Revision to AW Theory

Actually trig, luminiferous aether is not necessarily the same aether that FE'ers such as John Davis and Tausami are referring to.  They are probably referring to something along the lines of Einstein aether or the Greek classical element.

No. Tausami has been quite clear. His aether holds most of its energy in intermolecular bonds, which implies that it contains molecules.

And of course with the advent of Quantum Mechanics light is known to be made up of particles called photons. Particles do not need a medium in which to propagate.

Quote from: markjo on February 04, 2012, 08:51:05 AM

They are probably referring to something along the lines of Einstein aether or the Greek classical element.

Nah, they're probably just making shit up.

Fi'ed.

Quote from: markjo on February 04, 2012, 08:51:05 AM

They are probably referring to something along the lines of Einstein aether or the Greek classical element.

Nah, they're probably just making shit up.

Well of  course they are.  Just remember that the best science fiction is based on real science.

Quote from: zarg on February 04, 2012, 09:26:06 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 04, 2012, 08:51:05 AM

They are probably referring to something along the lines of Einstein aether or the Greek classical element.

Nah, they're probably just making shit up.

Well of  course they are.  Just remember that the best science fiction is based on real science.

Which version of aether is made of hydrogen and helium? I think trig got it right: they just picked a neat sounding name, and then made everything up from the ground up. It's not built on any prior basis beyond the mere idea that aether is "stuff beyond the earth".

Actually trig, luminiferous aether is not necessarily the same aether that FE'ers such as John Davis and Tausami are referring to.  They are probably referring to something along the lines of Einstein aether or the Greek classical element.

Thank you for the insight. Still, no protons, neutrons or electrons form either partially or completely the Einstein aether, so my point still stands. There is aether (if it exists) in the vacuum and in the space filled with matter. Aether has no mass, no molecular bonds, no single feature that even remotely resembles what any FE'er ascribes to aether.

If the FE'ers version of aether comes from greek mythology that would explain a lot. I like Plato's explanation (that which God used in the delineation of the universe) but I would still want something even close to a definition of what God needed to delineate the universe. I would even thank you for an explanation of why the universe requires delineation. But if FE science is on par with ancient Greek's, I consider that a nice complement to FE'ers. But now that I think about it, they already knew that the Earth is round, so I do not know what can FE'ers find there. More blabber that we don't immediately recognize as such?

I've really got to stop calling it aether. It seems to cause a lot of confusion. The reason for the name was that, when explaining UA to a noob, I used to compare it to a wind, and called it an aetheric wind.. They actually seemed to understand it, which is unusual for an angry noob.

Quote from: Tausami on February 03, 2012, 06:55:04 PM

since he's the only one of you who knows what he's talking about

This coming from the clown who said:

Quote

it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate.

The people you refer to may not all be the most knowledgeable about physics, but at least they aren't spouting such blatant uneducated bullshit as this.

And yet, you've yet to refute it. I think you might, once again, be misunderstanding what I said. It a statement in reference to inertia that was to serve as a short buffer, because I honestly have no idea how to explain the constant acceleration now that it can not be a superplasma.

Quote from: Tausami on February 03, 2012, 06:55:04 PM

There is (obviously) a magnetic field and atmosphere (or atmocylinder,  rather) that protects the Earth from most cosmic radiation. In addition, much like in RE, it absorbs the energy from the aether. The aether is then deflected around it, wind that it is. The Moon, which does not have a magnetic field or atmosphere, proceeds to absorb most of the rest of the energy.  When the aether comes back into contact with the Earth (at the bottom of the whirlpool), it takes a large amount of the energy back. Now, before you tell me I'm being an idiot again (which is an ad Hominem), read up on the supposed reason as to why the Earth doesn't heat up in RET.

Tell us how the "wind" maintains constant acceleration.

See above.

Quote from: Tausami on February 03, 2012, 06:55:04 PM

I never said that the Earth is flat because of AW.

Yes you did.

I'm pretty sure that was a logical fallacy, but I can't be bothered to look at the list. You're mixing up the two different 'why's. One 'why', the 'why do we know this', is answered by the Bedford Level Experiment. The second 'why', 'why did this happen', is explained by AW.

I've really got to stop calling it aether. It seems to cause a lot of confusion. The reason for the name was that, when explaining UA to a noob, I used to compare it to a wind, and called it an aetheric wind.. They actually seemed to understand it, which is unusual for an angry noob.

Quote from: zarg on February 03, 2012, 08:15:18 PM

Quote from: Tausami on February 03, 2012, 06:55:04 PM

since he's the only one of you who knows what he's talking about

This coming from the clown who said:

Quote

it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate.

The people you refer to may not all be the most knowledgeable about physics, but at least they aren't spouting such blatant uneducated bullshit as this.

And yet, you've yet to refute it. I think you might, once again, be misunderstanding what I said. It a statement in reference to inertia that was to serve as a short buffer, because I honestly have no idea how to explain the constant acceleration now that it can not be a superplasma.

No, I understand what you said. It's pretty straightforward. You said it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate. i.e. (energy to stop acceleration) > (energy to accelerate). This is laughably false. Acceleration takes energy. Zero acceleration takes zero energy (unless there are two opposing forces cancelling each other out, which there isn't in your model).  You say your statement is in reference to inertia, which deals with velocity, not acceleration. So thank you for confirming that you hadn't grasped the difference.  Please don't pretend that you had. If so you wouldn't have said something so mind-numbingly stupid.

If your "wind" doesn't provide an explanation for constant acceleration, the whole "theory" is trash. The whole point of AW was to explain UA. What does that stand for again?

Quote from: Tausami on February 05, 2012, 08:07:12 AM

I've really got to stop calling it aether. It seems to cause a lot of confusion. The reason for the name was that, when explaining UA to a noob, I used to compare it to a wind, and called it an aetheric wind.. They actually seemed to understand it, which is unusual for an angry noob.

Quote from: zarg on February 03, 2012, 08:15:18 PM

Quote from: Tausami on February 03, 2012, 06:55:04 PM

since he's the only one of you who knows what he's talking about

This coming from the clown who said:

Quote

it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate.

The people you refer to may not all be the most knowledgeable about physics, but at least they aren't spouting such blatant uneducated bullshit as this.

And yet, you've yet to refute it. I think you might, once again, be misunderstanding what I said. It a statement in reference to inertia that was to serve as a short buffer, because I honestly have no idea how to explain the constant acceleration now that it can not be a superplasma.

No, I understand what you said. It's pretty straightforward. You said it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate. i.e. (energy to stop acceleration) > (energy to accelerate). This is laughably false. Acceleration takes energy. Zero acceleration takes zero energy (unless there are two opposing forces cancelling each other out, which there isn't in your model).  You say your statement is in reference to inertia, which deals with velocity, not acceleration. So thank you for confirming that you hadn't grasped the difference.  Please don't pretend that you had. If so you wouldn't have said something so mind-numbingly stupid.

If your "wind" doesn't provide an explanation for constant acceleration, the whole "theory" is trash. The whole point of AW was to explain UA. What does that stand for again?

*sigh*

The wind is moving incredibly fast, and is therefore accelerated by something incredibly powerful. Thus, it would take massive amounts of energy to stop it from accelerating. The statement was a very successful buffer, I might add. I think it caused a four day derailment.

The point of the wind is to give a reasonable explanation for why UA acts like a wind. It also explains the seasons, night and day, the sunset/rise, and the reason that the bottom of the Earth is molten. I'm also not above suggesting that AW is accelerated by DE.

The wind is moving incredibly fast, and is therefore accelerated by something incredibly powerful. Thus, it would take massive amounts of energy to stop it from accelerating.

Wrong. The speed at which it is moving is irrelevant. Stopping acceleration is a very, very different thing than stopping motion. Acceleration <=> energy. Stopping acceleration <=> lack of energy.

Quote from: zarg on January 16, 2012, 12:31:25 PM

Please learn the difference between acceleration and velocity and what it takes to maintain constant acceleration.

The point of the wind is to give a reasonable explanation for why UA acts like a wind. It also explains the seasons, night and day, the sunset/rise, and the reason that the bottom of the Earth is molten. I'm also not above suggesting that AW is accelerated by DE.

So basically AW is just another World Turtle.

Why is the earth accelerating? Something is accelerating it. Why is that thing accelerating? Something else is accelerating it.

Bravo.

Tell us how the "bottom" force maintains constant acceleration.

I've really got to stop calling it aether. It seems to cause a lot of confusion. The reason for the name was that, when explaining UA to a noob, I used to compare it to a wind, and called it an aetheric wind.. They actually seemed to understand it, which is unusual for an angry noob.

So, you don't have anything except a poor attempt at literary parabola. The wind is so thin that I call it aetheric. It is going so fast that it is going incredibly fast.

Poor literature is not Physics. Poor literature is not a valid explanation, even outside of the realm of Physics. It is just bad writing.