What is the criteria that decides between an acceptable ‘theory’ and an unacceptable ‘theory’?

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.
Aug 31, 2020
45
7
55
efarina96: Jinn, I sincerely appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying! But right off the bat, you question wave-particle duality when it can be proven by one of the simplest experiments in human history.
Jinn in reply to Efarina96: when you talk of quantum mechanics being proved by “the simplest experiment in human history.” Presumably you are referring to the Double Slit experiment. It just so happens that I have written an article on this subject for Medium Magazine. The link is entered below, which proves that the Double Slit Experiment far from being the proof for quantum mechanics is in fact an incontrovertible proof FOR the existence of an aether. In order to understand the article imagine an object floating on the sea, the object will go wherever the current carries it. If the sea at some points splits into two paths, the object will follow either one path or the other.

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/the-double-slit-experiment-explained-from-a-non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d

I would like you to read this article (always supposing you have the time) in an unbiased manner and consider what it means. Thanks
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
Jinn in reply to Efarina96: when you talk of quantum mechanics being proved by “the simplest experiment in human history.” Presumably you are referring to the Double Slit experiment. It just so happens that I have written an article on this subject for Medium Magazine. The link is entered below, which proves that the Double Slit Experiment far from being the proof for quantum mechanics is in fact an incontrovertible proof FOR the existence of an aether. In order to understand the article imagine an object floating on the sea, the object will go wherever the current carries it. If the sea at some points splits into two paths, the object will follow either one path or the other.

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/the-double-slit-experiment-explained-from-a-non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d

I would like you to read this article (always supposing you have the time) in an unbiased manner and consider what it means. Thanks
I have observed that you seem to be willing to engage in discussion on good faith, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I hope to do the best I can to approach your ideas on their merit and to learn from you, which should be the primary goal of all discourse. Any disagreements arising herein are not for a lack of respect. I have read this article and I am having a hard time seeing how your perspective excludes the reality of quantum mechanics. You claim the existence of an aether consisting of virtual particles (which I would argue exist via the ultimate aether, infinite space and infinite time) is somehow proof that quantum mechanics is wrong, yet here it seems vacuum friction is real and supports the idea of an aether consisting of virtual particles and quantum mechanics without excluding one or the other.
It seems more to me that you are not disproving quantum mechanics, but describing a means through which an important aspect of it (the propagation of light) can potentially be understood. Furthermore the point regarding the behavior of light when only one slit is open discussed in your article does not seem entirely relevant. When one slit is open, there is one possibility alone, and therefore to exist in a wave of probability and to exist in a definite state are one and the same. As to general relativity, my understanding is that it continues to experience extraordinary experimental and observational success, a fact I do not feel I need to share any links to support because the evidence supporting this is virtually indefinite, but to give one example in the form of a question, how do you explain a phenomenon like gravitational lensing in terms of your idea of the aether? With regards to my thoughts on general relativity, what I invoke here is an explanation of the cosmos where space and time are not broken up into "an impossible number of pieces" but rather space, and time, each exist singularly as an "infinite piece" if you will, with the two being inseparable and giving each other context, each being ultimately infinite meaning that in fundamental spacetime every particle exists infinitely in perfect balance or symmetry between infinite space and infinite time, rendering the traditional argument that "infinity is just infinity" irrelevant. Our observation of this reality is finite, but though our observation is finite, reality is ultimately infinite, hence the conservation of matter (that which is infinite cannot be destroyed). If you have the time I would appreciate if you could point out any other flaws you perceive, in my original theory or in my arguments, I would like to know your thoughts! I am a layman who enjoys conversation in such matters and am willing to entertain any idea 😀
 
Last edited:
Aug 31, 2020
45
7
55
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
You didn't address the point I made, which says a lot to me. I thought you were open minded and willing to have a conversation, but what can I say you are obviously incapable of having a conversation, if I had known you would be faced with an argument and immediately choose to completely ignore it because it contradicts your prejudiced beliefs, I probably would have left it alone.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
210
16
105
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
Jinn, as I pointed out already, you did not challenge me. You said nothing whatsoever about my theory, only "General relativity isn't real, quantum mechanics aren't real, wave-particle duality isn't real, read these articles I wrote and let me know how right I am." In spite of the fact that you did not address anything I actually said to begin with, I demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation on your terms even if you continued to choose to ignore my theory completely, and I would have continued on in such manner had you chosen to respond like an adult instead of like an arrogant child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I was diplomatic, I explained my thoughts clearly, and extolled you to point out any flaws in my theory or arguments. Without considering anything I had to say, you immediately took offense and metaphorically spat in my face while pretending to be civil. Apparently that is all people know how to do nowadays- pretend to be civil, pretend to be kind, while quietly puffing out their chest and refusing to confront their problems or the problems we face as a society, pretending to accomplish something when WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND ALL YOU IDIOTS CAN DO IS THINK ABOUT HOW SUPERIOR YOU ARE. WHEN THIS ALL GOES TO HELL THE DEMOCRATS AND "EDUCATED ELITE" NOR REPUBLICANS WHO FANCY THEMSELVES "REALISTIC" WILL BE ABSOLVED BECAUSE THEY WALK AROUND PRETENDING TO CARE SO AS TO SATISFY THEIR RIDICULOUS EGOS. But you know what? Fine. Let's keep doing what we're doing. Let's wait until 11 major hurricanes are striking the US mainland every year, and China and Japan are being absolutely devastated by typhoons of unfathomable magnitude. Let's just do what we've always done- wait until the problem is so obviously bad we can't ignore it anymore and go "gee, maybe we should do something about this whole climate change fiasco." Let's wait until the ice caps melt away completely and just see what happens! Let's wait until the oceans are so acidic that nothing can survive there! "Who does this guy think he is preaching at us? Doesn't he know what a flawed human being he is and how much better we all are?" "What do you think we don't watch the news? What do you think we don't read?"



"All we can do is live our lives." "We can't do anything to change this." "Society has to burn to the ground and be rebuilt from the ashes, that's the only possibility." Do you people even stop for two seconds to think about what that means? That's what our leadership wants you to think, and part of you wants to believe it too. Because the alternative is that we actually have to face our mistakes and stop being unfathomably stupid. It starts by learning to have real conversations that actually probe for a deeper understanding with an open mind. If we cannot let go of our arrogance, than prophecies about the end of the world will ultimately be self-fulfilling. As it is, the last humans to survive on this Earth are set to look back and know that we never cared about them at all. The ancestral life forms of an entire species who lived and died so that we might have a chance to, will know we took the gift they gave us and threw it away for nothing. Don't even dare tell me this is not relevant- everything and everyone is connected, every choice we make matters and has a lasting impact- every choice sets the stage for what possibilities may come, or what limitations will be inherent on the generations to come (such as the limitations imposed by inheriting an uninhabitable planet). Such is the nature of an infinite universe.



Do me a favor Jinn- learn how to have a real conversation like a grown up instead of just pretending to be one. As soon as the folks delusional enough to think they are the adults in the room start acting like actual adults, I'll be happy to lose the angry tone and have a legitimate conversation. Conversation takes at least two parties who are sincerely willing to converse. You all wanna be a****** and pretend that's not what you're doing, I'll be an a****** and make it clear that's what I'm doing. Thanks
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY