So you are citing an experiment to test the frame-dragging effect as predicted by general relativity as evidence to impugn “mainstream physics” and (somehow) expose the “religious dogma of quantum mechanics”? Your logic is more tortured than a Monty Python skit.
The Lense-Thirring phenomenon, i.e. the distortion of spacetime i. the presence of a large rotating mass, has been accepted theoretically since nearly the beginning of Einstein gravity but is so slight that is has taken delicate astronomical measurements to observe (and while measurements of Gravity Probe B fell within the predicted range the precision left something to be desired). It is not, however, in any way related to the electromagnetic “luminiferous aether” of classical electrodynamics, and it explicity does not have mass. You seem to be conflating completely difference concepts and nomenclature in order to somehow invalidate the existing models of quantum mechanics and general relativity (to what end I don’t understand) but the result is just a confused hash of garbled terminology, misapplied analogoes, and verbiage cited out of context. You haven’t demonstrated or proven any of your claims.
Just because somebody had to say it: this is total nonsense, on a par with the claims of flat-earthers. It’s taking a rough and flawed analogy and interpreting it literally, like some have done with the equally flawed “viscous medium” attempt to try to provide an intuitive concept of the Higgs field.
General relativity says nothing about an “aether”. The phenomenon of frame-dragging around a massive spinning object is more like a gravitational analog of electromagnetism arising from the relativistic effects of gravity on spacetime, and has been called gravitomagnetism or sometimes gravitoelectromagnetism.
ETA: Posted before I saw Stranger On A Train had already commented on this.
Which confirms what Voyager said earlier. A lot of the influx of research talent is from other first-world nations and occurs when big money is thrown at them by US institutions, not so much salaries as research facilities. They train 'em, you get the benefits, while religion and far-right paranoia (can’t have all those “liberal” academics around!) both wreak destructive effects on the US educational system.
The US has many of the best universities in the world, and offers an enticing opportunity to the best and the brightest in most of the not-so-great-to-live-in countries. We are going to attract students from pretty much every country in the world, so I’m not sure that ratio says as much about US schools as you seem to think it does.
Oh please, your arguments are coming from creationists, (and rude lines towards the other poster too) so much about telling others that they are the ones using religion.
That quote out of context and without understanding is just playing with semantics. One may as well argue that the Higgs field or the vacuum energy is “aether”.
So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein’s views on the “new aether” are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no “substance” and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein’s use of the word “aether” found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether
What you’re trying to describe is complete nonsense exactly on a par with flat-earth claims or “the moon landing hoax”.
Since my PhD is in a different field, and since quantum mechanics is far from a simple or obvious area, I tend to let the trained physicists discuss advanced physics.
You might try the same strategy. What I do know is devices based on quantum mechanics work.
Oh please, stop with the brainwashed logic. I am referring to de Broglie’s double solution theory.
*“While the founding fathers agonized over the question ‘particle’ or ‘wave’, de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer ‘particle’ and ‘wave’. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.” *- John Bell
“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
“the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places”
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
You mean the trained physicists who are incapable of understanding the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit?
That was true 35 years ago also. But back then the majority of grad students in CS and EE were born in the US - at least in the schools I went to and students at professors at conferences I attended. Now the percentage is very small. I’m not sure it is true for law schools. There were plenty of Indian students attending back then, though none from Mainland China of course.
That is also true for most (80% or so, easily) young professors I know.
Look, if I tossed out all the resumes of people who were born and went to undergrad schools abroad, I wouldn’t be able to fill our openings with anyone remotely close to the skill set we need, and never mind their GPAs and research ability.
An alternative explanation might be that US born people are too smart to get into engineering - but that’s another debate.
Einstein said the aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Einstein defined ‘mechanical’ in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
What Einstein referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
The religious dogma of mainstream physics has raised its ugly brainwashed head here in this thread.
You might try not putting your faith in crackpots.
Have any of these clowns suggested an experiment that could be done to demonstrate that their hypothesis is more correct than the standard one? Have they done any? Published it?
de Broglie used the terms “hidden medium” and “hidden subquantic medium” to describe the medium which waves in terms of wave particle duality.
de Broglie understood wave-particle duality is a moving particle *and *it’s associated wave.
Just like the brainwashed. Focusing on the term used to describe the “hidden subquantic medium” instead of allowing themselves to understand what occurs physically in nature.
Nope, you are wrong, not he nor Einstein were talking about the same ether (and it is not likely to be like the one the creationists think of) that was disposed of more than 100 years ago.