David L

Does light move independently of the motion of reference frames or does it move within ether? Does the ether move at all, or do reference frames move independently of the ether (aether)??

Something seems to be very wrong about assumptions in Physics unless there is some big factor that I am unaware of. It is believed that our solar system is moving faster than 20 kilometers per second towards Lambda Herculus I have been told by a physicist. I am asking because I want to be a little more informed next time I ask my physicist acquaintance a follow up question. Light does not translate in position with moving reference frames in the absence of dense mediums or heavy gravitational fields. We have a retro-reflector on the moon. It takes over 2 seconds for light to travel to the earth from the moon. So we can send laser pulses to a retro-reflector on the moon, and variously reposition detectors someplace and calculate the expected detection points, and see the actual detection points. Then use that data to calculate the velocity of our solar system; because it must be moving independently of the travel of light, as we should have learned from E. Relativity. The only objection to this I believe is if light contradicts Relativity due to the motions of the ether; which I doubt. But I do not know for sure, that is why I ask.

I do not believe this. Is there some kind of Michelson Moreley experiment that can verify if this is true? We would be able to see over a period of 1,000 years substantial parallax effect in the apparent positions of stars, would we not? Further even though we are in a large reference frame, it seems it should be possible to analyze trajectories of satelites shot from earth to determine if this is so; by subtle differences in expected trajectory and actual trajectory????

I do not see how the US could support either the ISIL terrorist hoard or the Holy Shite extremist minority of the Iraq and Iran governments.

I think the US government does not understand the situation in Syria and Iraq.

The US cannot support Assad or Iran either.

Even if the US plays a waiting game, then what?

Most likely ISIL will establish a Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

I realize we don't have any examples of chimpanzees giving birth to a human-like individual, even though the DNA is so close; and we don't have an example of a lemur giving birth to some animal that is not a lemur.

But is there something compelling which is a specific example of evolution that anyone has witnessed?

(For anyone who is going to suggest a fossil, note fossils are examples of extinction not evolution. It is true we find evidence of additional variations in the fossil record, but not such as provides clear evidence of linear transformational transitions; though I am sure some would disagree with this.)

Have a read of the following article which tries to show some evidence or proof of evolution:

http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evout...

The problem with this is that close relatedness in DNA between different species is stated as proof of evolution. This is not proof of evolution. Also if we experimentally replace some sequence of DNA with like sequence of DNA it does not prove any aspect of evolution.

The author takes examples of relatedness, and then says this is proof of "evolutionary relatedness". Science proceeds by advancing testable hypotheses.

There are a multitude of similarities between two mammals of different species and so their DNA which is the instruction template for genesis, will also have corresponding similarities.

Some have not understood my questions, which concern the philosophy of science as applied to evolution.

For some time in the history of science evolution was a theory. At what point did evolution become a fact? What time period? What scientists decided that evolution was a fact? What was the evidence at that time?

Or did it go from a theory to a highly plausible state? At what time did it go from a highly plausible state to a fact, if it did? Or is evolution still a theory?

In past questions a few respondents verbally attack me rather than deal with the question.

If you say it is a theory please distinguish whether you mean theory as a conjecture, or theory as a mathematical model of known phenomena.

Evidence for adaptation is grounds for conjecturing a theory of evolution. But what evidence is used to prove evolution?

Also I think the complexities of the cell are not sufficiently understood to postulate any kind of mechanism to explain how evolution could be plausible. Where is such a mechanism explained? In what book?

(Please answer either question of your choice. Thank you.)

I read that Darwin said that if an organism was found to be highly complex then his theory of evolution would break down.

So I see that some scientists who are on the frontier of DNA discoveries now are claiming that there is such a high level of complexity in DNA and in all the other components and functioning of cells that evolution would be impossible by random processes.

And so I asked a friend who believes in evolution what level of complexity would suggest evolution is not plausible. He said no level of complexity; it does not matter how complex things are, he said evolution must be true.

But it is held that a scientific theory must have also something stated that if shown to be true would contradict the theory. What falsifies the theory of evolution, as far as what can be shown at present scientifically?

One intellectual/scientist that I know suggests that the definition of "species" should be more precise.

Is there no level of complexity that would suggest evolution to be implausible?

So I see we have one fossil of a Cantius which is called "lemuriform" because it is like a lemur or possibly a lemur. And I see we have a Palaechthon which appears to be some kind of rodent (thought I am not qualified to type it exactly, but I am using "rodent" in a general sense). I have not seen a fossil of a Palaechthon, a photo of one.

So what evidence do we have of evolution before Chimpanzees?

We are told that there are many transformational forms, but I don't see any in the evidence.

We do find some variations in human that we don't have today, because the human population was genetically more diverse 10,000 years ago or 8,000 years ago. But I don't think those are transformational forms from Chimpanzees..

I am mainly interested in the transitions before and after lemur-like mammals.

Does anyone know how to find out what castle was used in the 1956 film "The Court Jester"?

Some respondents to my last question said that the Titius-Bode law was proven incorrect; but that is misleading; note the following information from Wikipedia

Quote:

There is no solid theoretical explanation of the Titius–Bode law, but if there is one it is possibly a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom: any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may simply be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law".[5] However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.[4]

Orbital resonance from major orbiting bodies creates regions around the Sun that are free of long-term stable orbits. Results from simulations of planetary formation support the idea that a randomly chosen stable planetary system will likely satisfy a Titius–Bode law.

Dubrulle and Graner[6][7] have shown that power-law distance rules can be a consequence of collapsing-cloud models of planetary systems possessing two symmetries: rotational invariance (the cloud and its contents are axially symmetric) and scale invariance (the cloud and its contents look the same on all scales), the latter being a feature of many phenomena considered to play a role in planetary formation, such as turbulence.

<<<<<End Quote.

I think that this has not been resolved. I think that a natural phenomenon may yet be discovered. I think that there is certainly a pattern; and such a substantial pattern is not likely due to chance. I also think that exceptions do not always invalidate other instances of a pattern; that would be like introducing misleading evidence in a crime scene and someone comes along and says this and that evidence invalidates all the other evidence.

Seems like there is more explaining to do on the Titius-Bode law, or more theoretical physics.

Dave

Planets in our solar system are usually about twice the distance of the preceding planet closer to the sun. What is the underlying scientific reason how this could be so regular to fit a pattern?

Is there any common ground between conservative Islam and radical Islam?

What are the differences between conservative Sunni Islam and radical Islam?

I had said to a friend that I thought radical Islam is the greatest threat to mankind. My friend believes that pollution and climate shift is the greatest threat to mankind. Then there is corruption in business and so forth. I am looking for the cause of mankinds' greatest problems.