Search results

That is where you are going wrong. I'm not debating the definition of either a true or non-true vacuum and I think we'd agree on the definitions most likely. The vacuum he is referring to in that particular sentence is most certainly that of SR, because otherwise why bother to have the "a...

No, sorry, you're just wrong. The vacuum of SR is a hypothetical vacuum - you may argue that it doesn't exist in reality, but that doesn't matter. He isn't describing it, he's waving it away entirely as a concept, along with the constancy of the speed of light in a hypothetical vacuum. It...

You to understand what the guy wrote. Aether was the precursor to SR...you know that right? Read what I wrote again. Really carefully. He is talking about fundamentals - it's a hypothetical vacuum, not the real thing. That's what SR refers to.

The Stark effect does NOT cause the redshift (not even in the Chen paper, according to Ashmore). It causes the pressure blurring of the spectral lines by charged particles, such as the example of additional electrons in carbon nanotubes, demonstrated by Chen. Species dependent interactions...

:doh: This isn't a false dilemma. Sorry. You're not reading what it says. He says "the speed of light in A vacuum" A Vacuum. The indefinite article, not the definite article or the proximal demonstrative 'This'. He does not say "this "vacuum" that I'm defining here which isn't a vacuum at...

Two gems from the Holushko paper on Type Ia Supernovae - just from page 1. "It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy." This cracks me up. He's basically...

Read what he said carefully. Why exactly would plasma and EM fields change whether the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or not? Holushko invokes either a Lorentz violation or a complete overturning of SR...your pick! See above distinction. I'm not discounting the rest of his...

Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." SR and GR both go out the window with this. Still want to tout his code? Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." SR and GR implicitly fall. It's not. Agreed. What's the problem...

So when you said this, Michael, with such vehemence - do you admit you might...just *possibly* be wrong - since a point particle interpretation of collisions (as you so helpfully starred for emphasis) leads to untenable "blurring"? So you jump from predominantly touting Ashmore's theory, to...

:amen:

Er - Holushko's does, as he clearly states: "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." Lorentz violation much? Or not so much, more an entire rejection of SR. Wonder why nobody cares too much about his work or his code. Ashmore relies heavily on the Magic paper (let's...

I don't exactly...the MAGIC paper relied on Lorentz violations for its conclusion, and Ashmore simply took that conclusion and based his conclusion off of it without properly examining the implications. The "multiple collision" model fails to account for the probability of the photon arriving in...

Ah, changing the topic. We all know what that signifies... See car analogy above. We don't know for sure that they were emitted at the same time - nobody can say that - so overturning the entirety of cosmology or GR based on that kind of observation would be rather silly. I know how you...

Neither does the Harry Potter website. Is that all physically accurate too? Generally people don't mention when they get stuff wrong because they haven't realized it. It would take a liar or an idiot to act otherwise.

You're missing why Lorentz violations get brought up; the reason this is is the "its had many collisions en route" model is not feasible. Here's a real simple analogy. Two cars arrive at a destination. We know they drove in a straight line between us and the point they departed from, which we...

Who does? I'm aware of literally nobody in the scientific community who considers space a true vacuum in our day and age. The concept of a vacuum is only really useful in SR as a mathematical construct. So? There are 141 other papers there to have a look at. Here are 222 citing papers on the...

The explanation of the time dilation effects given by Ashmore et al. relies on the observation made by Magic and an implicit Lorentz violation. So you have a problem when no Lorentz violation can be shown to have taken place. You still have this fundamental problem - if you are asking for the...

Incidentally, if you're interested, here is the majority of the follow-up work done by other groups. refersto:recid:758764 - Search Results - INSPIRE-HEP There's definitely a bunch of people that still think a quantum foam would impede gamma rays, causing dispersion, but nobody's joining...

Incidentally, depending on who you ask this was either a good or a bad day for string theory. Sheldon and Glashow's work on Markarian 501 definitely lowered massively the potential energy levels that extra dimensions could exist in if indeed the delay was caused by a quantum "foam". There's...

Congratulations on failing to address any of the points. It would annoy me too. I'm not an astronomer, so I'm not sure why you said that. Perhaps because you're obsessed with what astronomers have to say that is good about your argument, which is - not much. Incidentally, you dismiss...