An ether model which gives the Standard Model of particle physics

[The God]

Paddoboy

[1]Most alternative nuts are not qualified or credentialed. [you are a good example of that]

False, you do not know about me..


[2] Even if they are qualified and credentialed [say Schmelzer] they simply and logically would not be arguing their points on a science forum.

Not necessary..

[3] New discoveries/theories and the rewriting of 21st century cosmology, will never be realised on a science forum.

Not necessary, you never know where the idea comes from..


[4] Anyone with anything of substance would be writing a paper and getting appropriate peer review.

Fair enough.

[5] Even if [4] was realised, many papers are more speculative such as the ether and the ether man, and are basically accepted for curiosity's sake, to eventually fade into oblivion.

Your inability to comprehend is coming in the way.

[6] In general, no observational or experimental evidence is available for new alternative nonsense and they are just the figment of a delusional mentality.

Not correct..

[7]No tin pot amateur scientist will invalidate theories that have stood for more than 100 years and been researched by many professional greats.

Not necessary, idea can come from anywhere. You are not exposed to professional aspect of life, that includes even the scientific pusuits..


8. On me being paid, [nudge, nudge, wink, wink ] My position is clear, I respect and admire the many giants of the present and past, the efforts and research they have put into their work, and the standard and knowledge that we have today because of these greats.
So I react when the smart arses full of themselves and their inflated egos, or when those with their hidden religious agendas or other anti mainstream agendas like the ether, start to present their stuff on forums such as this as a faitre complei certainty to replace incumbent theories, with no evidence, just twisted minds and delusions of grandeur.


This shows your self inferiority, lack of confidence in your ability.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy

[1]Most alternative nuts are not qualified or credentialed. [you are a good example of that]

False, you do not know about me..

The evidence says otherwise: You have literally claimed most 21st century cosmology is invalid without a pinch of evidence, and you continually refuse to answer questions about your status and credentials, except under the old handle.

[2] Even if they are qualified and credentialed [say Schmelzer] they simply and logically would not be arguing their points on a science forum.

Not necessary..

The only reason anyone would argue their ether or any other alternative model on a forum such as this, is because [1] It has probably been rejected by academia, [2] If accepted and published, like a lot of speculative scientific papers, it is never cited or referred to in any way, and dies a slow death.[3] Remembering that nothing in science is 100% certain as I have told you many times, the chances of any professional revealing a substantiated new theoretical model, which upstages SR/GR or any other aspect of cosmology is non zero, but far closer to zero then to one.[4] In my 12 years or so on three science forums, I have yet to see what you so naively suggest eventuate.

[3] New discoveries/theories and the rewriting of 21st century cosmology, will never be realised on a science forum.

Not necessary, you never know where the idea comes from..

Please read previous reply and points.

[4] Anyone with anything of substance would be writing a paper and getting appropriate peer review.

Fair enough.

As are all the points I have made.

[5] Even if [4] was realised, many papers are more speculative such as the ether and the ether man, and are basically accepted for curiosity's sake, to eventually fade into oblivion.

Your inability to comprehend is coming in the way.

Evidence says otherwise once again. We have papers on multi dimensions, time travel, wormholes, ERB's, the ether, pre BB nothingness.
Your inability to accept modern cosmology since it relegates the need of any deity into near oblivion stands in your way.

[6] In general, no observational or experimental evidence is available for new alternative nonsense and they are just the figment of a delusional mentality.

Not correct..

Wrong, totally correct. Show me your evidence of any BNS...or of an ether....or any other aspect of present accepted cosmology that you disagree with.

[7]No tin pot amateur scientist will invalidate theories that have stood for more than 100 years and been researched by many professional greats.

Not necessary, idea can come from anywhere. You are not exposed to professional aspect of life, that includes even the scientific pusuits..

Not necessarily certainly, but again just as nothing is 100% certain in science.
While the chances are non zero something like that could happen, the likelyhood is far closer to zero then one. And certainly not in my 12 years or so on science forums. In fact what is overwhelmingly evident, is that forums such as this, being open to all and sundry, have highlighted the numbers of would be's if the could be's, that not being able to make their mark in academia or professional science, or having been rejected by them, are only able to reveal their delusions of grandeur malady on forums such as this.

8. On me being paid, [nudge, nudge, wink, wink ] My position is clear, I respect and admire the many giants of the present and past, the efforts and research they have put into their work, and the standard and knowledge that we have today because of these greats.
So I react when the smart arses full of themselves and their inflated egos, or when those with their hidden religious agendas or other anti mainstream agendas like the ether, start to present their stuff on forums such as this as a faitre complei certainty to replace incumbent theories, with no evidence, just twisted minds and delusions of grandeur.


This shows your self inferiority, lack of confidence in your ability.

Not in the least. I'm quite confident in my ability but also quite realistic as to the limitations of my ability, something which you are blinded to for a couple of reasons. I'm also quite confident in my perceptive abilities in seeing through scientific frauds which so often infest forums such as this.
My respect and admiration for the scientific giants that have got us where we are today, re-enforce those limitations of mine and are also a help in distinguishing the wheat from the chaff on forums such as this.

 

[paddoboy]

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:

 

[paddoboy]

Let me add from another thread some relevent material and thoughts, which certainly aligns with the methodology of some we have here.........
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-einstein-cranks.152991/
In addition, despite his appalling lack of physics understanding, it seems that MacM also has an equally appalling lack of necessary mathematical know-how. In fact, despite his repeatedly claimed expertise, he seemed to almost disdain math because it didn’t fit with his “common sense” views on the matter.

For example, when I clearly pointed out to him (complete with fully worked out mathematical derivation) that his insistence that Newton’s 2nd Law (F=ma) applied in special relativity was dead wrong, he ignored the derivation and flatly declared that “all this math is just a waste of time.” Yet when he thinks it’ll score points for him, he pulls very bad & inconsistent math out of his butt to (he thinks) reinforce his arguments. This kind of “heads I win, tails you lose” method of argumentation is par for the course for many pseudoscientific cranks, and it shows how they are not really interested in genuine inquiry, just “winning the argument.”

It could very well be that, in the end, Einstein is wrong and that relativity theory will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. But it is going to take more than the wild-eyed insistence on the part of pseudoscientists on the Internet to topple relativity. If anything will topple Einstein’s theory, it is going to be from within science, due to a careful application of the same thinking which led to the very paradigm shift he championed.

 

[Schmelzer]

You got to be practical and pragmatic.

No, I don't have to. I'm an anarchist. I follow my own rules. If society requires to become a liar to reach certain things, I decide for myself if these things are worth to be reached even if I have to violate my own moral rules. I have decided they are not worth to do this.

So I have decided to follow the good old rules of civilized behavior. If I propose an ether theory, I name it an ether theory. If the consequence is that it will be ignored by the mainstream, so be it. I have made some compromises in this direction, to get the papers published, so it is seldom mentioned there.

No its not too late, at the end of the day, you need to see your baby come up.

What matters to me is if I have understood this. If other people get the message is secondary. I have no problem to spend some time for this, say, by presenting the theory in various forums. But what I will not do for this is to violate my own ideas about what is appropriate behavior. To behave amorally to become accepted by the mainstream? A clear NO.

So what you are saying that your theory, does not really solve the Quantization Issue where it really matters?

No. For ether theory, quantization is not an issue. It is quite unproblematic, but also solves nothing - because it is unproblematic (no interesting problems, no interesting solutions).

Some GR proponents aim to solve some of the conflicts between GR and QT in a way which preserves nice GR principles. These are really serious conflicts, thus, a solution would be really interesting. Ether theory does not fulfill these wishes. So, ether theory does not solve their problems. Essentially, the ether solution of the GR/QT conflicts is quite simple: To give up the GR principles in conflict with QT.

I do not really understand the distortion of ether waves, and that too when you call them sound waves of ether. So it gives rise to couple of easy questions for you..
1. What is the nature of your ether waves in absence of mass ? you know like flat spacetime in case of absence of mass in GR.

In this case, they are simply acoustic waves. What varies is the density, the velocity, the stress (pressure) tensor.

2. Spacetime being a geomety can be twisted whichever way maths wants, but in case of ether waves how do you get waves distorted, you must be maintaining some kind of wave symmetry? Say the path of earth in space is like helical, well how do you get a sound wave follow helical path?

Of course, I have to get equations of the waves. And I have such equations. First of all, the continuity equation and the Euler equations, which are the classical conservation laws. But there have to be, of course, also equations for everything else. These are the Einstein equations, slightly modified by the additional terms.

Why GR guys wanted GP-B, when the spacetime warping was apparent from orbits itself?

Scientists always want additional tests of the existing theories. This is completely independent of such interpretational questions. They have a theory, which predicts something, they have new experimental possibilities, and they try hard to measure, as accurate as possible, if the predictions are correct.

If not, the equations have to be somehow modified. Else, the equations are fine. Up to the next experiment. Which interpretation of the equations is the better one is not considered - the experiment remains silent about this.

How do you account for frame dragging in your theory?

This is not a question which needs to be solved in my ether theory, once it is nicely solved in GR. "Frame dragging" is nothing but a verbal description of some properties of some solutions of GR. The same solutions can be used in my ether theory too, thus, there will be the same "frame dragging" in ether theory too.

What I have to interpret are the fields themself: $$ \rho=g^{00}\srqt{-g} v^i=g^{0i}/g^{00}, \rho v^i v^j - \sigma^{ij}=g^{ij}\sqrt{-g}$$, and to make sure that the equations for these fields from condensed matter theory $$\rho, v^i, \sigma^{ij}$$ are what has to be expected for these fields in a usual condensed matter theory. Everything else follows. For example, that the expression for the curvature is something which describes inner stresses and how they change. This is, essentially, no new physics, but an exercise how well we have understood classical condensed matter theory. We have an expression in $$g^{mn}$$, have to translate it into an expression of the $$\rho, v^i, \sigma^{ij}$$, which is a simple mathematics exercise, and then have to find out how this expression is named in condensed matter theory, which is an exercise in classical condensed matter theory, without any real importance, because, if we don't have a nice well-known name for some expression of the $$\rho, v^i, \sigma^{ij}$$, so what? It may be even helpful in condensed matter theory. If the original expression was useful for studying gravity, it may be a good idea to look at this expression for condensed matter physicists, help them to solve similar problems in condensed matter theory. (In fact, this reverse mechanism has already given a Nobel price for Wilson, who has applied renormalization techniques from quantum field theory to reach a much better understanding of condensed matter physics.)

 

[Schmelzer]

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:
[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

Done. I don't like to use the "this is fact" phrase in general. Given that it is so common here, I remember I have sometimes used it too - to use the language of the people one argues with is a meaningful strategy to improve understanding, but it sometimes make you copy their errors. So, whenever I have used a "this is fact" language here, sorry, I would better correct it.

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

For almost everything, this is the evidence for the SM of particle physics and GR. The differences are, up to now, minor, and, given that the theory of gravity gives the Einstein equations of GR in a natural limit, give only upper bounds to the additional terms.

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

Quantization is, different from GR quantization, a trivial exercise, all one has to do is to follow quantum condensed matter theory. The ether model explains the SM of particle physics, which simply postulates all the fields and forces without explaining anything.

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:
[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:
[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:
[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.
[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

No problem. Only one: It is not really challenged. The only "challenge" is that it has been, up to now, completely ignored by the mainstream. Or that it is, in other words, unchallenged by the mainstream.

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

It is far away from being perfect in the case of ether theories, there is a heavy prejudice. But, nonetheless, there is indeed no alternative, and I have mastered this difficulty.

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:
[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

No reason. Once my theories have the established mainstream theories as limits, I don't have to "override" anything reached in the past. The differences between my ether theories and the established theories SM/GR are mathematically much less then the differences between QT and classical theory, or those between GR and Newtonian gravity. So, first, the creators of QT and GR have made much more difficult things in comparison with what I have done, so I don't have any reason to compare myself with them, mathematically I have certainly done much less, conceptually I have revived known principles instead of having to develop completely new ones, also a much easier task. And, second, even QT and GR have not "overridden" all the successes of classical mechanics and Newtonian gravity.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:

This is what I have done all the time.

 

[Schmelzer]

Let me add from another thread some relevent material and thoughts, which certainly aligns with the methodology of some we have here.........
...
It could very well be that, in the end, Einstein is wrong and that relativity theory will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of scientific history. But it is going to take more than the wild-eyed insistence on the part of pseudoscientists on the Internet to topple relativity. If anything will topple Einstein’s theory, it is going to be from within science, due to a careful application of the same thinking which led to the very paradigm shift he championed.

The first part, about the math not being used, obviously doesn't apply to me, thus, omitted. For the second part, this may be less obvious. But, in fact, I would classify my ether approach as coming from within science. I fully accept the scientific methodology, as formulated by Popper. Even if you don't like Popper, your hero Einstein has read him and given quite positive comments about this. One of my main arguments in favor of the ether is based on Einstein's philosophy, namely the EPR paper. The new equation I add to gravity - the harmonic condition - comes from the mainstream too, and has been recognized as a fundamentally important one by other scientists, like Fock. Some of the important new math in my ether model for the SM comes from quite modern research domain, lattice theory, being a modification of staggered fermions and Wilson lattice gauge theory.

And, last but not least, I use the same scientific thinking which has motivated the 19th century physicists to develop atomic models and give the continuous condensed matter theory an atomic interpretation. Which was, by the way, the same thinking which has motivated old ether theory. Because at that time it was in no way clear that atomic models for acoustic waves will succeed already in near future, but similar atomic models for light waves not so fast.

 

[Schmelzer]

remains of a double posting

 

[paddoboy]

No, I don't have to. I'm an anarchist. I follow my own rules.

That just about says it all: Thank Christ that your kind is in the teeniest minority.

But what I will not do for this is to violate my own ideas about what is appropriate behavior. To behave amorally to become accepted by the mainstream? A clear NO.

How bloody arrogant can one person be?
Perhaps taking a good calm long look at yourself and what you claim as moral, despite what the rest of the world claim as moral.

No. For ether theory, quantization is not an issue. It is quite unproblematic, but also solves nothing - because it is unproblematic (no interesting problems, no interesting solutions).
Some GR proponents aim to solve some of the conflicts between GR and QT in a way which preserves nice GR principles. These are really serious conflicts,

This is not a question which needs to be solved in my ether theory, once it is nicely solved in GR. "Frame dragging" is nothing but a verbal description of some properties of some solutions of GR.

Wow! such obfuscation, such cherry picking, such fabrication of issues!
It appears that you with your anarchy disposition, and our narcissistic friend with his god agenda, have found a common road to crankdom...Enjoy!

 

[paddoboy]

No problem. Only one: It is not really challenged. The only "challenge" is that it has been, up to now, completely ignored by the mainstream. Or that it is, in other words, unchallenged by the mainstream.

Ignored, unchallenged, no citations. What does that tell you?
It tells me that either your hypothetical ether, is really just a semantical exercise, where you are in effect calling spacetime the ether, or that while your maths may be intact, the superfluous nature of the ether and the evidence for its non existence, makes it solely an exercise in speculative science.
Worth noting, that many papers go unchallenged, ignored and uncited...:shrug:

It is far away from being perfect in the case of ether theories, there is a heavy prejudice. But, nonetheless, there is indeed no alternative, and I have mastered this difficulty.

I certainly see a prejudice in the above...your own prejudice.

And, second, even QT and GR have not "overridden" all the successes of classical mechanics and Newtonian gravity.

I have no argument with the above. Just as I have told you in the past. I do not believe GR invalidated Newtonian: Both are correct within their own zones of applicability. In fact GR in most cases, gives the same results as Newtonian, albeit with much higher precision. But using GR in sub relativistic speeds and gravity would be a pain in the butt. Likewise a future QGT will not invalidate GR or the BB: Just extend both beyond current parameters and zones of applicability.

 

[paddoboy]

I fully accept the scientific methodology, as formulated by Popper. Even if you don't like Popper, your hero Einstein has read him and given quite positive comments about this.

Who said I don't like Popper? Another misinterpreted exercise for the sake of effect? I said Popper is not the be all and end all.
Einstein, sure I admire the man greatly.....I also admire to a certain extent Fred Hoyle, but in effect he was also driven by an agenda...an anti religious agenda. The BB by denoting a beginning, could by extension denote a creator. That was an issue Hoyle as an Atheist could not get his thoughts and reasoning around.

 

[Schmelzer]

Perhaps taking a good calm long look at yourself and what you claim as moral, despite what the rest of the world claim as moral.

What was suggested to me was to become "practical" and "pragmatic" and to rename the ether into something innocent so that my theory has no longer to face the prejudice against the ether. I think this is amoral. If you think to deceive other people by renaming an ether theory to hide that it is an ether theory is moral, so be it. That's your moral.

Ignored, unchallenged, no citations. What does that tell you?

It tells me that there are no reasonable arguments against my theory. At least none one can easily find. Else, somebody would have used this possibility to add another point to his publication list by writing a refutation.

I have no argument with the above. Just as I have told you in the past.

What you have told in the past was that these theories are nonetheless true. Or true in their domain of applicability or so. Which is false. Even in their domain of applicability they are only approximations, and therefore false. The domain of applicability is simply the domain where the error is small enough to be ignored.

Who said I don't like Popper?

You. I have often recommended you to read Popper, you have refused, AFAIR. And you have continued to write nonsense which has nothing to do with the Popperian method.

Of course, Popper has also got some points wrong, in particular about probability. For probability I recommend Jaynes. But nonetheless Popper remains the best to start with for laymen to understand scientific methodology.

 

[paddoboy]

What was suggested to me was to become "practical" and "pragmatic" and to rename the ether into something innocent so that my theory has no longer to face the prejudice against the ether. I think this is amoral. If you think to deceive other people by renaming an ether theory to hide that it is an ether theory is moral, so be it. That's your moral.

Nothing to do with morality: the ether simply does not exist according to the accepted overwhelmingly supported and tested GR.

It tells me that there are no reasonable arguments against my theory. At least none one can easily find. Else, somebody would have used this possibility to add another point to his publication list by writing a refutation.

No interest and ignoring does not equate to no argument. Again simply, the ether is superfluous...simple as that, with no conspiracies about mainstream needed at all.

What you have told in the past was that these theories are nonetheless true. Or true in their domain of applicability or so. Which is false. Even in their domain of applicability they are only approximations, and therefore false. The domain of applicability is simply the domain where the error is small enough to be ignored.

Total bullshit and semantics and playing with words as what you are best at and known for. Any theory that gives desired results within their domain of applicability is correct within those domains.
A carpenter uses a rule or tape measure to fit a window: He achieves the desired result with a perfect fitting window: A Engineer comes along with a set of Verniers and does the same measurements with far greater accuracy: The window still fits and the same desired job is achieved.

You. I have often recommended you to read Popper, you have refused, AFAIR. And you have continued to write nonsense which has nothing to do with the Popperian method.

:SHRUG: What the fuck are you on about?
Let me state it again...Popper was not the be all and end all. And yes you are correct, I have not read him
As Richard Feynamn once said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

Of course, Popper has also got some points wrong, in particular about probability. For probability I recommend Jaynes. But nonetheless Popper remains the best to start with for laymen to understand scientific methodology.

What you claim and/or recommend is of no great Interest to me.
Just as I'm not interested in anarchy, or the ether, or any conspiracies you deem correct re mainstream science.

 

[The God]

Who said I don't like Popper? Another misinterpreted exercise for the sake of effect? I said Popper is not the be all and end all.
Einstein, sure I admire the man greatly.....

Just adding that Popper is not the be all and end all, and when any so called scientists, sees the need to invoke such inane semantical, philosophical bullshit, to support a failing stance, then that stance has not got much going for it.

Another lie, when caught with pants down ?

Well, Paddoboy, how do you like Popper, after declaring his work as semantical, philosophical BUSLLSHIT ?

Are you aware (don't google) of his basic argument about validity of any scientific theory ? Are you aware that scientific community has no serious objection to this argument of his ? Still you call Popper's work as BS.

You threw the term Occam's razor (you misspell it as 'Ocamm') couple of times in various posts, how come Occam is ok and Popper is semantic Bullshit?

 

[The God]

Of course, I have to get equations of the waves. And I have such equations. First of all, the continuity equation and the Euler equations, which are the classical conservation laws. But there have to be, of course, also equations for everything else. These are the Einstein equations, slightly modified by the additional terms.

Are you telling that you have acoustic ether wave equations following a helical path or you just made a general statement while in excess of C2H5OH ?

In GR the motion of Moon cannot be easily described, taking all the possible motions of moon into consideration.

 

[brucep]

Nothing to do with morality: the ether simply does not exist according to the accepted overwhelmingly supported and tested GR.

No interest and ignoring does not equate to no argument. Again simply, the ether is superfluous...simple as that, with no conspiracies about mainstream needed at all.

Total bullshit and semantics and playing with words as what you are best at and known for. Any theory that gives desired results within their domain of applicability is correct within those domains.
A carpenter uses a rule or tape measure to fit a window: He achieves the desired result with a perfect fitting window: A Engineer comes along with a set of Verniers and does the same measurements with far greater accuracy: The window still fits and the same desired job is achieved.


:SHRUG: What the fuck are you on about?
Let me state it again...Popper was not the be all and end all. And yes you are correct, I have not read him
As Richard Feynamn once said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"


What you claim and/or recommend is of no great Interest to me.
Just as I'm not interested in anarchy, or the ether, or any conspiracies you deem correct re mainstream science.

Great Feynman comment. He was the coolest.

 

[Schmelzer]

Are you telling that you have acoustic ether wave equations following a helical path or you just made a general statement while in excess of C2H5OH ? In GR the motion of Moon cannot be easily described, taking all the possible motions of moon into consideration.

I'm telling you that I have equations of motion for my ether theory, and these equations differ only in minor, usually irrelevant additional terms from the equations of GR. So, if GR has solutions where light moves somehow in helical paths, my theory will have them too.

Nothing to do with morality: the ether simply does not exist according to the accepted overwhelmingly supported and tested GR.

The ether has, of course, no moral. If I present my ether theory in a honest way or try to hide something to avoid some prejudices, even if those prejudices are stupid, has a lot to do with moral values. What you think about it is irrelevant, given that you repeat arguments against the ether, in favour of spacetime, which have already many times shown to be irrelevant.

Any theory that gives desired results within their domain of applicability is correct within those domains.

No. If a nice approximation gives the value 1.234567890123 but the true value is 1.234567890987, then the first value is not correct. If the accuracy one needs for the practical problem is 1.2345 and what follows is irrelevant, then we are in the domain of applicability of the approximation. But this does not make the wrong value correct. The wrong value remains wrong, it is only sufficiently accurate for this particular problem.

And, please learn that a lot in science is about accurate formulations. So, what looks to you like "playing with words" is simply correcting errors. There is a difference between the sloppyness which is completely fine in everyday language and what is fine in a scientific text. It is not an accident that to read scientific texts is not easy, and that scientists do not use nice poetic language but a complex formal one.

Let me state it again...Popper was not the be all and end all. And yes you are correct, I have not read him

No problem. But once you are ignorant, don't know the mainstream scientific method, I would recommend you to accept what those who know the mainstream scientific method tell you about it.

There are two reasonable ways of behavior in a scientific discussion: If I don't know anything, I accept what the mainstream tells, without arguing against the mainstream. If I want to argue, I have to learn all this myself. After this, I can start to argue. Before this, I can ask a lot of questions and expect reasonable answers. And if I see some contradictions in the answers, I can show these and wait for an explanation why there is no real contradiction. To argue against the mainstream, without knowing mainstream theory, is the typical behavior of cranks.

What you claim and/or recommend is of no great Interest to me.
Just as I'm not interested in anarchy, or the ether, or any conspiracies you deem correct re mainstream science.

In this case, stop to answer my posts.

 

[paddoboy]

Another lie, when caught with pants down ?

The only one with his pants around his ankles is you.
I said Popper was not the be all and end all: The rest was in reference to Schmelzer. But English is not your first language is it? Although you should have picked up some in your Bollywood classes.

Well, Paddoboy, how do you like Popper, after declaring his work as semantical, philosophical BUSLLSHIT ?

Take it easy my young friend....what I said......

Let me state it again...Popper was not the be all and end all. And yes you are correct, I have not read him
As Richard Feynamn once said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds"

Are you aware (don't google) of his basic argument about validity of any scientific theory ? Are you aware that scientific community has no serious objection to this argument of his ? Still you call Popper's work as BS.

I'm not the one that uses Popper as an excuse to validate bullshit.

You threw the term Occam's razor (you misspell it as 'Ocamm') couple of times in various posts, how come Occam is ok and Popper is semantic Bullshit?

Did I ? Damn! I actually use Occam's razor or Ockham's razor to illustrate the unnecessary noise, pedant, bullshit and general complicated scenarios you like to show and dazzle your audience with...simple as that.
In reality, I'm not that much into philosophy...
Here's two more interesting quotes for you........

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".
Henry Louis Mencken.
"Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists".
Richard Feynman

Nice to see you finally come to your senses and realising there is no problem and never has been with Gravitational lensing or any projection of a straight line that the eye sees as an illusion.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm telling you that I have equations of motion for my ether theory, and these equations differ only in minor, usually irrelevant additional terms from the equations of GR. So, if GR has solutions where light moves somehow in helical paths, my theory will have them too.

Except there is no ether.

The ether has, of course, no moral. If I present my ether theory in a honest way or try to hide something to avoid some prejudices, even if those prejudices are stupid, has a lot to do with moral values. What you think about it is irrelevant, given that you repeat arguments against the ether, in favour of spacetime, which have already many times shown to be irrelevant.

The only thing irrelevent is your ether and the theory you devised to try and justify it.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html
What is a space time continuum?
In 1906, soon after Albert Einstein announced his special theory of relativity, his former college teacher in mathematics, Hermann Minkowski, developed a new scheme for thinking about space and time that emphasized its geometric qualities. In his famous quotation delivered at a public lecture on relativity, he announced that,

"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."

This new reality was that space and time, as physical constructs, have to be combined into a new mathematical/physical entity called 'space-time', because the equations of relativity show that both the space and time coordinates of any event must get mixed together by the mathematics, in order to accurately describe what we see. Because space consists of 3 dimensions, and time is 1-dimensional, space-time must, therefore, be a 4-dimensional object. It is believed to be a 'continuum' because so far as we know, there are no missing points in space or instants in time, and both can be subdivided without any apparent limit in size or duration. So, physicists now routinely consider our world to be embedded in this 4-dimensional Space-Time continuum, and all events, places, moments in history, actions and so on are described in terms of their location in Space-Time.

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

No. If a nice approximation gives the value 1.234567890123 but the true value is 1.234567890987, then the first value is not correct. If the accuracy one needs for the practical problem is 1.2345 and what follows is irrelevant, then we are in the domain of applicability of the approximation. But this does not make the wrong value correct. The wrong value remains wrong, it is only sufficiently accurate for this particular problem.

Only from your perspective and your efforts to justify your ether by default [that being GR is wrong] In that regard you are pushing shit up hill.

And, please learn that a lot in science is about accurate formulations. So, what looks to you like "playing with words" is simply correcting errors. There is a difference between the sloppyness which is completely fine in everyday language and what is fine in a scientific text. It is not an accident that to read scientific texts is not easy, and that scientists do not use nice poetic language but a complex formal one.

Coming from someone whose paper languishes in oblivion without citations [yes, I know, you don't care ] that sounds rather funny.
Oh and sloppyness is spelt sloppiness, but this isn't a scientific text or paper and hence why you are here. Your peers obviously in the science world would be taking a larger hunk than I.

No problem. But once you are ignorant, don't know the mainstream scientific method, I would recommend you to accept what those who know the mainstream scientific method tell you about it.

And I'll accept that advice gracefully, as I'm always open to learning....but from someone reputable and without any agenda.

To argue against the mainstream, without knowing mainstream theory, is the typical behavior of cranks.

Perhaps you need to have a word in our divine friend's ear?

In this case, stop to answer my posts.

While you try and justify the ether I'll give my reasons why it is a loser...simple as that.

 

[Schmelzer]

Except there is no ether.

As meaningful as "except there is no curved spacetime". Above are parts of a theory. Above exist only in a particular interpretation of the theory, in another interpretation they do not exist.

While you try and justify the ether I'll give my reasons why it is a loser...simple as that.

Unfortunately, you are unable to do this. All you can do is to copypaste sources which describe and justify the spacetime interpretation of GR, texts where one can reasonably assume that their authors have no information about the very existence of an ether interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR.

And, note, this is a completely different situation. If I don't know that there exists an ether interpretation for GR, and that the spacetime interpretation is the only one of GR, then observations in favor of GR can be reasonably interpreted as evidence for spacetime.

If a nice approximation gives the value 1.234567890123 but the true value is 1.234567890987, then the first value is not correct. If the accuracy one needs for the practical problem is 1.2345 and what follows is irrelevant, then we are in the domain of applicability of the approximation. But this does not make the wrong value correct. The wrong value remains wrong, it is only sufficiently accurate for this particular problem.

Only from your perspective and your efforts to justify your ether by default [that being GR is wrong] In that regard you are pushing shit up hill.

LOL. My statement is a completely general one, has nothing to do with GR, nothing with my particular ether theories, it is simply about common sense, about the very meaning of the word "correct", which is, AFAIK, different from "a sufficiently close approximation". Correct me somebody else if I'm wrong about this, given that I'm not a native speaker.

Coming from someone whose paper languishes in oblivion without citations [yes, I know, you don't care ] that sounds rather funny.

Why? The text had no relation at all to how successful I am as a scientist.

And I'll accept that advice gracefully, as I'm always open to learning....but from someone reputable and without any agenda.

So why don't you read Popper? Is he not reputable? Is he having an agenda (whatever this means)?

Perhaps you need to have a word in our divine friend's ear?

If he behaves in a similar way, why not? Yet I have not observed him repeating the same nonsense even after being corrected by me more than three times.