply aren't interested.

So you do know why we shouldn't be able to observe the particle yet, but you still use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

By the by, do you know the Higgs Field is just a modern name for aether? It's just space. But whatever, you do know that pair production converts a massless photon into an electron and a positron.

No, I and everyone else know that pair production involves the transfer of the energy of a photon to two particles. Only one paper claims that these particles are made of photons.

[Farsight]

Farsight likes to threaten libel on a regular basis.

LOL! Come on, Physbang, show us your evidence. All you'll dig up is stern "family solicitor" words to George Weatherill re a howling lie about 18 months back. And then we can get back to business and you show us that list of string theory predictions. And then we can talk some more about General Relativity was an aether theory.

Like always, you judge things by a cursory glance rather than actually taking the time to learn.

Stop jerking around and give me the list of string theory predictions.

You are ignoring the context pointed out by the authors of that web page and cherry-picking a single passage from the overall lecture.

That is so weak it's risible. The title is Ether and the General Theory of Relativity. The whole thing is one big fat cherry. And here's another passage:

"As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density".

Your facile cherry-picking claim is dead and buried, PhysBang. Now you're just looking foolish.

So you do know why we shouldn't be able to observe the particle yet, but you still use absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

Er, after forty five years, excuse me for being just a teensy little bit skeptical.

Yes, you are advancing a hypothesis that is not backed up by evidence.

There's evidence for inhomogeneous space. Just drop a pencil. What else makes it fall down? Instantaneous action at a distance? Gravitons that we can't see? Or something Einstein told us about?

If someone came around claiming that the moon wasn't made of rock, they too would have the burden of proof. There is a mounting pile of evidence for dark matter that you are claiming we should ignore, but you have no reason for this claim.

Pathetic. If I claim there aren't any fairies, I don't carry any burden of proof. And I don't ignore evidence. The evidence for gravitational anomalies is there. But it is not incontrovertible evidence for the the dark matter hypothesis that attempts to explain these anomalies: the evidence for dark matter also serves as evidence for a competing hypothesis such as inhomogeneous space. And like I said, if you beg to differ, show me some unique evidence for dark matter, and better still, just show me some dark matter.

No, I and everyone else know that pair production involves the transfer of the energy of a photon to two particles. Only one paper claims that these particles are made of photons.

No, the scientific evidence says they're made of photons. Pair production converts a gamma photon into an electron a a positron. The matter is made from the gamma photon. Matter is made from light. And annihilation undoes it. Simple. It's all so simple.

And so to bed.