[James]

I’ll bite

[Jerry]

Sounds quite interesting. If I’m at home, instead of out of town, I could serve as somewhat of an objective observer, to ask questions to either side, and offer suggestions with as few unbiased assumptions as possible. Just a thought.

[David]

Super! Jerry, we can schedule a time where you would be home. We need to all meet via zoom to discuss.

[David]

@jimmarsen and @jerry, what time zone are you both in so we can set up a meeting?

[Jerry]

Central here. What day and time would seem good?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Jerry.

[James]

Eastern

[David]

I can provide a strong defense for Aether theory. The problem with the debate format is my severe hearing loss. One of my hearing aids has been broken for over a year. Also, I have been dealing with health issues this past Winter.

However, I can provide a solid presentation for the empirical evidence for Aether, and for equations demonstrating the mechanics of Aether. The Aether is very real and essential for understanding physics; the real problem lies with the weaknesses of the physicists who deny the Aether.

[David]

David, maybe you could present your case through some slides. But we are not going to talk about the “mechanics” of aether. This is strictly a debate on the existence of aether and its problems.

[Shiva]

I’d be glad to join.

Given that was paying for the promotion of anti-relativity.com almost 20 years ago now and I’ve written over 1000 articles on Quora, as well as published multiple papers in a peer reviewed journal on the topic. Have lectured at various conventions, Berkeley, and speak with a wide array of scientists on literally a daily basis, including experimentalists in optics… I can say with confidence I’ve been the greatest background force for aether in the past couple decades.

Secondarily, I have a software package designed for live broadcasting and recording. Most professional podcast shows now use it instead of zoom which is pretty clunky overall.

I’ve already paid for the higher resolution version that can broadcast to multiple stream channels simultaneously so we could make it a channel collaboration. Generally up to 6 participants can be present and it integrates the live questions from the channel audience, like youtube and twitch, seamlessly into the broadcast portal.

I’d be glad to show you how it works beforehand. It not only live-streams it also records in the background in case you want to also put out an edited version but it does so on a server so your live broadcast machine isn’t bogged down.

Let me know what you want to do.

[Shiva]

Incidentally, this is a topic I can talk about for hours on end because there are so many details that have to be hashed out and so many implications. Having multiple people at once might be difficult for me because I need people to focus for long period of time to understand the whole set of circumstances and ideas that they need to grasp.

By way of demonstration let me give you a couple interviews I’ve already done.

Here below is my interview with Deepak Chopra that happened because of the strong correlation between spiritual insights and technological intuitions that come from deep antiquity that also align with aether: (something I won’t be discussing at all in a scientific discussion)

https://youtu.be/c_cx5lrpno4
(Immediately I recorded a longer and more detailed version of the presentation here: https://youtu.be/A7fpkVFrBKY?t=346)

Here is an interview with a UFOlogist I did about how it interacts with the UAP releases from the government etc:

https://youtu.be/mSwzuZdo_5w

[James]

I’m fine with deferring to David or Shiva.

[Shiva]

Ahh, I’ve looked at your channel and it seems you use streamyard, great!

Are you still doing this on Saturday? What is the format specifically? Is it debate or simply a chat about aether in general or what?

I can promise to go easy on you if that’s something you’re concerned about.

[David]

Everyone: this is a debate on aether’s existence. There are many many problems associated with aether and that is one of the problems: aetherists don’t address them. Or at best, they cherry-pick one or two and ignore the rest. Aetherists need to confront these problems and that is what the debate is about. This is not a talk on “aether” and how well it works or how an aether model does “X”. It is strictly a debate on whether or not aether is a better model when compared to the other two models of lattice and the particle model (Bob de Hilster).

[David]

This would not be a debate in any case. Read your comments in this order:

“This is not a talk on “aether” and how well it works or how an aether model does “X”. It is strictly a debate on whether or not aether is a better model when compared to the other two models of lattice and the particle model (Bob de Hilster).”

And then you say…

“this is a debate on aether’s existence.”

“There are many many problems associated with aether and that is one of the problems: aetherists don’t address them. Or at best, they cherry-pick one or two and ignore the rest. Aetherists need to confront these problems and that is what the debate is about.”

A debate format starts with a well defined question. A debate cannot take place when a moderator starts with a firm conclusion.

But this is not surprising. I have seen the same dynamics in this forum. Nobody here seems interested in working on actual physics. This is a philosophical club where philosophical dominance is sought. And in all fairness, this forum is hosted by the “Natural Philosophy Society.”

So have at it, and may the best philosopher win this “debate.”

[David]

David, you are right. I contradicted myself. I’m trying to come up with these things to make an interesting debate. Any help on how to do this would be greatly appreciated.

[Deleted User]

The lattice and particle models have many more problems and observations that reject them than do aether models.

[David]

That is what the debate is about. By the way, I said “particle model” (not plural) as in my fathers model for light which is not a photon model.

[Shiva]

Well I’d be glad to address the specific problems you say aetherists ignore.

Bear in mind however that it seems you will be doing a “power of the mic” maneuver by it being only on your show, you being the moderator and editor, and finally you being the only one knowing (and having prep-time for) the issues you plan to discuss.

I’m still willing to take you on, however, even under those conditions but again I’d like to live cast it to my channel at the same time.

Unfortunately I have an appointment at 3 EST tomorrow and don’t know how long it will run. When were you planning to do this?

Is de Hilster your father. I’m confused because of the names.

[Jerry]

What would seem fair in this regard? Couldn’t we plan and agree in advance what specific topics involving the aether to discuss? I think that 3 Eastern is 2 Central. That sounds cool to me, even if I don’t actually join the debate. I could at least type in a few questions and comments, if the forum is set up that way.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Jerry.

[David]

David, my suggestion is for the pro aether side to present why aether is a good model. The con aether side will present arguments why aether is a poor model. I will not be moderating. The audience will be moderating. Once the con side presents the problems, the aether side can respond for one final time and then we open it up to the audience.

Please remember: no one is right or wrong. There are differing opinions. I myself will never say aether is wrong. To me, it is a model with too many problems for ME to accept. But I know that it can be right. Very few aethrists if any say that aether may in fact be wrong. I myself have a model of the entire universe with my father. Both my father and I say it could all be wrong.

Humility is greatly lacking in our community. That is a HUGE problem.

Format:

1) Aethrists present why the model is a good one

2) I and others who are on the other side will present why aether is not a good model

3) Aethrists will rebut the objections

4) Audience will chime in

[Jerry]

How many people will actually debate the aether? Is it “one on one”? or more than one for each side?

[Shiva]

You’ve directly responded to everyone else on this thread (not me) and then made some sideways comment about how HUGE of a problem confident aetherists are.

Insults received loud and clear. Logged appropriately, David.

Thanks for letting me know Exactly who you are.

[David]

I say that my father and I’s particle model could all be wrong.

Can you say that the aether model can be wrong?

If you don’t answer that with a “yes” or answer with a long diatribe, than my point is proven at least with you. My point is simple: I have never heard an aetherist say that the aether model could be wrong. That is the definition of arrogance. That is not a “personal” attack. It is an observation.

I like Jeff Yee’s model which is an aether model. I like Borchardt’s model which is an aether model. So how is it you “know” who I am???

As for knowing “who” I am, I do know who I am and those people I our organization know who I am as well. Your “aggression” is a personal one not a scientific one. If what you said bothered me, than you would be right. But what you say has no basis and personal attacks only show emotion, not logic.

You are right and I am wrong. You know that. So let’s leave me be wrong and go on.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  David.

[David]

David, although this comment was not directed to me…

“I say that my father and I’s particle model could all be wrong. Can you say that the aether model can be wrong?”

I would like to put this comment into perspective. “Right” and “wrong” are judgments. You can find judgments in religion and philosophy, but not in true physics. Nobody is right or wrong in physics. Physics is about the quantification of the physical Universe. Either the quantifications work, or they do not work. If reproducible quantifications are not being presented, then physics is not being discussed.

The Aether Physics Model I provide is a complete system for quantifying physical existence within the paradigm of Aether. Any comments I make about my interpretations of the equations are not the physics. Interpretations fall in the category of philosophy, and yes, I agree with you that philosophy is a valid component of science. We can say our philosophies (interpretations) may be right or wrong, but again, this is judgment.

It is fair for the moderator of the John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society forum to discuss philosophy, and to even consider the philosophies presented as debate material. But we must remain aware of the fact that philosophy is not physics. Physics is the quantification of the physical Universe. If you and your dad are presenting quantifications of physical phenomena that are reproducible, then the quantifications either work, or they do not. Nobody is in a position to judge your equations as being “wrong” if the equations are giving valid results.

[Shiva]

Can you say that the aether model can be wrong?

Well of course. That’s absolutely ridiculous. I regularly and genuinely consider the possibility I may be a Boltzmann brain, or an AI in training in which case all my memories and ideas could be complete trash. In fact there are many details that have to be investigated that haven’t. It’s utterly anti-science to claim the absolute truth of a theory.

your accusation is bunk because the premise of the accusation is utterly bunk and I don’t know if you’re hiding it from others or hiding it from yourself. You only made the accusation specifically for he purpose of passive aggression. To insult me sideways instead of to my face. That’s why your claim is crap. You made it up on the spot. Basically ALL other aetherists have upheld normal scientific doubt. So stop chasing your tail and admit you meant it towards me.

or answer with a long diatribe, than my point is proven at least with you.

Nonsense. The length of my answer makes me somehow wrong. What have we fully bought into the twitter age where no one who isn’t there with quick high-school quips is seen as the loser?

As for diatribe, if you handle a little heat then don’t pretend to be a revolutionary, you haven’t got the chops. I’ve been attacked non-stop for 20 years. I guess it might have been your father who asked for space on the anti-relativity forum way back when, but I was deep into the fight in a very public way already by that point. Taking hit after hit after hit for little communities like this.

I was accused of anti-Semitism before I knew the definition of the word or even that it still -weirdly – exists.

So I’ll diatribe as much as I like and it says not a damned thing about truth or falsehood.

So how is it you “know” who I am???

By the fact that you ignored me purposely and made comments about arrogance. Religious quotes are handy in cases like this. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

But if you’re willing to say right now you did not THINK that, then I’ll take you at your word. NOTE: I didn’t ask if you didn’t SAY that. I tire of the “I’m not touching you” kids game where people use technicalities so I’ll ask you to instead be honest with yourself. Did you THINK I was arrogant before writing the lines about arrogance?

Let’s see some bravery and honesty and then I’ll be able to re-assess who you are.

Right now I know you judge a book by its cover. That’s who you are. Prove me wrong.

If what you said bothered me,

Said to Whom? When? Where? You mean to de Hilster? I didn’t know he was your father. Still not certain that’s true or if I’m misunderstanding… Is he your father or not? You refused to answer this question I asked above… quite suspiciously omitted the answer.

If what you said bothered me, than you would be right. But what you say has no basis and personal attacks only show emotion, not logic.

Your Jedi mind tricks could use some work. You’re the one who was insulting. Acting like no one here could pick up that you were being aggressive is also pretending they have no ability to know what’s going on around them. So now you’ve insulted the readers too.

Are you defending de Hilster or not because it’s CRYSTAL CLEAR in the history above there were no personal attacks above save yours.

You are right and I am wrong. You know that. So let’s leave me be wrong and go on.

This is called psychological projection. You’re the one overly certain. It’s because you think I’m arrogant that you can’t believe for one moment that I currently think it could just be some weird misunderstanding but factually I do believe that’s possible. (after all I don’t even know who your father is… it’s a different last name. I’m confused about it) That’s where your poorly conceived blanket insult of all aetherists came from. A jab at me.

Man UP!

So now. Answer the question and let’s get to truth. Reveal your thoughts or admit you’re full of it with your silence. Did you THINK I was arrogant before you posted the statement about arrogant aetherists? Can you be honest with yourself and others? What was your IMPRESSION before writing those lines.

Prove a point.

[Jerry]

I feel that I was somewhat at fault, with being too vocal about the “impending” aether debate. Plus, I might have appeared somewhat over-confident with the way I’ve expressed a variety of my viewpoints of a few ideas and theories throughout different groups here.

I want to add, that it often seems somewhat unavoidable, that with expressing our views, including our biases, that a given degree of emotion is sometimes present. David had mentioned lately (at least through the dissident science Saturday morning discussions) that we shouldn’t “fall in love” with our ideas. That, of course, anyone could have mistaken views.

We’re all most certainly mistaken about countless “trivial facts and ideas”. However, we’re much more careful when dealing with what we consider our “specialty”. We may tend to have a high degree of confidence in our views, since we’ve spent much thought, time, and effort, and that we trust the reasoning process we’ve used to develop what we may consider crucial and relevant theories and ideas.

We might even inadvertantly convey too much energy or even charisma, to other interested individuals who have other ideas, which from their perspective, might resemble arrogance, even though that wasn’t the speaker’s intention at all. Anyway, just a thought.

[Shiva]

But like I said… I can go easy on you on your show. I’m okay with fighting and making up. I’m not some grudge holding little girl. Call me sexist if you like but men take it on the chin and get over it. So you think I’m some arrogant asshole, fine. I think you’re judgmental and overly biased. Who cares?

Let’s still debate the actual topic because even though you’ve met people I’ve influenced over so many years and people I know like Eric Reiter and Steven Bryant… you haven’t met me.

You think you’ve heard what “Aetherists” have to offer but you haven’t heard me.

That’s confidence based on real experience talking to real modern scientists and physicists and a few nobel laureates along the way. If you want to mistake it for arrogance, that’s quite literally your problem, not mine.

I get the job done and HAVE been getting the job done for a lot of years now. I won’t stop now.

We SHOULD be allies, but you felt the need to disrespect me and “put me in my place” by pointedly ignoring me and obviously calling me arrogant. So let’s get over this personal crap and get the job done together.

It’s an important job and our personal squabbles should take a damned back seat!