NO SIGN OF ETHER DRIFT: WHY?

[Pentcho Valev]

http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
the ether theory:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Which explanation would have been more correct?

Pentcho Valev

[a***@yahoo.fr]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Which explanation would have been more correct?
Pentcho Valev

"Which explanation would have been more correct?"
une fran�aise explication des fois,
Dis nous CLAIREMENT, si qui pourrait justifier le maintien
de l'�ther ...

Alain

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley
experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity,
whereas later writers almost universally use it as
support for the light postulate of special relativity......
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Post by Pentcho Valev
Which explanation would have been more correct?

None of the above. Since it is only a challenge to Maxwell's
equations. As you know the "light postulate" was redundant to
"the laws of physics"... inclusive of Maxwell.

By the way, if no experiment can differentiate between
"perspective" and "aether", then the question itself is a
nonsequitur.

The emission / ballistic theories get into trouble when (for
example) starlight is used in MMX, or when the Moon is used for a
shutter for high-z objects.

David A. Smith

[Androcles]

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:5rh_i.5662$***@newsfe11.phx...

: The emission / ballistic theories get into trouble when (for
: example) starlight is used in MMX, or when the Moon is used for a
: shutter for high-z objects.
:
Baloney. Emission Fact cannot "get into trouble", only
crackpot theorists get into trouble.

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley
experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity,
whereas later writers almost universally use it as
support for the light postulate of special relativity......
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.

Pentcho Valev

[dlzc]

...

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so
consequently the motion of light was conformed
to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic,
zombie become professor.

Since I research what I post, I assume you are referring to your self
as a zombie. Whay would you want to be a professor?

David A. Smith

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by dlzc
...

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so
consequently the motion of light was conformed
to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic,
zombie become professor.

Since I research what I post, I assume you are referring to your self
as a zombie. Whay would you want to be a professor?
David A. Smith

Zombie research. Earth drag ether? Earth drag ether. Zombie say: earth
drag ether. World listen.

Pentcho Valev

[Laurent]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by dlzc
...

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so
consequently the motion of light was conformed
to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic,
zombie become professor.

Since I research what I post, I assume you are referring to your self
as a zombie. Whay would you want to be a professor?
David A. Smith

Zombie research. Earth drag ether? Earth drag ether. Zombie say: earth
drag ether. World listen.
Pentcho Valev- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You want to measure aether drag? Just measure inertia on an
accelerating (or decelerating) object.

--
Laurent

[dlzc]

...

Post by Pentcho Valev
Zombie research. Earth drag ether? Earth drag
ether. Zombie say: earth drag ether. World listen.

Hardly. Since you are a professor of pate physics, you know that
dragged aether has been discounted by other experiments. But MMX, to
which you referred, was not one of them.

David A. Smith

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by dlzc
...

Post by Pentcho Valev
Zombie research. Earth drag ether? Earth drag
ether. Zombie say: earth drag ether. World listen.

Hardly. Since you are a professor of pate physics, you know that
dragged aether has been discounted by other experiments. But MMX, to
which you referred, was not one of them.
David A. Smith

So while Master John Norton calls the attention to the fact that THE
MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION
THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE, you introduce
dragged aether as a red herring. But then you are not a zombie!
Rather, you are a clever hypnotist, at least as clever as Master Tom
Roberts! Master John Norton, Master Tom Roberts, Master David Smith.
Three clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev

[dlzc]

On Nov 14, 7:55 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
...

Post by Pentcho Valev
So while Master John Norton calls the attention to
the fact that THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS
FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE, you introduce
dragged aether as a red herring.

Master John Norton apparently did not tell you that, since the light
was emitted in the frame the apparatus was located in, could not tell
if the light was issued from the anuses of pink elephants, and was
conducted along narrow sewer pipes as frozen turds, prior to entering
the apparatus as light.

Post by Pentcho Valev
But then you are not a zombie!

You appear to have no critical faculties whatsoever, Pentcho. What a
tangled web you weave...

David A. Smith

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by dlzc
...

Post by Pentcho Valev
So while Master John Norton calls the attention to
the fact that THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS
FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE, you introduce
dragged aether as a red herring.

Master John Norton apparently did not tell you that, since the light
was emitted in the frame the apparatus was located in, could not tell
if the light was issued from the anuses of pink elephants, and was
conducted along narrow sewer pipes as frozen turds, prior to entering
the apparatus as light.

Zombie after all. Master John Norton say:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Why zombie wrong? Master John Norton explain: "...later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity...". Later writers teach zombie. Now zombie wrong. Tomorrow
zombie wrong. Forever zombie wrong. Later writers guilty.

Pentcho Valev

[dlzc]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by dlzc
...

Post by Pentcho Valev
So while Master John Norton calls the attention to
the fact that THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS
FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE, you introduce
dragged aether as a red herring.

Master John Norton apparently did not tell you that,
since the light was emitted in the frame the
apparatus was located in, could not tell if the light
was issued from the anuses of pink elephants, and was
conducted along narrow sewer pipes as frozen turds,
prior to entering the apparatus as light.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley
experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity,
whereas later writers almost universally use it as
support for the light postulate of special relativity...
...THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

The statement is essentially correct. Because the light was emitted
in the frame of the MMX.

Post by Pentcho Valev
Why zombie wrong? Master John Norton explain: "...later
writers almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity...". Later writers
teach zombie. Now zombie wrong. Tomorrow
zombie wrong. Forever zombie wrong. Later writers guilty.

The MMX is compatible with Maxwell, Androcles' (and others') ballistic
emission, Lorentz aether, and dragged aether. Until you move the
light source, or try a different experiment, you cannot differentiate
between any of those with MMX. All you can disprove with the MMX
experiment is that the Earth is moving "separately" through a rigid
aether. Disproved with MMX.

As to why you are always wrong, and always tell less than the full
truth, and always name call rather than conduct civil argument, who

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now zombie wrong. Tomorrow zombie wrong. Forever zombie wrong.

David A. Smith

[Igor]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley
experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity,
whereas later writers almost universally use it as
support for the light postulate of special relativity......
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.
Pentcho Valev

I wasn't aware that you were a professor. A professor of what,
exactly?

[a***@yahoo.fr]

Post by Igor

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley
experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity,
whereas later writers almost universally use it as
support for the light postulate of special relativity......
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY
COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.
Pentcho Valev

I wasn't aware that you were a professor. A professor of what,
exactly?- Masquer le texte des messages pr�c�dents -
- Afficher le texte des messages pr�c�dents -

*************************
Un professeur de p�te � physique...

Al1

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/a
No Lorentz violation

[Androcles]

"Uncle Al" <***@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:***@hate.spam.net...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: [snip crap]
:
: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
: http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
: <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
: http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
: No aether
:
: http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
: http://physicsweb.org/a
: No Lorentz violation
: --
: Uncle Al
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
: (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
No brain

[Laurent]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Which explanation would have been more correct?
Pentcho Valev

There is no absolute space, only absolute reality. The Universe is
background free.

--
Laurent

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Laurent
There is no absolute space, only absolute reality. The Universe is
background free.

Under the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, absolute simultaneity
is forbidden. The mathematical manifestation of the Lorentz transform
is the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity.
Poincare had already identified this as relative simultaneity.
Relative simultaneity is the root cause of the twin's paradox. Under
the concept of relative simultaneity, any interference pattern cannot
happen. The interferometers should not have worked. Since
interferometers work so well and everytime ever so consistently, the
most logical conclusion is that relative simultaneity must not
possibly be valid. This also means the Lorentz transform must be
wrong.

[Laurent]

Post by Koobee Wublee

Post by Laurent
There is no absolute space, only absolute reality. The Universe is
background free.

Under the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, absolute simultaneity
is forbidden. The mathematical manifestation of the Lorentz transform
is the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity.
Poincare had already identified this as relative simultaneity.
Relative simultaneity is the root cause of the twin's paradox. Under
the concept of relative simultaneity, any interference pattern cannot
happen. The interferometers should not have worked. Since
interferometers work so well and everytime ever so consistently, the
most logical conclusion is that relative simultaneity must not
possibly be valid. This also means the Lorentz transform must be
wrong.

Not what GPS technology seems to suggest. Same with interplanetary
travel. GTR is a proven fact. Sorry.

--
Laurent

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Laurent

Post by Koobee Wublee
Under the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, absolute simultaneity
is forbidden. The mathematical manifestation of the Lorentz transform
is the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity.
Poincare had already identified this as relative simultaneity.
Relative simultaneity is the root cause of the twin's paradox. Under
the concept of relative simultaneity, any interference pattern cannot
happen. The interferometers should not have worked. Since
interferometers work so well and everytime ever so consistently, the
most logical conclusion is that relative simultaneity must not
possibly be valid. This also means the Lorentz transform must be
wrong.

Not what GPS technology seems to suggest. Same with interplanetary
travel. GTR is a proven fact. Sorry.

There are other hypotheses that predict the same result. <shrug>

Besides, it is not conclusive that GPS utilizes GR to do so. To do
that, it requires a ground-to-satellite synchronization. This is just
too costly and too error-prone. In addition to the error associated
with downlink from satellite to the ground, there is just too much
error compared to satellite-to-satellite synchronization.

With physicists as consultants, GPS most likely did start out with
ground-to-satellite synchronization, but engineers quickly figured out
the unnecessary introduction of error can be eliminated if satellite-
to-satellite synchronization is implemented.

[Uncle Al]

Post by Koobee Wublee

Post by Laurent

Post by Koobee Wublee
Under the mathematics of the Lorentz transform, absolute simultaneity
is forbidden. The mathematical manifestation of the Lorentz transform
is the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity.
Poincare had already identified this as relative simultaneity.
Relative simultaneity is the root cause of the twin's paradox. Under
the concept of relative simultaneity, any interference pattern cannot
happen. The interferometers should not have worked. Since
interferometers work so well and everytime ever so consistently, the
most logical conclusion is that relative simultaneity must not
possibly be valid. This also means the Lorentz transform must be
wrong.

Not what GPS technology seems to suggest. Same with interplanetary
travel. GTR is a proven fact. Sorry.

There are other hypotheses that predict the same result. <shrug>
Besides, it is not conclusive that GPS utilizes GR to do so. To do
that, it requires a ground-to-satellite synchronization. This is just
too costly and too error-prone. In addition to the error associated
with downlink from satellite to the ground, there is just too much
error compared to satellite-to-satellite synchronization.

[snip crap]

1) Idiot.
2) Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
3) Idiot
4) Lithium ions as clocks at 0.06c to 10^(-7) accuracy
<http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1113/2>
5) Idiot.
6) Ineducable idiot.

[Androcles]

"Uncle Al" <***@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:***@hate.spam.net...
: 1) Idiot.

Fuckhead.

: 2) Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
:
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
: 3) Idiot

Dumbfuck.


: 4) Lithium ions as clocks at 0.06c to 10^(-7) accuracy
: <http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1113/2>
: 5) Idiot.

Arsehole.

: 6) Ineducable idiot.

Useless arsehole.

Catch 22:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
Loading Image...
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

Loading Image...

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.






: --
: Uncle Al
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
: (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
No brain.

[Traveler]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:32:21 GMT, Homo Androgenous wrote:

[crap]

Nobody gives a shit, Andromo. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

[Koobee Wublee]

Post by Uncle Al

Post by Koobee Wublee
There are other hypotheses that predict the same result. <shrug>
Besides, it is not conclusive that GPS utilizes GR to do so. To do
that, it requires a ground-to-satellite synchronization. This is just
too costly and too error-prone. In addition to the error associated
with downlink from satellite to the ground, there is just too much
error compared to satellite-to-satellite synchronization.
With physicists as consultants, GPS most likely did start out with
ground-to-satellite synchronization, but engineers quickly figured out
the unnecessary introduction of error can be eliminated if satellite-
to-satellite synchronization is implemented.

1) Idiot.
2) Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5....>
3) Idiot
4) Lithium ions as clocks at 0.06c to 10^(-7) accuracy
<http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1113/2>

"Einstein was wrong"

A plagiarist can never be wrong. However, the plagiarized material
can be wrong. <shrug>

"Special relativity joins space and time into a single weird thing
called spacetime that appears different to observers moving relative
to each other."

Even the crackpot cannot explain exactly what this weird thing is.
<shrug>

"Einstein reasoned that if the ion were accelerated to near-light
speed, time would slow for it and, hence, so would the rippling of the
emitted light waves. That is, the speeding ions would emit light of a
lower frequency."

Einstein's reasoning contradicts with transverse Doppler shift
predicted by the Lorentz transform. SR is not self consistent.
<shrug>

Post by Uncle Al
5) Idiot.
6) Ineducable idiot.

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Which explanation would have been more correct?
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, if you take the time to understand the conventional concepts
of electromagnetic waves and the works of James Clerk Maxwell, there
is simply no reason to persit in the belief that a "luminiferous
aether" exists. Also, the aether theory has so many holes in it that
it can be dismissed out of hand. The most notable of these is the
notion that the aether can propagate transverse waves, somthing it
itself that would require the aether to be a solid, since only a solid
media transmits transverse waves, which makes it a bit difficult for
the earth to traverse through it.

Maxwell explained the concept of electromagnetic radiation over a
century ago, and Hertz confirmed it. When you understand it, which is
a rather trivial concept, there is simply no need for archaic aether
theory, except for the terminally brain dead. The basic concept is
rather simple: A time varying magnetic field gives rise to to an
associated time varying electric field. A time varying electric field,
in turn gives rise to a time varying magnetic field. Without even
knowing the mathematics, most people can realize that these two field
effects marry together, and give birth to electromagnetic radiation.
The rest is in the details although even the details are rather
general. Everything from radio waves, TV signals, light, x-rays, and
gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. All follow the same rules
and all have the identical mechanism. Only their wavelengths are
different.

Radio and TV signals can freely propagate through space and be
received on an antenna on top of your home, or can be conducted
through a coaxial cable to our homes. At shorter wavelengths, X-rays
and gamma rays are more difficult to route, manage and control, but to
some extent that is being done today.

At any rate, the theory of the "luminiferous aether" was a good stab
during the 19th century of trying to explain effects that were not
then readily understood, but both the concepts of the Luminerous
Aether and its existance have long been disproven and replaced with
current and more productive concepts.

I hope that this post does not stomp on anyone's toes. It is intended
to be helpful.

Harry C.

[xray4abc]

Post by h***@yahoo.com

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."
Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Which explanation would have been more correct?
Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, if you take the time to understand the conventional concepts
of electromagnetic waves and the works of James Clerk Maxwell, there
is simply no reason to persit in the belief that a "luminiferous
aether" exists. Also, the aether theory has so many holes in it that
it can be dismissed out of hand. The most notable of these is the
notion that the aether can propagate transverse waves, somthing it
itself that would require the aether to be a solid, since only a solid
media transmits transverse waves, which makes it a bit difficult for
the earth to traverse through it.
Maxwell explained the concept of electromagnetic radiation over a
century ago, and Hertz confirmed it. When you understand it, which is
a rather trivial concept,

Electromagnetic radiation, a trivial concept ?????
Well, is it ? For who?
I recall a university professor saying that he was teaching
electromagnetism for over 30 years, yet he could not say that
he really understood what electromagnetic waves are !
And I incline to believe him. He was being honest .
There are modern works that show the e.m. radiation as
longitudinal waves too. Then, where is the triviality?

Post by h***@yahoo.com
there is simply no need for archaic aether
theory, except for the terminally brain dead. The basic concept is
rather simple: A time varying magnetic field gives rise to to an
associated time varying electric field. A time varying electric field,
in turn gives rise to a time varying magnetic field. Without even
knowing the mathematics, most people can realize that these two field
effects marry together, and give birth to electromagnetic radiation.
The rest is in the details although even the details are rather
general. Everything from radio waves, TV signals, light, x-rays, and
gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. All follow the same rules
and all have the identical mechanism. Only their wavelengths are
different.
Radio and TV signals can freely propagate through space and be
received on an antenna on top of your home, or can be conducted
through a coaxial cable to our homes. At shorter wavelengths, X-rays
and gamma rays are more difficult to route, manage and control, but to
some extent that is being done today.
At any rate, the theory of the "luminiferous aether" was a good stab
during the 19th century of trying to explain effects that were not
then readily understood, but both the concepts of the Luminerous
Aether and its existance have long been disproven and replaced with
current and more productive concepts.
I hope that this post does not stomp on anyone's toes. It is intended
to be helpful.
Harry C.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Regards, LL

[Carlos L]

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Pentcho, if you take the time to understand the conventional concepts
of electromagnetic waves and the works of James Clerk Maxwell, there
is simply no reason to persit in the belief that a "luminiferous
aether" exists. Also, the aether theory has so many holes in it that
it can be dismissed out of hand. The most notable of these is the
notion that the aether can propagate transverse waves, somthing it
itself that would require the aether to be a solid, since only a solid
media transmits transverse waves, which makes it a bit difficult for
the earth to traverse through it.
[...]
I hope that this post does not stomp on anyone's toes. It is intended
to be helpful.
Harry C

Harry, a big hole in mainstream Physics is to argue that the aether
must be a solid because light produces transversal forces. (I agree
that AFAIK only a solid can propagate *standard transversal waves* but
this is not important once it is understood that light waves are not
standard transversal waves).

This is the abstract of a section of the "EVE model of the aether":
----------------
It has often been argued that if the aether is the medium for the
transmission of electromagnetic waves it must have the mechanical
properties of rigid solids since only then it could be able to sustain
transversal waves that are the basis to explain the polarization of
such waves. It is here argued that an aether of aetherinos (that has
more in common with a rarefied gas than with a solid) is also able to
exert transversal forces and to implement the polarization of
electromagnetic waves. An aetherino travelling from an emitter E to a
detector R along the straight line E-R imparts an impulse i to the
detector. This impulse will also have a component perpendicular to E-R
if the elementary detector (i.e. an electron of the detector) is
itself moving with a non zero component of its velocity perpendicular
to E-R. It is here argued that in this model of the aether this
transversal impulse is not trivial since it has the following two
characteristics: 1) The transversal impulses suffered by an
elementary detector from a flow of aetherinos modulated in such a way
that the density of aetherinos in the flow is periodically smaller and
bigger than that of the standard undisturbed aether, will alternately
(with the same periodicity of the aetherino's flow) increase and
decrease the transversal velocity of the target electron. 2) Such
resonance will be favoured if the transversal direction is coincident
with the preferred direction in which the charges of the emitter
oscillate because it is along such direction that the density gradient
of aetherinos manifests itself at the detector.
----------------

http://www.ineunte.com/model/EVE7/Eve7.htm

I also hope that this post does not stump on anyone's toes. It is
intended to be helpful.

Carlos L

[Dono]

On Nov 15, 5:47 pm, Carlos L <***@lix.intercom.es> wrote:
<...>

Loading Image...

[Laurent]

Post by Carlos L

Post by h***@yahoo.com
Pentcho, if you take the time to understand the conventional concepts
of electromagnetic waves and the works of James Clerk Maxwell, there
is simply no reason to persit in the belief that a "luminiferous
aether" exists. Also, the aether theory has so many holes in it that
it can be dismissed out of hand. The most notable of these is the
notion that the aether can propagate transverse waves, somthing it
itself that would require the aether to be a solid, since only a solid
media transmits transverse waves, which makes it a bit difficult for
the earth to traverse through it.
[...]
I hope that this post does not stomp on anyone's toes. It is intended
to be helpful.
Harry C

Harry, a big hole in mainstream Physics is to argue that the aether
must be a solid because light produces transversal forces. (I agree
that AFAIK only a solid can propagate *standard transversal waves* but
this is not important once it is understood that light waves are not
standard transversal waves).
----------------
It has often been argued that if the aether is the medium for the
transmission of electromagnetic waves it must have the mechanical
properties of rigid solids since only then it could be able to sustain
transversal waves that are the basis to explain the polarization of
such waves. It is here argued that an aether of aetherinos (that has
more in common with a rarefied gas than with a solid) is also able to
exert transversal forces and to implement the polarization of
electromagnetic waves. An aetherino travelling from an emitter E to a
detector R along the straight line E-R imparts an impulse i to the
detector. This impulse will also have a component perpendicular to E-R
if the elementary detector (i.e. an electron of the detector) is
itself moving with a non zero component of its velocity perpendicular
to E-R. It is here argued that in this model of the aether this
transversal impulse is not trivial since it has the following two
characteristics: 1) The transversal impulses suffered by an
elementary detector from a flow of aetherinos modulated in such a way
that the density of aetherinos in the flow is periodically smaller and
bigger than that of the standard undisturbed aether, will alternately
(with the same periodicity of the aetherino's flow) increase and
decrease the transversal velocity of the target electron. 2) Such
resonance will be favoured if the transversal direction is coincident
with the preferred direction in which the charges of the emitter
oscillate because it is along such direction that the density gradient
of aetherinos manifests itself at the detector.
----------------
http://www.ineunte.com/model/EVE7/Eve7.htm
I also hope that this post does not stump on anyone's toes. It is
intended to be helpful.
Carlos L

The aether is but does not exist as matter or anything else. Light
creates spacetime as it propagates.

--
Laurent