Revision to AW Theory

I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

"Please Mr Davis, come help me! I have run out of bullshit about Magic Aether!"

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 28, 2012, 10:39:29 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

"Please Mr Davis, come help me! I have run out of bullshit about Magic Aether!"

1) I didn't mean only FE'ers. I just don't want to have to explain the theory to someone in this thread because it will lead to a quick derailment.

2) I will never run out of bullshit. However, Aether is not in any way magical or bs.

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 11:50:36 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 28, 2012, 10:39:29 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

"Please Mr Davis, come help me! I have run out of bullshit about Magic Aether!"

1) I didn't mean only FE'ers. I just don't want to have to explain the theory to someone in this thread because it will lead to a quick derailment.

2) I will never run out of bullshit. However, Aether is not in any way magical or bs.

1. You have never explained the theory, neither has anyone. That's how Magic Aether gets used to patch arguments - it has no known parameters to criticise, thus rendering it bulletproof, except of course that it's very obviously no more of an explanation than claiming "God does something and that's how it happens, you don't need to know more."

2. That first sentence there should be your sig.

I've explained my theory fully and succinctly.

After several days of careful research and thought, I have determined a scientifically sound response to issues raised regarding my theory in the thread 'Sniper Shot'. The issues in question are why the Earth does not heat from the Aetheric wind, and why Aetheric Wind is a superfluid despite being plasmic. I will answer the two separate issues in separate paragraphs.

1) The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

2) There is current research into plasmic or gaseous superfluids, as shown here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2963
http://www.humanresonance.org/superfluid.html

The second link is most relevant. I may have to revise my theory in that the aether is not a superplasma, but rather a gas.


I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

After several days of careful research and thought, I have determined a scientifically sound response to issues raised regarding my theory in the thread 'Sniper Shot'. The issues in question are why the Earth does not heat from the Aetheric wind, and why Aetheric Wind is a superfluid despite being plasmic. I will answer the two separate issues in separate paragraphs.

1) The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

2) There is current research into plasmic or gaseous superfluids, as shown here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2963
http://www.humanresonance.org/superfluid.html

The second link is most relevant. I may have to revise my theory in that the aether is not a superplasma, but rather a gas.


I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Let's review a few thing...

1) It's special pleading to respond with a new explanation once you're proven wrong.
2) You argue two contradicting points.
2.1) The aether accelerates the FE at 9.8 m/s^2 and
2.2) does not impart most of its energy.
3) Neither link tells of any reason to believe that the aether could store its energy in intermolecular bonds and yet be free from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suspect that you're done here. No one will consider any theory you propose now as anywhere near credible.

Lrn2physics. If the aether is pushing the Earth, that doesn't mean that it has to be imparting energy to it. Pushing things is not the same as causing them to move on their own accord.
3) I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

Quote from: ClockTower on January 28, 2012, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

After several days of careful research and thought, I have determined a scientifically sound response to issues raised regarding my theory in the thread 'Sniper Shot'. The issues in question are why the Earth does not heat from the Aetheric wind, and why Aetheric Wind is a superfluid despite being plasmic. I will answer the two separate issues in separate paragraphs.

1) The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

2) There is current research into plasmic or gaseous superfluids, as shown here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2963
http://www.humanresonance.org/superfluid.html

The second link is most relevant. I may have to revise my theory in that the aether is not a superplasma, but rather a gas.


I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Let's review a few thing...

1) It's special pleading to respond with a new explanation once you're proven wrong.
2) You argue two contradicting points.
2.1) The aether accelerates the FE at 9.8 m/s^2 and
2.2) does not impart most of its energy.
3) Neither link tells of any reason to believe that the aether could store its energy in intermolecular bonds and yet be free from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suspect that you're done here. No one will consider any theory you propose now as anywhere near credible.

1) No, it's not.       
2) Lrn2physics. If the aether is pushing the Earth, that doesn't mean that it has to be imparting energy to it. Pushing things is not the same as causing them to move on their own accord.
3) I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

Also:
it is not affected by any intermolecular forces

is incompatible with:
Universal Acceleration is caused by aether coming in contact with the Earth and lifting it

How does it lift the earth if it cannot interact with molecules?

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 08:00:48 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 28, 2012, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

After several days of careful research and thought, I have determined a scientifically sound response to issues raised regarding my theory in the thread 'Sniper Shot'. The issues in question are why the Earth does not heat from the Aetheric wind, and why Aetheric Wind is a superfluid despite being plasmic. I will answer the two separate issues in separate paragraphs.

1) The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

2) There is current research into plasmic or gaseous superfluids, as shown here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2963
http://www.humanresonance.org/superfluid.html

The second link is most relevant. I may have to revise my theory in that the aether is not a superplasma, but rather a gas.


I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Let's review a few thing...

1) It's special pleading to respond with a new explanation once you're proven wrong.
2) You argue two contradicting points.
2.1) The aether accelerates the FE at 9.8 m/s^2 and
2.2) does not impart most of its energy.
3) Neither link tells of any reason to believe that the aether could store its energy in intermolecular bonds and yet be free from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suspect that you're done here. No one will consider any theory you propose now as anywhere near credible.

1) No, it's not.       
2) Lrn2physics. If the aether is pushing the Earth, that doesn't mean that it has to be imparting energy to it. Pushing things is not the same as causing them to move on their own accord.
3) I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

1) Yes, it is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading.
2) FSM! The point is not about pushing, but accelerating. Accelerating an object over time does impart energy. That's high school physics. Do pay attention.
3) You claim that this high-temperature aether is not heating the FE, but the 2nd LoT says it must. Since as before there's no place for the imparted heat to go, the entire FE would quickly reach the temperature of the aether. You have not demonstrated that anything 'uses' most of its energy inmolecular bonds. Indeed, I'm not aware of any gas that stores significant energy in such bonds.

You still have not addressed how a wind could continue to accelerate an object. That's like saying a sailboat, accelerated only by a wind, moves faster than the wind blowing into its sails.

3) The energy that is imparted into the Earth dissipates in the same way that it does in RET.

Tell us how the "wind" maintains constant acceleration.

Quote from: Tausami on February 01, 2012, 02:11:19 PM

3) The energy that is imparted into the Earth dissipates in the same way that it does in RET.

Obviously not.

Quote from: zarg on January 28, 2012, 02:31:00 PM

Tell us how the "wind" maintains constant acceleration.

Quote from: zarg on February 01, 2012, 05:05:15 PM

Quote from: Tausami on February 01, 2012, 02:11:19 PM

3) The energy that is imparted into the Earth dissipates in the same way that it does in RET.

Obviously not.

Oh?

Quote

Quote from: zarg on January 28, 2012, 02:31:00 PM

Tell us how the "wind" maintains constant acceleration.

The only force acting on it is pulling it. it would take more energy to stop it from accelerating than for it to accelerate.

Quote from: The Knowledge on January 29, 2012, 03:03:42 AM

Also:
it is not affected by any intermolecular forces

is incompatible with:
Universal Acceleration is caused by aether coming in contact with the Earth and lifting it

How does it lift the earth if it cannot interact with molecules?

You clearly don't know what intermolecular forces are. Google van der Waals force and Hydrogen bonds. That should give you a good idea of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: ClockTower on January 29, 2012, 12:13:12 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 08:00:48 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on January 28, 2012, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

After several days of careful research and thought, I have determined a scientifically sound response to issues raised regarding my theory in the thread 'Sniper Shot'. The issues in question are why the Earth does not heat from the Aetheric wind, and why Aetheric Wind is a superfluid despite being plasmic. I will answer the two separate issues in separate paragraphs.

1) The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

2) There is current research into plasmic or gaseous superfluids, as shown here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2963
http://www.humanresonance.org/superfluid.html

The second link is most relevant. I may have to revise my theory in that the aether is not a superplasma, but rather a gas.


I ask that only members already familiar with AW Theory respond to this thread

Let's review a few thing...

1) It's special pleading to respond with a new explanation once you're proven wrong.
2) You argue two contradicting points.
2.1) The aether accelerates the FE at 9.8 m/s^2 and
2.2) does not impart most of its energy.
3) Neither link tells of any reason to believe that the aether could store its energy in intermolecular bonds and yet be free from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I suspect that you're done here. No one will consider any theory you propose now as anywhere near credible.

1) No, it's not.       
2) Lrn2physics. If the aether is pushing the Earth, that doesn't mean that it has to be imparting energy to it. Pushing things is not the same as causing them to move on their own accord.
3) I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. Do you have a clue what you're talking about?

1) Yes, it is. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading.
2) FSM! The point is not about pushing, but accelerating. Accelerating an object over time does impart energy. That's high school physics. Do pay attention.
3) You claim that this high-temperature aether is not heating the FE, but the 2nd LoT says it must. Since as before there's no place for the imparted heat to go, the entire FE would quickly reach the temperature of the aether. You have not demonstrated that anything 'uses' most of its energy inmolecular bonds. Indeed, I'm not aware of any gas that stores significant energy in such bonds.

You still have not addressed how a wind could continue to accelerate an object. That's like saying a sailboat, accelerated only by a wind, moves faster than the wind blowing into its sails.

1) Special pleading is would be if I contradicted myself and didn't explain the contradiction. For instance, the idea that gravity doesn't exist except when it does is special pleading. What happening here is that I was shown an issue with my model and, instead of scrapping the entire model, I worked out what was wrong and fixed it.

2) You really don't understand what I'm saying, do you? The energy imparted is minimal because the energy available to be imparted is minimal. It is, however, enough to overcome inertia. If you punch a bowl of water really hard, the energy contained in the molecular bonds will not be transferred into your fist, and you won't break it into H₂ and O₂.

3) The energy that is imparted into the Earth dissipates in the same way that it does in RET.

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

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

Quote from: Tausami on February 01, 2012, 06:27:42 PM

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

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.

1) Special pleading is would be if I contradicted myself and didn't explain the contradiction. For instance, the idea that gravity doesn't exist except when it does is special pleading. What happening here is that I was shown an issue with my model and, instead of scrapping the entire model, I worked out what was wrong and fixed it.

Quote from: Tausami on February 01, 2012, 02:11:19 PM

1) Special pleading is would be if I contradicted myself and didn't explain the contradiction. For instance, the idea that gravity doesn't exist except when it does is special pleading. What happening here is that I was shown an issue with my model and, instead of scrapping the entire model, I worked out what was wrong and fixed it.

By a method that is no different to invoking a deity. The "God did it" defence IS special pleading. Magic Aether is your substitute for God - you have no independent evidence that it exists, it is merely used to bolster a premise that has to be taken as true in order to supply evidence for the Aether - in other words a circular argument along the lines of "Magic Aether MUST exist because it explains all the unexplainable features of FET, and since we know Earth is flat, that proves Magic Aether exists."

Deity invocation fallacy is in red, false premise as a base of argument is in blue.

Replace aether with graviton

Quote from: The Knowledge on February 02, 2012, 12:55:50 PM

Quote from: Tausami on February 01, 2012, 02:11:19 PM

1) Special pleading is would be if I contradicted myself and didn't explain the contradiction. For instance, the idea that gravity doesn't exist except when it does is special pleading. What happening here is that I was shown an issue with my model and, instead of scrapping the entire model, I worked out what was wrong and fixed it.

By a method that is no different to invoking a deity. The "God did it" defence IS special pleading. Magic Aether is your substitute for God - you have no independent evidence that it exists, it is merely used to bolster a premise that has to be taken as true in order to supply evidence for the Aether - in other words a circular argument along the lines of "Magic Aether MUST exist because it explains all the unexplainable features of FET, and since we know Earth is flat, that proves Magic Aether exists."

Deity invocation fallacy is in red, false premise as a base of argument is in blue.

Replace aether with graviton and you might be on to something.

The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

A gaseous superfluid has mass! If the Aether has intermolecular bonds, it has molecules, therefore it has mass! Tausami does not know the very first thing about aether, which is that if it exists, it has no mass!

All of the other objections I see here to "aetheric wind", whatever that is, are quite reasonable. But the one which I consider the definite proof that everything Tausami has said is BS is that he uses the name aether without knowing even the simple fact that, if it exists, it has no mass!

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

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

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.

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

Quote from: trig on February 03, 2012, 05:52:55 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

A gaseous superfluid has mass! If the Aether has intermolecular bonds, it has molecules, therefore it has mass! Tausami does not know the very first thing about aether, which is that if it exists, it has no mass!

All of the other objections I see here to "aetheric wind", whatever that is, are quite reasonable. But the one which I consider the definite proof that everything Tausami has said is BS is that he uses the name aether without knowing even the simple fact that, if it exists, it has no mass!

And why, exactly, can it not have mass?


As for CT (who's the only person I actually care about talking to right now, since he's the only one of you who knows what he's talking about), I think I've been explaining myself badly. I'll go more into detail. 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.

Knowlege: I never said that the Earth is flat because of AW. I said it's flat because of the BLE. As ClockTower says, do keep up.

Quote from: trig on February 03, 2012, 05:52:55 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 28, 2012, 09:32:44 AM

The apparently (as shown below) gaseous superfluid that is Aether uses most of its energy in intermolecular bonds. This energy is not kinetic and therefore cannot be transferred into the Earth.

A gaseous superfluid has mass! If the Aether has intermolecular bonds, it has molecules, therefore it has mass! Tausami does not know the very first thing about aether, which is that if it exists, it has no mass!

All of the other objections I see here to "aetheric wind", whatever that is, are quite reasonable. But the one which I consider the definite proof that everything Tausami has said is BS is that he uses the name aether without knowing even the simple fact that, if it exists, it has no mass!

And why, exactly, can it not have mass?

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