Anti-gravity

[vidbid]

Sagnac Interferometer

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEbDm0QwG8[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEbDm0QwG8

[vidbid]

Notice in this video there is no mention of the Sagnac experiment.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZUHyN_NCaQ[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZUHyN_NCaQ

Compare that to a ring laser gyroscope, which is based on the Sagnac effect.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHkIoBomm8[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHkIoBomm8

[vidbid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

"which rules out a stationary aether" is the wrong conclusion. Sagnac proved that the Aether exists; therefore, what is stationary is the Earth.



Why can't you all understand that?

[vidbid]

Einstein 1920 talk on the Aether

That is from segment of a free energy video. Naturally, they want Aether to be true.

Albert Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. He chose as his topic Ether and the Theory of Relativity. He lectured in German but we present an English translation below. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922. Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

...
The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
...

00:49
example in michelson-morley experiment
00:53
which presumed to be in experiments on
00:56
the either the confirmation or the
00:59
denial of the existence of the ether was
01:01
certainly no denial as I am yet modern
01:04
science quote-unquote seems to rely upon
01:07
that as a proof that the ether doesn't
01:10
exist yet

Reference:

https://youtu.be/HewSdyqbX0U?t=50

Let's check that out:

According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable

That might be the official word, now. But is there acceptance of it?

This does not mean that it is widely accepted - not at all. It is simply ignored by the scientific mainstream. But it exists, and ignorance is not an argument.

So this quote corroborates what Wheeler said about the Aether not being widely accepted in modern science.

Generally, the Aether is not accepted by the scientific community.

I prefer to refer to many in the scientific community as the pseudoscientific community if they deny the existence of the Aether.

[vidbid]

..talcing up of Enoch..

Falsifying a quote won't work.

Anyhow, it's Sagnac, and it's where we get the ring laser gyroscope, which uses the Sagnac effect.

By the way, the canonicity of the Book of Enoch is in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

The above verses refer to when the Lord returns and what he's going to do when he gets here.

[aljhoa]

Sagnac's experiment proved the existence of the aether, thus demolishing Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

MGTOW - your future might sue you for sexual misconduct

MGTOW - people who would otherwise make an effort to find a romantic partner, but choose not to,

\0f the talcing up of Enoch ; how the Angels took him up
into the first heaveti^

III. I. It came to pass when I^ had spoken to my sons,
* these men * * summoned me and ^ took me on their wing-s ^
and placed me * on the clouds ". * And lo ! the clouds moved ^.
2. *And ag-ain (g-oing-) higher I saw the air and (going* still)
higher I saw the ether ^, and they placed me in the first
heaven. 3. * And they showed me a very great sea, greater
than the earthly sea '^^.

https://archive.org/stream/bookofsecretsofe00morf/bookofsecretsofe00morf_djvu.txt

Einstein 1920 talk on the Aether

Al

[vidbid]

Sagnac experiment

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmlimH7laY[/VIDEO]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

[vidbid]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Einstein had to declare the non-existence of the Aether; because not to have done so would have left open the question of the immobility of the Earth, and they couldn't have that, now could they?

They had two choices from the experiment.

It's either

Option 1. the Earth is NOT in motion, or

Option 2. there is no Aether.

One or the other, but not both.

They chose there is no Aether.

Then another experiment came out later that removed the issue of Option 1 and concluded the existence of the Aether. That experiment was buried and hidden from the public.

I know the name of that experiment.

Do you?

The powers that be have to keep you believing that you are on a spinning ball hurtling through space, that you're an accident, that you're alone and forgotten, that you're inconsequential and insignificant.

Do you know why?

What if you weren't on a spinning ball hurtling through space?

What if the Earth wasn't really in motion?

What if the Earth was stationary?

What might be the possible implications of that?

Might you start to believe that you weren't an accident?

What could that lead to?

Might you start to question the narrative that you were taught to believe from the age of a child?

Remember the globe in the classroom?

Remember being taught evolution in class?

If you start to question that the Earth is revolving and in motion, might you start to question that humans evolved from lower life forms?

Might you begin to question your place in the universe?

And, if it is really a universe?

What if you're just in some big, fancy terrarium?

Then who created it?

Might you even start to believe in a Creator?

Do you see why you're supposed to keep believing that your on a spinning ball hurtling through space and that you evolved from bacteria?

Control.

Control to keep you right where you are.

A good little wage slave.

Are you a thinker or a believer?

A thinker questions. A believer doesn't. A believer simply accepts what he's been told.

Are you a thinker or a believer?

.

Correction:

[vidbid]

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qJoRNseyLQ[/VIDEO]

The claim is the Aether doesn't exist, according to Einstein.

Right?

So, shouldn't you believe what your gods say?

Isn't it blasphemy to doubt your gods?

.

[vidbid]

What are you trying to discuss?

1. Religion

2. Pseudoscience

3. Science

If discussing science, you must use the scientific method; otherwise, if the scientific method can't be employed, it's only pseudoscience.

No

[aljhoa]

What are you trying to discuss?

1. Religion

2. Pseudoscience

3. Science

No, in the Aether's Field and anti-gravity thread,
what are YOU VIDBID trying to discuss:
hypostatization fallacy, flat earth, MGTOW,
anti-gravity or something else?


Al

[spacecase0]

This may be of interest https://www.blacklistednews.com/arti...nese-tech.html

thank you for posting,
it is interesting they patent them now

[vidbid]

Reification

Reification Fallacy

(also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatisation)

Description: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.

Example #1:

It's time to grab my future by the balls.

Explanation: The future is an abstraction. It does not have testicles. If it did, you probably wouldn't want to grab them because your future might sue you for sexual misconduct.

Example #2:

If you are open to it, love will find you.

Explanation: Love is an abstraction, not a little fat flying baby with a bow and arrow that searches for victims. Cute sayings such as this one can serve as bad advice for people who would otherwise make an effort to find a romantic partner, but choose not to, believing that this "love entity" is busy searching for his or her ideal mate.

[p75213]

This may be of interest https://www.blacklistednews.com/arti...nese-tech.html

[vidbid]

Thus IV is false.

Citation?

You can't draw that conclusion because you can't use what you're using as an IV or independent variable in a scientific experiment.

How can you change or vary your so-called IV?

You can't; therefore, you can't use what you're using as an IV.

It doesn't fit the criteria of an independent variable in the scientific method.

What's your scientific experiment?

You don't have one, so you can't call what you're calling an IV an IV because you don't have a scientific experiment.

What is the natural phenomenon?

Without a natural phenomenon, there can be no scientific experiment.

What is the independent variable in an experiment?

An independent variable is defined as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. ... Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable. A change in the independent variable directly causes a change in the dependent variable.

So, try again.

An independent variable is defined as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. (Source: Google)

The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory.

What are you trying to discuss?

1. Religion

2. Pseudoscience

3. Science

If discussing science, you must use the scientific method; otherwise, if the scientific method can't be employed, it's only pseudoscience.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted...

.