Moose wrote:
> Charles Geilfuss wrote:
>> Is that similar to the "Ether" ala Michaelson/ Morley.
>>
>
> The tricky thing is - contemporary physics does "believe" in an "ether",
> but won't call it that:
>
> "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of
> relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
> his original premise was that no such medium existed ...
>
But it didn't stop him using equations that depended on the existence of
the very ether he denied.
Our probes keep finding electric currents, but they don't call them
that. A rain of charged particles, or a 'wind'. 'Volcanoes' on
satellites of gas giants, that zap electronics on probes overhead.
And redshift = distance/acceleration is a bust. Arp proved it with his
work on 'peculiar galaxies' and photos of quasars in front of nearby
galaxies. For his pains he was denied telescope time, publication in
recognised journals and had to emigrate to Germany to continue his work.
Peer review in Astrophysics is all about protecting reputations and the
research money that goes with it.
And it is important. Billions of dollars are spent chasing phantom
particles in colliders and praising null 'results'.
Kristian Birkeland had this all figured out a century ago, but the 'hip'
atomic scientists and Einstein steered the whole thing off in a purely
mathematical direction. Big mistake.
But it doesn't stop you taking great astropix with an OM...
;-)
D.
--
I'm a Mac, but I'm happy with my PC.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|