The Quonset Hut

I have often wondered what happens when psuedoscience becomes reality. New terms must be used to explain or better yet, to identify the processes or theory to explain such. Academia expects to investigate new claims using the foundation of understood and accepted science.

When Brown attempted to explain his work, he described the action of force in a dielectric as ponderomotive which is essentially a non-linear force.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1456900143

science direct wrote:A statistical mechanical derivation of the expressions for both pressure and ponderomotive force in a dielectric is given in terms of averages over microscopic quantities. The existence of microscopic long-range interactions leads to the possibility of defining pressure and ponderomotive force in different ways. A natural way is indicated of dividing the average of the microscopic force into long and short range contributions, which yields the form of the ponderomotive force proposed by Kelvin. It is also shown that, in statistical equilibrium, one may obtain Helmholtz's expression for the ponderomotive force. In the two cases pressure must be defined differently. The relation between these pressures is a predictd by thermodynamic theory.

*
Sponsored in part by Air Research and Development Command, United States Air Force, through the European Office A.R.D.C.
Copyright © 1956 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Notice the date.

What I have found curious in the above is that the statement made says that the relationship is predicted by thermodynamics theory. Therefore, the ponderomotive force that Brown discusses about the force in a dielectric when placed in an electrostatic field can be explained in accepted scientific terms. Thus the Biefeld-Brown effect can be explained, and has been. Now this may not explain the gravity component but it does explain the force. It has been extrapolated that a Gravitor rides on a wave created in the aether or better yet - creates a displacement in the aether - and that displacement is the wave. The conondrum is how to prove that. This is why the need for a POP (Proof Of Principle) is highly important to establish the new "psuedoscience" into the realm of "established science", and that device must be reproducible by anyone. When that happens, new terms must created.

For example, in a forum once, someone used the term "resistance" to describe a physical process and the use of the word was correct in relation to electron flow in a wire. Another poster took the physical process described and attempted to use the very same terms to describe something entirely different that even defied the dictionary definition of the word. This would not have been accepted in the world of academia and thus, a process that may have been very plausible and effective would not have even made it to first base because of the misuse of a term already established.

Another example, a poster on another forum used the word "transductance" to describe an EHD (ElecytroHydroDynamic) device. The word itself describes action of semiconductors and the transfer of genetic material of bacterium. How can a word be used to describe two totally different actions? Actually, the word "transconductance" would have been a better use since it is already established as a transfer of electrons between asymmetric elements in a vacuum tube (valve) and more generally as the "transfer of conductance" between the output voltage versus the input voltage of which it is the reciprocal of resistance (which still holds true with Ohm's law). Thus, transconductance fits with other established laws of physics but the use of the word "transductance" does not. In the world of academia, a device that may very well be of use would again, not make it in the front the door due to ineptitude or ignorance.

In any event, it is very important that in order for psuedoscience to be accepted, terms must be created that explain the principle of that psuedoscience but those terms must not be "rewritten" from established use of the words in current science.

Now what happens when psuedoscience ends up rewriting current science?

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:What I have found curious in the above is that the statement made says that the relationship is predicted by thermodynamics theory. Therefore, the ponderomotive force that Brown discusses about the force in a dielectric when placed in an electrostatic field can be explained in accepted scientific terms. Thus the Biefeld-Brown effect can be explained, and has been. Now this may not explain the gravity component but it does explain the force. It has been extrapolated that a Gravitor rides on a wave created in the aether or better yet - creates a displacement in the aether - and that displacement is the wave. The conondrum is how to prove that. This is why the need for a POP (Proof Of Principle) is highly important to establish the new "psuedoscience" into the realm of "established science", and that device must be reproducible by anyone. When that happens, new terms must created.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

mpc755 wrote:
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Please provide a link to substantiate your statements or experiments that at the very least help to add credence to your statements. I to can make statements based upon my own experiments but in the end, they are mere hypothesis.

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:Please provide a link to substantiate your statements or experiments that at the very least help to add credence to your statements. I to can make statements based upon my own experiments but in the end, they are mere hypothesis.

Mikado

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation."

The Milky Way's 'dark matter halo' is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

mpc755 wrote:
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation."

The Milky Way's 'dark matter halo' is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Dark Matter, baryonic matter is not the aether.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/06/0 ... ether.html

Now, if you would have discussed Glenn Starkman, well...you didn't.

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:Dark Matter, baryonic matter is not the aether.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/06/0 ... ether.html

Now, if you would have discussed Glenn Starkman, well...you didn't.

Mikado

The Sean Carroll's are what is wrong with physics.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass.

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin has mass.

mpc755 wrote:The Sean Carroll's are what is wrong with physics.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, solids, fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass.

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin has mass.

Everything you have said before or in the above is someone's hypothesis, opinion, constructed model on hypothesis but not experimental proof.

Where are the experiments that verify?

Now with that said, this is interesting - "It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." - it is stuff that "he" identifies as a relativistic ether. Is it taboo? Yes, any mention of the aether is taboo but it still doesn't mean that what he is calling "relativistic ether" is just that...the aether/ether.

You have made conclusive statements in your first post, without proof, and your posts above still does not give conclusive proof but someone's opinion (Laughlin) as to what the stuff is.

Does science give a wide berth to any discussion of the aether? Yep

Do certain models support the existence of the aether? Yep, just look at Dayton Miller.

Did Einstein believe in a relativistic aether? Yep

Doesn't mean that it has been proven...it is all theoretical. Something needs to happen that can only be explained by looking at the aether.

But then, this is the section of the forum open to just this, the theoretical. One more item, Carroll is a "theoretical physicist" and what I know of him, he has worked on everything from dark matter to cosmology and a few things in between...and is a devout atheist (if I am wrong, my apologies) not that it matters.

Mikado

Mikado14 wrote:Everything you have said before or in the above is someone's hypothesis, opinion, constructed model on hypothesis but not experimental proof.

Where are the experiments that verify?

Now with that said, this is interesting - "It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part." - it is stuff that "he" identifies as a relativistic ether. Is it taboo? Yes, any mention of the aether is taboo but it still doesn't mean that what he is calling "relativistic ether" is just that...the aether/ether.

You have made conclusive statements in your first post, without proof, and your posts above still does not give conclusive proof but someone's opinion (Laughlin) as to what the stuff is.

Does science give a wide berth to any discussion of the aether? Yep

Do certain models support the existence of the aether? Yep, just look at Dayton Miller.

Did Einstein believe in a relativistic aether? Yep

Doesn't mean that it has been proven...it is all theoretical. Something needs to happen that can only be explained by looking at the aether.

But then, this is the section of the forum open to just this, the theoretical. One more item, Carroll is a "theoretical physicist" and what I know of him, he has worked on everything from dark matter to cosmology and a few things in between...and is a devout atheist (if I am wrong, my apologies) not that it matters.

Mikado

If you don't want to understand why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves then that is your choice. If you don't want to understand why the Milky Way's halo is lopsided then that is your choice.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation."

The Milky Way's 'dark matter halo' is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

mpc755 wrote:
If you don't want to understand why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves then that is your choice. If you don't want to understand why the Milky Way's halo is lopsided then that is your choice.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1475

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"The emerging picture of the asymmetric dark matter halo is supported by the \Lambda CDM halos formed in the cosmological N-body simulation."

The Milky Way's 'dark matter halo' is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether.

...and if you want to make a statement that the non-baryonic fluid is the aether than that is your choice.

I remember your posts from the Pegasus forum two years ago. If you want to form conclusions based upon observation that is your choice.

My choice is to look at more than one source, especially when it is observational. I have often wondered why Michelson-Morley's results were widely accepted after one experiment.

You want water analogies? Travel down the river in a canoe, in a fog. How do you measure the current or if it even exists for if you look over the side of the canoe, the water appears to be stationary.

Your agenda is quite obvious.

Have a nice day.

Mikado