Mainstreamers just stopped discussing Einstein, speed of light, relativity and related things.Looks like Mainstreamers are afraid.
>>17085535theyre afraid of being anti semitic
so slow /sci/ moved over /x/.
No we just got tired of your bullshitScience doesn't really work without parsimony because otherwise you could just keep on adding unnecessary nonsense to your theories and you'd never have something to end at and tweak
>>17085535no, everyone's ignoring you because you're a retarded schizo, nobody's afraid of you, sorry.
>>17085655The without parsimony is another lie. GR has moving frames with frame dragging. That's the same assumption as an aether. SR also has to assume the isotropic one way speed of light for every observer which is not logical. Parsimony is not an argument against the aether.
>>17085658Wrong. I didn't even post about it I just checked for threads. You all stopped talking about the topic. It used to be talked about a lot.
>>17085673>ackshually coordinates in curves spaces are fluid dynamicsI thought aetherslop was equivalent to SR, not GR?
>>17085535Just like people stopped talking about quantum mechanics. Because when prodded the people chiming in are know-nothings with 0 papers on the subject and a mouth only matched in size by their gaping assholes
>>17085673Explain mathematically how aetherslop is equivalent to GR. For instance, show that it predicts gravitational waves. Even Lorentz himself would be rolling in his grave.
>>17085539True, they don't want their smartphone to explode in their faces./thread
>>17085674>w-wrongno, right, nobody takes you seriously, sorry.
>>17085675It can be made for GR too, it needs extensions tho. But its good and will be better then GR>>17085689Not giving away it for now>>17085962Its just obviously wrong, see you dont ignore me
>>17085988>It can be made for GR too, it needs extensions tho. But its good and will be better then GRtwo more weeks huh? >inb4 zenodo
>>17085689Can you demonstrate those are gravitational waves? How do you know what causes them? How does a bent geodesic cause motion?
Aether is All.The One-In-All, in fact
>>17086016>How does a bent geodesic cause motion?literally 0 understanding of GR, wants to argue GR>pls spoonfeed menah, maybe study the canon before you shitpost
>>17085535>The algorithm gives me what I want to see>Other things don't exist Holy schizo batman
>>17085655A few months ago I put earnest effort into deboonking their bs. They feigned cooperation by pretending to acknowledge shortcomings of aether shit. Then a day later proceeded to spamming the same garbage they had just conceded to being incorrect. I figured my time was no longer worth attempting to educate aetherschizos.
>>17085988I acknowledge you to the extent that i can laugh at you, much like one might chuckle at a retard pissing himself in public as one walks by.
>>17086314I appreciated the discussion and it helped me, but we all know that the onlöy shortcoming for now is GR. SR to LE is completely equivalent, but metaphysically much superior.>>17086327You are the retard here.
>>17086307It wasnt me tho>>17086016They wont answer your question because you said "bend geodesic", but in "spacetime" geodesics are always straight. Its retarded because in actual space the GR geodesics are indeed bent. Also they cant answer your last question at all. The other ones you can argue.
>>17086314>A few months ago I put earnest effort into deboonking their bs.Also were you open minded that YOU could be in the wrong here? If not it wasnt a honest discussion, if someboy is closed minded and always tries to deboooooooooooonk no wonder i sometimes ignored you.
>>17086404Citing currently accepted physical models, and how your proposed, outdated, inconsistent model that contradicts established knowledge is in no way dishonest. It definitionally cannot be.
>>17086395>shortcoming for now is GR. SR to LE is completely equivalent, but metaphysically much superior.Weird way to admit physically inferior but progress is progress I guess. Your idea can be as elegant as you want. If it disagrees with experiment it's little better than toilet paper. Useful as paper to wipe your ass with. Useless as a physical model of reality.
>>17086412>proposedI havent proposed it yet>outdatedThe opposite, relativity is outdated>inconsistent modelAs i said i havent proposed it yet>contradicts established knowledgeHow would you know?So you admit that you were not open minded. Then you are to blame.
>>17086413It not disagreeing with experiments, in fact GR is disagreeing with quantum entanglement since it lacks absolute time.
>>17086578>GR disagrees with quantum theoryWow it's almost like this is the frontier of modern physics... anyways there is ER=EPR
>>17086578How does GR not containing an absolute time “disagree” with quantum mechanics? It actually doesn’t, there is not one experimental prediction QM makes that contradicts GR or vice-versa (except possibly for very niche QFT topics like black hole firewalls or higher-order string theory corrections in gravitational scattering, none of which are experiments that can be done at present.) If you are thinking along the Bell inequality experiments then you are wrong about there being any contradictions (unless you make stupid assumptions about quantum states being actually local hidden classical variables)
>>17086582>If you are thinking along the Bell inequality experiments then you are wrong about there being any contradictionsYou can talk the contradictions away, start with block universe and other bullshit. In the end the mainstream bend so many definitions that there is no hard contradiction left. But any sane person knowing the data would conclude that the universe is non local, with is in disagreement with GR.
>>17086579>ER=EPRNot testable and completely retarded concept. Wormholes are science fiction you cant just solve the field equations outside their domain.
>>17086591>But any sane person knowing the data would conclude that the universe is non localwrong. Any sane person would realize that QM, even in a GR context, does not imply that any signal or information can propagate from one place to another faster than light. Any smart person would conclude that this is the lesson Bell taught us in the parable of Bertlmann’s socks. The universe is local.
>>17086591Even in quantum mechanics you cannot transmit information faster than light
>>17086593>this is the lesson Bell taught us in the parable of Bertlmann’s socksDont defile Bells work, Bell was actually in favor of a lorentzian aether.>Any sane person would realize that QM, even in a GR context, does not imply that any signal or information can propagate from one place to another faster than light.The entangled photons DO communicate faster then light. WE can not use it to signal something, but the whole point of bells inequality is that entangled photons can.
>>17086596And if you dont believe mehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8CCfOD1iu8>In a rare 1990 film, Bell himself explains the implications of his inequality duding a talk organized by Antoine Suarez (Center for Quantum Philosophy) at CERN.. Nonlocality cannot be avoided.
>>17086596>The entangled photons DO communicate faster than light. WE can not use it to signal something, but the whole point of bells inequality is that entangled photons can.source: your ass>WE can not use it to signal something, but the whole point of bells inequality is that entangled photons can.wrong. the whole point is that quantum states, even though they are counterintuitive, encode their correlations locally (at the source of pair-produced particles) just like when the color of socks you see is determined at the moment when Bertlmann picks his socks and puts them on, long before you observe them
>>17086601>source: your assI literally gave one here >>17086599If you think thats not true you dont understand bells inequality>the whole point is that quantum states, even though they are counterintuitive, encode their correlations locallyHahahahahah you understand nothing. The whole point is the opposite of what i quote. They dont do it locally.
>>17086772>cites video>lorentz aether not mentioned once>claims it defends lorentz aetherschizo alert
>>17086775>calling people schizo for not agreeing with highly elaborate and opaque methodologiesIs there anything more performative?
>>17086775He defended it, just not in the video, are you retarded? I never claimed the video mentioned loretz aether, it was about entanglement. You just strawmaning.Also why dont you criticise this >>17086601blatantly wrong post? You JUST dont because he is a relativist. He is your team, the "correct" team, the mainstream. Holy retarded "scientists" here.
>>17086889>well established concepts taught in undergrad are opaqueyou live in a world of fantasy. of course when you are reminded of reality, you reject it.>>17086906>He defended it, just not in the videoso you linked a video to cite and quote he said something, then said ackshually he said it just not in the citation. the other post you link to is NOT WRONG. when you live in a world of fantasy, you believe anything correctly stated is incorrect. then you believe that there is this secret conglomeration of lying scientists out to get you while believing in and propagating conspiracies. this is textbook schizophrenia.
The general idea of an aether is basically already proven, we just call it space-time instead, despite the fact that time dilation indicates that time is probably just another type of wave flowing through the aether
>aether is real it's just spacetime bro
>>17087707Why not both?
>>17087707Here's how to tell. Years ago I would post cockamamie bullshit physics for the lulz, like negative temperature thermodynamics. I never once formalized it or tried to find archaic citations to support it. I just wanted to see what people said. When they start dropping citations including videos, papers and becoming a champion for rejected models you know they're not trolling. The time investment is too large and the stakes are too personal.
>>17087304>so you linked a video to cite and quote he said something, then said ackshually he said it just not in the citation.>the other post you link to is NOT WRONG. when you live in a world of fantasy, you believe anything correctly stated is incorrect. then you believe that there is this secret conglomeration of lying scientists out to get you while believing in and propagating conspiracies. this is textbook schizophrenia.Holy deflecting. I claimed WITHOUT SOURCE that bell defended a lorentzian aether. Every retard can look this up. The video was just for another argument. And THIS >>17086601 post is by far the most obvious wrong post but somehow you never attack him.
>>17087707>i cant understand the difference between the concept of a spacetime and an aetherRetard
something i had no ideasound waves obey special relativity but replacing the speed of light with the speed of sound. the main difference is that realistically any description of sound waves in some medium will have a preferred reference frame while normal special relativity it is thought the idea of preferred reference frame has been falsified
>>17088584>sound waves obey special relativity but replacing the speed of light with the speed of sound.why lie?
Does Color Theory really originate inside of all human minds as a shared mass human hallucination as a method of the mind interpreting unexplainable data packets of string theory spaghetti O's?
>>17088584Well maybe not sound but electromagnetic waves. The aether was never falsified, and a special frame of reference never aswell. That's what pop science and msm is telling you but it's a lie.
>>17088629*electromagnetic fields
>>17088602No, light is a wave and we see certain wavelengths as colours.
>>17088584>sound waves obey special relativity but replacing the speed of light with the speed of soundNo they don't. You would get length contraction as you approach the speed of sound, which doesn't happen.With light, no matter what reference frame you are in, you can still measure length contraction.
>>17088629Also Russell’s Teapot was never falsified.
>>17086016>How does a bent geodesic cause motion?How does moving in a circle cause centrifugal force
>>17088671it is true. look it up. sound waves, at least for some assumptions, obey equations that are lorentz covariant with respect to the speed of sound and so show time dilation and length contraction with respect to the sound waves as long as theres no access to information about other physics in rest of universe
>>17089295I dunno, this is all I could find:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122707/application-of-special-relativity-on-sound-waveshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_metricJust because you can write down a metric for a sound wave doesn't mean that you get time dilation and length contraction in the real universe. The *entire* reason we have these things is because nothing travels faster than light, which is not true of sound waves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
>>17089301Yes these mediums behave a bit like a lorentzian aether. Time dilation and leght contraction. And from the inside out it seems like SR. This shows SR is just the illusion, and Lorentzian aether is whats really happening.
>>17088814>How does moving in a circle cause centrifugal forceVery good question. The aether doesnt rotate relative to the far stars. If you rotate, its like a constant acceleration relative to the aether. Therefore centrifugal force arises.
>>17089301There's also this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06870
>>17085535Losing fear is acceptance. Science must merge with Spirt. Or die.
>>17089466Good find. Yeah its very interesting. If you are in the system you could think you life in 4d space time. But in reality its a lorentzian aether with a medium for sound.
>>17089490*Spirit
>>17089301you do get time dilation and length contraction because they are lorentz covariant equations, you just have to not have information about the rest of the universe. apparently there is even a model mimicking gravity in this where the media the sound waves are flowing through cause gravitational-like dilation or whatever effects gravity does to fuck wiv time and shidd
>>17089301or even it mimics gravity itself
>>17089457but you would have to prove absolute reference frame in universe
>>17089767Wrong.Thats not the real criteria.Because guess what, Einstein did not proof that it doesnt exist.It just needs to be the more plausible option.
>>17090393and what makes morenplausible?why should universe have preferred frame of reference?
