Ethereal Stories And Cartoons Are Neither Observations Nor Evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Shaula
I take it from your responses that you are going to stick to the "telling stories that make me feel like I understand stuff" approach rather than actually doing any science?
If so I don't see anything else to discuss really. You have a narrative that you like and you alter on a whim to fit observations. You can't extract anything new from it and it doesn't deliver any scientific value. So to me and anyone who wants to have a model they can actually use it is worthless because you still need to use current models to make predictions (that you will then add another arbitrary rule and diagram to 'explain').
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Mendenhall
The quote above is the first sentence of your original post . You must show with observations and evidence that an ether exists or else all that you have written here and self-published elsewhere is so much speculation about something that does not exist.
Do you have such observations and evidence? If so, could you kindly present them here, pleae. Until you can demonstrate the basis of your theory, there is nothing else to discuss. When you have the data - real physical data, not stories - to show that there is any ether, please tell us. You will win a dozen Nobel prizes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reality Check
Nothing to do with
IF06: Why is a aether with mass, charge and momentum undetectable in simple experiments or even ordinary life?
You think there are positive and negative, massive components with momentum that make up all particles. Even the election with no evidence of a substructure and no evidence of an electric dipole moment from separated charges. There is no reason to think that these components are not also floating around outside of particles - that is basically what an aether is! You even imply this in post #1. That is your "background ether". You make up denser spheres of aether made up of that background aether. You might wish this away, e.g. make up a story that your "components" only exist in particles. But that would be science fiction, not science.
You have an undetectable aether with mass. Mass creates gravity. Why can we not detect your "aether" by its gravitational effects?
You have an undetectable aether with actual charges. Why can we not detect your aether by the effects of the charges, e.g. on charged particles?
You have an undetectable aether with momentum (mass*velocity). All objects will interact with your aether and its momentum (think about a ball moving thru air). Why can we not detect your aether from it's drag on objects?
The Large Hadron Collider is a good example of something that should not work as designed according to your stories and cartoons. Massive, charged protons are accelerated to very close to the speed of light. Your aether has no effects.
This is the
luminiferous aether in physics. It is what was supposed to allow light to propagate. It had specific properties which your aether does not have, e.g.
no mass. It has been shown to have no measurable effects (MM and other experiments).
An interesting aside:
Electron electric dipole moment. The Standard Model predicts a tiny moment of at most 10
−38 e⋅cm. We have currently an experimental upper limit of 10
−29 e⋅cm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Noclevername
Formal request: Please stop showing more unsupported images. Are there any any actual scientific data you can provide that supports your already-shown images? Observations, experimental results, even any physitions you can make under your hypothesis.
Above are the last four posts, in order, by the only four members that have been willing to respond to your ATM. Note that they all make the same point: that your speculations are meaningless because there is no ether. Your pages and pages of imaginary interadtions mean nothing since you have no physical evidence of an ether. It is simply a waste time to criticize a theory which has no rational basis.
