Black holes are scientific fictions.

Ultimate_Philosophy · March 13, 2016, 5:34pm

Aether is the same as affectance. I can prove it with an accelerating variant of the Michelson Morley experiment. But I’ll need some donations please.

James_S_Saint · March 13, 2016, 10:00pm

How can you know that affectance is the same as aether?

Exactly what would your hypothesis be concerning the MM experiment?

James_S_Saint · March 14, 2016, 7:51am

Speaking of videos; I just made this simulation of a single sub-atomic particle which looks surprisingly like the emulation (if one could actually see ultra-minuscule EMR pulses) and could be included in a video. A black-hole would be merely a much, much larger version of that same thing.

But I really need to convey the following pic in an animated way:

That one isn’t so easy to simulate.

Arminius · March 14, 2016, 9:02am

You do not need to simulate all your pics, James.

James_S_Saint · March 14, 2016, 9:07am

Yeah, but which do and which don’t?

Arminius · March 14, 2016, 9:34am

I don’t know all your pics. And those which are really not easy to simulate should not be simulated, because there are many ways to explain RM:AO (and you probably know the saying: “time is short” [similar to: "time is money]).

Mithus · March 14, 2016, 12:15pm

Picture Bank 1
Picture Bank 2

socratus · March 14, 2016, 2:42pm

@ Mithus
Thank you for links
==.

Arminius · March 14, 2016, 8:13pm

Thanks.

socratus · March 15, 2016, 6:20am

Jaroslav Hasek
“. . . inside the globe there was another globe much bigger than the outer one.”
/ Good soldier Svejk, chapter 4 /
===…

socratus · March 16, 2016, 5:13am

a) Thanks to science we know that the earth doesn’t
stay on three turtles.
Thanks to science we know that the heavens don’t
stay on the shoulders of the Atlas.
. . . . etc.

b) Thanks to modern science we know that existence began
from “big bang”.
Thanks to modern science we know that more than 90%
of masses in the universe are “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
Thanks to modern science we know that “supermassive black
holes” can “eat” all “big bang” matter.
Thanks to modern science we know that “string-particles”
exist in the 11-D or even in the 27- dimensions.
==.
My conclusion.
Even having high modern technology doesn’t prevent scientists
to create myths on the physical / mathematical basis.
===.

James_S_Saint · March 20, 2016, 4:17pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1XoJyWABkI[/youtube]

“Nothing can exit a black-hole”…
… except affectance and another black hole.

Ultimate_Philosophy · March 20, 2016, 5:19pm

I think science is actually a gag joke, like a tabloids. “Elvis presley gets a sex change, Madonna abducted by aliens, etc.”

The line “Scientists are baffled!” is part of the joke. It is their role, as boobs. Benjamin Franklin was a booby man.

I think they are not meant to be taken seriously, but is a secret joke, like the TV show Eureka, StarTrek or Back To The Future is a potrayal of the joke,
I don’t think scientists are supposed to make credible theories, but silly theories that will be disproven soon so they can use the line “Scientists are baffled!” over and over again like a Seinfield episode. Like any good movie, the characters are meant to make stupid decisions and have plotholes, so people can comment with each other, formulate their own theories and have a social commentary during the spectacle.

Ultimate_Philosophy · March 20, 2016, 5:26pm

Aether is the all prevading material throughout space. The only thing different than it, is consciousness, the perciever, which uses energy (movement) based perception. Movement (time) is immaterial, people associate electricity with heated plasma but their is the underlying thing of “vibration”, heat vibration in heated plasma.

MM experiment would be redone as to compensate for lack of movement. Aether does not move independent of Earth as was earlier assumed. Earlier it was assumed aether had an unknown fuel source that caused it to move in a linear direction regardless of Earth’s atmosphere. This was silly. New theory is that is related to Earth’s atmosphere’s velocity. Hypothesis is that if an object is accelerating, a boat like wake will form around it, and hopefully some of the wake will be able to be measured. Problem is, the measuring object will also form a wake of its own, possibly shielding it from measuring its own wake, form a protective wake bubble and return a zero velocity value. Therefore this experiment may not be used to disprove aether, only possibly prove its existence.

James_S_Saint · March 20, 2016, 6:47pm

How terribly, unfortunately true.

But is that merely a theory or is that your declaration of the definition of “aether”? There is a serious difference.

Affectance is not defined to be “whatever substance is throughout the universe”. It just turns out to be. And “Aether” was once defined to be “whatever medium in which light and particles travel”. Aether was not defined to be “the substance throughout the universe”, although strongly suspected to be. And how could one prove that it is throughout the universe? Perhaps there are places where light cannot travel? Perhaps there is yet another substance along with aether? When would the questioning end?

Affectance is necessarily in all places throughout the universe and is of what light, particles, and even time and distance are made. That is provable even without telescope or microscope. The quest is over.

Provability is the issue. Affectance is provable. Aether is merely speculatively supportable (maybe there is yet another substance causing the results being seen in the experiments?)

Ultimate Philosophy 1001:

MM experiment would be redone as to compensate for lack of movement. Aether does not move independent of Earth as was earlier assumed. Earlier it was assumed aether had an unknown fuel source that caused it to move in a linear direction regardless of Earth’s atmosphere. This was silly. New theory is that is related to Earth’s atmosphere’s velocity. Hypothesis is that if an object is accelerating, a boat like wake will form around it, and hopefully some of the wake will be able to be measured. Problem is, the measuring object will also form a wake of its own, possibly shielding it from measuring its own wake, form a protective wake bubble and return a zero velocity value. Therefore this experiment may not be used to disprove aether, only possibly prove its existence.

They already speculated that the aether was perhaps moving along with the Earth. But even with that consideration, they still didn’t get the results that they were expecting. Today, they can be far more accurate. But the problem is that they still don’t know what aether is and thus they don’t really know what to expect. If they get what they expect, it will not prove that aether exists, just as it would not prove that it doesn’t exist if negative results were obtained.

To prove something, one must know what it is that he is proving. “Aether” is merely a name for an unknown substance. Measuring an unknown substance yields unknown results.

We know what “affectance” is. We know exactly what to look for if trying to measure it. We know how it behaves. And we know that it is necessarily the make of all physicality.

And that is why I refuse to call it “aether” (else you might as well call it “God”).

Ultimate_Philosophy · March 20, 2016, 8:46pm

I don’t believe aether is everywhere in the universe, there may be places where light and matter cannot travel.
Therefore it is different from affectance in that regard.
Also, light and matter need aether to exist and travel. HyperDense aether makes sphere atoms.

MM did not compensate for static motion relative to atmosphere. Was there a different experiment you are talking about that supposedly disproved aether?

James_S_Saint · March 20, 2016, 9:09pm

No experiment disproved aether. They merely proved that there was nothing behaving as they speculated that aether would behave.

Aether Drag
Although Michelson and Morley went on to different experiments after their first publication in 1887, both remained active in the field. Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing sophistication.[A 29][A 30] Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller from 1902 to 1904. Again, the result was negative within the margins of error.[12][13]

Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32-meter (105 ft) (effective) arm length that he tried at various sites including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in the 1920s amounted to approximately 10 km/s (6.2 mi/s) instead of the nearly 30 km/s (18.6 mi/s) expected from the Earth’s orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment or aether dragging, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation. He ignored critiques demonstrating the inconsistency of his results and the refutation by the Hammar experiment.[A 31][note 5] Miller’s findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928.[A 32] There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller’s results. Miller later built a non-magnetic device to eliminate magnetostriction, while Michelson built one of non-expanding Invar to eliminate any remaining thermal effects. Other experimenters from around the world increased accuracy, eliminated possible side effects, or both. So far, no one has been able to replicate Miller’s results, and modern experimental accuracies have ruled them out.[A 33] Roberts (2006) has pointed out that the primitive data reduction techniques used by Miller and other early experimenters, including Michelson and Morley, were capable of creating apparent periodic signals even when none existed in the actual data. After reanalyzing Miller’s original data using modern techniques of quantitative error analysis, Roberts found Miller’s apparent signals to be statistically insignificant.

Hammar Experiment
Experiments such as the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 (and later other experiments such as the Trouton–Noble experiment in 1903 or the Trouton-Rankine experiment in 1908), presented evidence against the theory of a medium for light propagation known as the Luminiferous aether; a theory that had been an established part of science for nearly one hundred years at the time. These results cast doubts on what was then a very central assumption of modern science, and later led to the development of special relativity. In an attempt to explain the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment in the context of the assumed medium, aether, many new hypotheses were examined. One of the proposals was that instead of passing through a static and unmoving aether, massive objects at the Earth’s surface may drag some of the aether along with them, making it impossible to detect a “wind”. Oliver Lodge (1893-1897) was one of the first to perform a test of this theory by using rotating and massive lead blocks in an experiment that attempted to cause an asymmetrical aether wind. His tests yielded no appreciable results differing from previous tests for the aether wind.[1][2]

In the 1920s, Dayton Miller conducted repetitions of the Michelson–Morley experiments, which allegedly gave a positive result. However, several experiments conducted afterwards by others gave negative results. Miller claimed that this is due to entrainment of the aether, because the other experiments used heavily enclosed equipment. To test Miller’s assertion, Hammar conducted the following experiment using a common path interferometer in 1935.

The essential problem was that they were only speculating as to how aether might behave. They have no means for knowing how aether would behave concerning possible wind effects. Demonstrating no aether wind has little to nothing to do with proving the existence or nonexistence of aether. The true fundamental substance that they were looking for simply doesn’t behave as they thought/think. Until they realize what it actually is, they could keep speculating forever.

Ultimate_Philosophy · March 20, 2016, 9:40pm

Hammar probably did it wrong, I will research it soon.

Also Scientists are still illogical retards for always referring to MM as the “goto” experiment that disproved aether. You’d think theyd use the more supposedly up to date experiment, Hammar’s, and not use broken flawed experiments as “proof”.

Whether Hammar’s is also flawed has yet to be determined, I will research it soon. It’s that time of day where the sun is out and I’m in a bad mood.

helper · March 21, 2016, 9:33pm

The “true fundamental substance” which
is aether
is the SAME as what
subatomic particles are made from-
like “a galactic arm” is actually 50 billion
stars and everything with them,
“an electron” is made from the
same conglomerate of smaller spheres.

Divide a galactic arm into atoms, you
have atoms- divide an electron
in the same way, you have aether.

James_S_Saint · March 21, 2016, 9:48pm

That is where I have to disagree. The universe is NOT fractal. The speed of light does not scale. And it is the speed of light that determines sizes of particles.