• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Aether Science

Rynner, just chill. I feel your frustration, but...

what items can be said to promise useful application?
Click to expand...

The ignore button. ;)
 
Naive of me to ask when I was not expecting an honest answer.
The plain fact of the matter is that physics has achieved zilch in terms of anything generally usable since Einstein. This is the reason we need to return to aether theory.
The usual tired old, "you don't understand" used since Eddington, is trotted out, like an old horse to the knackers yard. :D
 
Your obviously reading answers posted in some parallel Universe. Certainly not the ones posted here.


:rofl:
 
Ghostisfort said:
....we need to return to aether theory.
Click to expand...
Why? What has it ever produced practically? It was just an ad hoc explanation for how light travels, but when its 'predictions' were put to the test it failed to come up with the goods.

You started this thread - it's up to you to come up with some answers about aether theory, rather than ask us questions whenever you're backed into a corner.

Every thread you've started degenerates into the same predictable sequence - unable to justify your loopy theories, you resort to demanding answers from us. This tells the world and his wife that you're on very shaky ground, and just floundering about. If you had anything positive to say, you'd say it. But you keep singing the same old tunes from a hymn-sheet that's alien to most intelligent people.

I could say more, but I'll forbear...
 
I wish there was an aether - I mean, how are the poor Mi-Go supposed to get here from Yuggoth if the aether doesn't exist...? ;)
 
I believe the explanation was that they co-existed on another dimensional plane where there wasn't a vacuum, so their wings still worked in space. :oops:
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
:)
Well, there's graphene.
Click to expand...

I must confess that graphene was a shock.
I was expecting, after reading the replys to my request, something magnificent to peer at through my bedroom window tomorrow morning and sigh with admiration at the wonders of physics.

Looking out I find a sheet of graphene tethered with high tensile cables between the gasworks and the derelict high rise, like a Kafkaesque spider web, spun after an alcoholic morning-after disaster.
Dead centre of the sheet is a pencil, perfectly balanced, point down. On the upper end of the pencil is an elephantine creature, also in perfect equilibrium.

I have to admit that the shock caused my buckyballs to rise and enter my nanotube.

There has been an intense surge in interest in graphene during recent years. However, graphene-like materials derived from graphite oxide were reported in 1962, and related chemical modifications of graphite were described as early as 1840. In this detailed account of the fascinating development of the synthesis and characterization of graphene, we hope to demonstrate that the rich history of graphene chemistry laid the foundation for the exciting research that continues to this day. Important challenges remain, however; many with great technological relevance.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 4/abstract
Click to expand...
After fifty years of research it's not even in use yet and that's if you don't consider the 1840 work.

There is the possibility that graphene will replace the silicon in the computer. Well that's great news for my grandchildren's grandchildren.
Give me a nudge when it's in the shops. :D
 
The problem is, you can always boil down the history of innovations. So sooner or later we can say, for example, 'Oh, the Greeks thought that one up in X BC...'. This all well and good (perhaps, if valid), but the mistake would be to say there there is no new stuff after X date. Ideas don't necessarily mean innovation, creation, nor implementation. It would be somewhat premature to write off all modern science as bunk simply because of such boiling down. It simply means the goalposts will be shifted ad infinitum by anyone who wants to make out that humans are stuck in a rut.

Secondly, to talk about 'academic science' may be an exercise in chasing windmills, to a certain extent. Academia's role can sometimes be that of a blender which takes research and tries to distill some distinct form of theory/idea. That doesn't mean that it's always the thing that's responsible for innovation - or implementation. Sometimes, but not always. If one were to insist that it must exist so that it always produces some material thing of worth, one is never going to be happy - seeing that one is expecting something of a process which isn't always so materialistic.

All of this, of course, excludes agendas and willfull exclusion. Forteana may be about exclusion, but sometimes Forteans are prone to the sin of exclusion also. After all, sometimes paradigms must be pursued no matter what ;)
 
Ghostisfort: I´m not going to go to your website. I want you to tell me here, why electronics is dependent on the theory of luminiferous aether.
 
Ghostisfort said:
...

I must confess that graphene was a shock. ...
Click to expand...
Nice rhetoric pity about the lack of content. However, it's the physics, not the chemistry, that makes graphene interesting, as you obviously know.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Ghostisfort said:
...

I must confess that graphene was a shock. ...
Click to expand...
Nice rhetoric pity about the lack of content. However, it's the physics, not the chemistry, that makes graphene interesting, as you obviously know.
Click to expand...

I find that levity is the answer when things are getting heavy and I also thought it would amuse you.
Go on, crack your face. Watch a Will Hay video. :D
 
Xanatic_ said:
Ghostisfort: I´m not going to go to your website. I want you to tell me here, why electronics is dependent on the theory of luminiferous aether.
Click to expand...

The greatest electrical genius, Tesla said that electricity was dependant on the aether and that alone should be enough.
I realise that his name has been blackened by academics,(only since his centenary has he been given any credit) but that doesn't stop them from using his discoveries on a daily basis.

Another maligned genius who used aether was John Warrell Keely, and I fully intend to put his case when I'm allowed to by the other posters. I did actually make a start higher-up in the thread.

You have every right to boycott my site if it makes you happy. Like entering the devils territory?
However, you will never know what gems are there. :)
 
Jerry_B said:
The problem is, you can always boil down the history of innovations.
Click to expand...
Boiling-down the history of innovations is not something that academia tends to do by default. Rather it attempts to give the impression that it was they who thought of it first. (see Arthur Clarke) I have several examples where academics claim to have invented a technology and in some cases they even get a prestigious prize. Only to find that someone else was there first.
The need for academia to do such things is made necessary by the very things this thread has been about lately...non-achievement.
What I'm doing, is putting history's record straight.

Your mention of the Greeks brings to mind the fact, that as far as I know, they didn't lay claim to applications of technology not yet developed.

I will say that your post is a masterpiece of rationalisation and illustrates the reason why mankind is "stuck in a rut".

The distillation you mention is somewhat more serious, in that academia distils the same things over and over again with nothing new allowed to cause a need for an updated textbook.

The circular argument:
Academic science has declared itself to be Science.
However, the greater part of the science that it uses is, historically, from and by non-academics or from scientists of another disciplines than the one required. (See William Crookes a chemist doing amateur physics)
Academic science has also declared that any science not originating from academia with proper qualification is pseudoscience.
But it has no qualms about using the pseudoscience itself.

Faraday, for example, was self educated and would be excluded today for lack of qualifications.
Are you beginning to see why we are in a rut?
Ability overridden, excluded by qualification.
 
We are not in a rut - that's just the thinking of someone who tends to have a misanthropic view of what's going on. This seems to be part and parcel of the outlook that tends to favour conspiracy.

Aside from that, please prove that 'Academic science has declared itself to be Science'. Otherwise, and as I keep saying to you, what you continue to state is not fact but your own personal opinion. If you cannot prove it, then we cannot discuss anything with you because you automatically exclude anything which is counter to your outlook. And in doing this, you are doing exactly the same thing that you accuse Science of doing.

You need to seperate out your opinion from actualities - at least, if nothing else, for the purpose of discussion here. If you do not, then I guess we're doomed to have more threads started by you in which you posit your pet theories and outlooks and then refuse to consider anything outside of that. Remember that this is a forum for discussion - if, as it seems, you don't like such an idea, can I suggest that you instead get yourself a box and go to Hyde Park on Sundays? You are not putting history straight by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Ghostisfort said:
...Faraday, for example, was self educated and would be excluded today for lack of qualifications...
Click to expand...

You've mentioned this before, but I think it's a tad anachronistic. As far as I'm aware nothing much that would be recognised as a formal education in science was available for anyone until the latter half of the nineteenth century. If I recall correctly, one of Rugby School's claims to fame is their employment of the first science teacher, sometime in the 1850's or 60's (I forget which). And, according to Wiki, the first Tripos in Natural Science was introduced at Cambridge sometime in the 1860's. Both these educational innovations occur towards the end of Faraday's life.

Farady may have been self-educated, but that state of affairs was not really an alternative to something else more formal in the way that you appear to be implying. Many scientific innovators might be excluded today for similar reasons, but I think that observation is about as relevant as stating that, if the innovators of earlier centuries suddenly reappeared now, they would very probably be stared at in the street for wearing powdered wigs, or frock coats, or buckles on their shoes (or enormous side whiskers). It's a comparison through time which fails to factor in the changes which occur through the passage of that time.
 
Hi Spookdaddy, it's been a while.
There are always a few words missing, that are taken for granted as being understood. Jerry_B usually picks up on them.
Were there a Faraday equivalent today who was self educated, he would be excluded on the grounds of lack of qualification.

The point being that it's become a closed shop. If you ain't brainwashed by science education, you don't get in.
Qualification not being a guide to ability, but an ability to pass exam's.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Were there a Faraday equivalent today who was self educated, he would be excluded on the grounds of lack of qualification.

The point being that it's become a closed shop. If you ain't brainwashed by science education, you don't get in.
Qualification not being a guide to ability, but an ability to pass exam's.
Click to expand...

All in your opinion, of course. Unless you're trying to say that the above statements are facts?

Can you name anyone in recent history who came up with a plethora of inventions/findings/etc as Faraday did, and was then excluded?
 
A BBC iPlayer series that should be of interest to folks here:

Shock and Awe: The Story of Electricity - 1. Spark

Professor Jim Al-Khalili tells the electrifying story of our quest to master nature's most mysterious force - electricity. Until fairly recently, electricity was seen as a magical power, but it is now the lifeblood of the modern world and underpins every aspect of our technological advancements.

Without electricity, we would be lost. This series tells of dazzling leaps of imagination and extraordinary experiments - a story of maverick geniuses who used electricity to light our cities, to communicate across the seas and through the air, to create modern industry and to give us the digital revolution.

Episode one tells the story of the very first 'natural philosophers' who started to unlock the mysteries of electricity. They studied its curious link to life, built strange and powerful instruments to create it and even tamed lightning itself. It was these men who truly laid the foundations of the modern world. Electricity was without doubt a fantastical wonder. This is the story about what happened when the first real concerted effort was made to understand electricity; how we learned to create and store it, before finally creating something that enabled us to make it at will - the battery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... ity_Spark/
 
So your entire argument is "Tesla said so"? I´m done with this idiot.
 
Xanatic_ said:
So your entire argument is "Tesla said so"? I´m done with this idiot.
Click to expand...
I would like it noted that this latest ad hom' is from one of the usual crowd of Einstein supporters. I have tried in vain to offer support from other areas of aether theory, always being shouted down, even by the mod.
It would be nice to exchange views with someone who has some sympathy with Fort or even an actual interest in alternative theories for a change.

Suppression of evidence on a Fortean forum is the most bizarre thing I've ever come across.
 
Suppression of evidence that you won't post on to the forum because you want people to visit your website? :lol:
 
Ghostisfort said:
It would be nice to exchange views with someone who has some sympathy with Fort or even an actual interest in alternative theories for a change.

Suppression of evidence on a Fortean forum is the most bizarre thing I've ever come across.
Click to expand...

The fact that people here are discussing things with you shows that they do have an interest. The problem is that you don't want to engage in any dialogue that contradicts your opinions. Therefore you are excluding things in a distinctly non-Fortean manner.

I'm still waiting to hear about those modern-day Faradays...
 
Ghostisfort said:
...Were there a Faraday equivalent today who was self educated, he would be excluded on the grounds of lack of qualification...
Click to expand...

What I was trying to suggest was that any argument based on such a comparison can only ever be pure conjecture as we really have no idea what Faraday's relationship to your supposed 'closed shop' would have been because formal science education didn't actually exist at the time. As I suggested before, it's a comparison through time which fails to take into account the passage of time.

The only thing that can be stated as fact is that Faraday and his work is part of that supposed 'closed shop'.
 
Spookdaddy said:
The only thing that can be stated as fact is that Faraday and his work is part of that supposed 'closed shop'.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my point: that his work would not be recognised today as it was in the past.
Due to the institutionalisation of science.
 
That's highly conjectural and therefore not really a valid argument. If you can show where modern Faradays are being excluded, that's a different matter.
 
I doubt that a new Faraday would be sidelined by the scientific Establishment. If a modern day Faraday did come along and did work of a similar quality, he would probably be quickly co-opted. Having said that, as Spookdaddy has pointed out, thanks to modern education, a new Faraday would indeed have a much better chance of a formal education and access to the halls of academe, than the 19th century innovator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top