On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Thomson wrote: > Hi John, > > > > You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully > quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you > claim ought to be possible. > > http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf > > > > You believe matter can be created? > > http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf > > > > You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? Theories can only be disproven, not proven, as all on this list should be well aware. Evidence may support a theory, but can't "prove it correct" ...
Agreed, but here I'd like to point out something. I know a fluid aether exists, it's a fact not a theory. For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a theory, how gravity works is a theory. But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory. There is a difference between recognizing the existence of a force and theorizing what it is and how it works. BTW another thing that is not a theory is that matter can entrain space time, and generally such a model is termed a dynamic aether model, generally modeled as a fluid. It is the only possible model as SR is illogical as is a Universally static aether when galaxies are speeding away from each other at superluminal velocities.. and mathematics, alone, can't "prove" anything about
reality. Evidence alone may, on the other hand, prove a theory incorrect. Any number of examples can't "prove" a theorem, but a single counterexample can disprove it. When you say "Aether Physics model", do you mean aether as in "luminiferous aether", the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate? If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the "classical" aether theories, along with the ballistic theory. (Or do you deny that MMX actually got a null result?)
Oh boy, do your own research. I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied
... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post.
Maybe it's because the results weren't null, maybe it's because the only sensible model is one where the aether is mostly entrained by the earth which would mean it would give only a small result at higher altitudes and almost no result in basements as indeed was found, maybe it's because the experiment was highly flawed. Maybe it's because many far far better experiments (and observations) do show a drift.
