Lorentz Ether Theory
gu...@hotmail.com
quote:" Lorentz introduced a strict separation between matter
(electrons) and ether, whereby in his model the ether is completely
motionless"
-----------------
Rather primitive "motionless ether" deduction:
If glass or air moves at high speeds, light's velocity will remain
constant in both directions inside these mediums.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191925756....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Too primitive. Easy to understand with one of the simplest models, as used
by for example Michelson: just assume that the index of refraction is due to
a retardation (by for example a time dt) in each air molecule.
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
Dear Harry, may I call u Harry,
LET is based on electromagnetic principles and NOT the classical
mechanical Ether principles which includes particles and your air
molecule above.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191930831....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Do you think that molecules don't exist in ether theories? :-)))
gu...@hotmail.com
Do you think the topic of this post is about ether theorie(s) or
perhaps Lorentz Ether Theory? :-(((
gu...@hotmail.com
Once again, your "mechanical" molecular behiavor applies to older
mechanical ether theories but not to Lorentz Ether Theory which is
based on electromagnetic principles, NOT MECHANICAL PRINCIPALS.
Do you need a quote???
Well then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
quote: "The condition of this ether can be described by the electric
field E and the magnetic field H, whereby these fields can be seen as
vibrations in the ether caused by the charges of the electrons. Thus
an electromagnetic ether *****replaces the older mechanical ether
models.************ " end quote.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191932057....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Such a thing as "Lorentz Ether Theory" never existed; but in any case, an
"ether theory" is certainly an ether theory! :)))
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191932604.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Now explain how electrons can exist in such an ether, if no particles are
allowed to exist. ;-)
gu...@hotmail.com
Firstly please "remember" who is educating who (otherwise you'll keep
complaining).
What "they" (not me) mean in "their" definition above, is that the
ether behaves as an electromagnetic phenomena rather than
mechanical(particle) phenomena. Meaning "they" believe, the ether is
not made up of any micro-substances we call particle (or your
molecule) but the ether CAN CARRY (or allow the existance of) these
particles.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191938585.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Asking questions to force people to use their brain is an important means of
educating people.
> What "they" (not me) mean in "their" definition above, is that the
> ether behaves as an electromagnetic phenomena rather than
> mechanical(particle) phenomena. Meaning "they" believe, the ether is
> not made up of any micro-substances we call particle (or your
> molecule) but the ether CAN CARRY (or allow the existance of) these
> particles.
Now you're making progress! Just read again my answer to your question, and
you may understand it this time.
Good luck,
Harald
Dono
Actually you have it incomplete. Why light speed wrt glass is c/n in
all directions, if the medium (glass) movew with respect to an
observer with speed v, the observer will measure uneven speeds in the
longitudinal direction:
V1=(c/n+v)/(1+cv/n)
and
V2=(c/n-v)/(1-cv/n)
At a 90 dgree direction the speed is yet different:
V3=c/(n*gamma)
gu...@hotmail.com
You are PATHETIC IDIOT. GO TROLL and HECKLE SOMEONE ELSE.
DUMMY I just told you you can't compare your stupid water molecule to
a Lorentz' electromagnetic Ether which is the topic of this post.
gu...@hotmail.com
WELL!!!! then who know but Dono! Now Dono can hold up a glass as light
travels in Relativity and he can figure out if he and the glass are in
motion or in an ABSOLUTE rest frame.
WHO KNOW THAT DONO SOLVED RELATIVITY, NOT ME, NO NO.
Go back to schoolo dono.
gu...@hotmail.com
Dono
No, stooopid, I explained to you what an osrver moving with speed v
relative to the glass would neasure. Trying to teach you a little
relativity, I obviously failed :-)
>
> WHO KNOW THAT DONO SOLVED RELATIVITY, NOT ME, NO NO.
>
> Go back to schoolo dono.
Dono why you are so stooopid, goose :-)
gu...@hotmail.com
Similar to above, one observer is at rest and a platform with air
(instead of glass) is moving at speed v.
Relativity does not say that the observer at rest will notice light's
group speed different depending on the direction of the light on this
platform in motion, which will be substantial and not a factor to
neglect.
-------------------------------
As well all sources including the molecules of air (or glass) must
absorb and re-emit light at "c" only.
Therefore in any medium only the light's group velocity changes, for
it to vary "depending" on the direction of "v" there must be:
1. more(or less) molecules absorbing and re-emitting
2. or a different angle between absorption and re-emission
3. or a different time delay between molecule absorption and re-
emission.
Plants can age (or dry-up) due to photosynthesis of their molecules.
If the rate of photosynthesis changes with the rate the plant's
molecules absorp and re-emit light, then an observer at rest will
notice two plants on a moving platform to age (or dry-up) differently
depending on their orientation with the light source(the sun) where as
the moving observer will observe no age difference = impossible.
To observer at rest:
Plant #1, hello I'm absorbing at speed "c", time delay 3 nanoseconds,
and then re-emitting light(heat) at speed "c".
Plant #2, hello I'm absorbing at speed "c", time delay 800 nanoseconds
and then re-emitting light(heat) at speed "c".
>
>
> > WHO KNOW THAT DONO SOLVED RELATIVITY, NOT ME, NO NO.
>
> > Go back to schoolo dono.
>
> Dono why you are so stooopid, goose :-)-
Dono
[snip crap]
I snipped your crap, feel free to continue posting imbecilities.
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191945112.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...[...]
>> Now you're making progress! Just read again my answer to your question,
>> and
>> you may understand it this time.
>> Good luck,
>> Harald-
>
> You are PATHETIC IDIOT. GO TROLL and HECKLE SOMEONE ELSE.
>
> DUMMY I just told you you can't compare your stupid water molecule to
> a Lorentz' electromagnetic Ether which is the topic of this post.
>
You don't WANT to learn.
For once I fully agree with Dono: Feel free to continue posting
imbecilities.
Harald
gu...@hotmail.com
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> I snipped your crap, feel free to continue posting imbecilities.
I DONO but who know maybe DONO.
Dono at rest & glass moving = Relativity observation
Dono say in one direction, he see light group velocity > c/n and
opposite < c/n.
------------------------
Group velocity important Dono for it represents total enery
emitted(passing through) including radiation decay (moving glass same
as moving platform with air atmosphere).
Two different decay rates = two different aging rates.
Relativity never mentions AGE DIFFERENCE on the ***SAME*** PLATFORM.
Who know DONO, poor DONO, maybe play with Yoyo!
harry
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192002755.0...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Good riddance! :)))
Dono
> On Oct 9, 6:09 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 12:29 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com"
>
> > I snipped your crap, feel free to continue posting imbecilities.
>
> I DONO but who know maybe DONO.
>
> Dono at rest & glass moving = Relativity observation
>
> Dono say in one direction, he see light group velocity > c/n and
> opposite < c/n.
>
> ------------------------
Not group velocity (you dono what it is). Light speed is different in
the two directions because the light speed wrt glass is the same (c/n)
in ALL directions.
[snip crap]
.
>
> Who know DONO, poor DONO, maybe play with Yoyo!
Yes, I like playing yoyo with your brain. It is so easy ! :-)
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 10, 1:03 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 6:09 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 12:29 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > I snipped your crap, feel free to continue posting imbecilities.
>
> > I DONO but who know maybe DONO.
>
> > Dono at rest & glass moving = Relativity observation
>
> > Dono say in one direction, he see light group velocity > c/n and
> > opposite < c/n.
>
> > ------------------------
>
> Not group velocity (you dono what it is).
DONO must understand that group velocity affects decay rate = life
rate
Androcles
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191925756....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Rather obvious refutation:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Sagnac-Interferometer.png/300px-Sagnac-Interferometer.png
How it works:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
Androcles
"harry" <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1191927...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch...
:
: <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1191925756....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
: > quote:" Lorentz introduced a strict separation between matter
: > (electrons) and ether, whereby in his model the ether is completely
: > motionless"
: >
: > -----------------
: > Rather primitive "motionless ether" deduction:
: >
: > If glass or air moves at high speeds, light's velocity will remain
: > constant in both directions inside these mediums.
:
: Too primitive.
So are you.
gu...@hotmail.com
> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191925756....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> : quote:" Lorentz introduced a strict separation between matter
> : (electrons) and ether, whereby in his model the ether is completely
> : motionless"
> :
> : -----------------
> : Rather primitive "motionless ether" deduction:
> :
> : If glass or air moves at high speeds, light's velocity will remain
> : constant in both directions inside these mediums.
>
> Rather obvious refutation:
What's the equation for the light's change in speed
Androcles
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192104652....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The Sagnac effect is the Coriolis effect.
(2pi+alpha)R/ (c+v) = t
(2pi-alpha)R/ (c-v) = t
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=78616&rendTypeId=4
In case you are wondering, Sagnac works just fine in air.
Kiss your aether goodbye.
gu...@hotmail.com
> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192104652....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> : On Oct 10, 5:16 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:: > <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> : >
> : >news:1191925756....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> : > :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> : > : quote:" Lorentz introduced a strict separation between matter
> : > : (electrons) and ether, whereby in his model the ether is completely
> : > : motionless"
> : > :
> : > : -----------------
> : > : Rather primitive "motionless ether" deduction:
> : > :
> : > : If glass or air moves at high speeds, light's velocity will remain
> : > : constant in both directions inside these mediums.
> : >
> : > Rather obvious refutation:
> : >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Sagnac-Inter...
> : >
> : > How it works:
> : > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
> :
> : What's the equation for the light's change in speed
> V = c+v.
> The Sagnac effect is the Coriolis effect.
> (2pi+alpha)R/ (c+v) = t
> (2pi-alpha)R/ (c-v) = t
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
> http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=78616&rendTypeId=4
>
Sorry, 1st time I read about Sagnac, and there's too many vague
factors.
1. I read it's a laser ring, how do the atoms absorb and re-emit laser
light in circles instead of straight motion.
(Also I would think a perfect circle is impossible to achieve?)
2. Doesn't atom absorbption and re-emission deal with group velocity
only?
3. Isn't group velocity an average velocity, if so how would they get
wavelengths in phase in order to time the beam?
4. c+v = superluminal velocity = impossible as "they" say. unless for
very short wavelength measurements?
5. c+v = c ...if c is maximum possible velocity?
6. How can they arrive at the same time, if one beam has farther to
travel....unless the difference in speed matches exactly the
difference in distance....does it?
7. c+v is impossible unless you or they mean: (c+v)/n versus (c-v)/n
where n is the indice of refraction?
Androcles
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192118912.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Hahaha! Georges Sagnac's experiment took place in 1913,
long before lasers. Your aether is a "vague factor".
: (Also I would think a perfect circle is impossible to achieve?)
FOGs (That's fibre optic gyroscopes) and ring laser gyroscopes
are all over the internet, son. We navigate planes with them.
: 2. Doesn't atom absorbption and re-emission deal with group velocity
: only?
That's got nothing to do with air, water, glass, aether or Sagnac. You've
been listening to crackpots.
: 3. Isn't group velocity an average velocity, if so how would they get
: wavelengths in phase in order to time the beam?
There are no "wavelengths". Light is photons, just like rain is water.
What's the group velocity of raindrops?
How would you time a raindrop?
: 4. c+v = superluminal velocity = impossible as "they" say.
: unless for
: very short wavelength measurements?
"They" are idiots. All velocities are relative to SOME reference.
My car travels at 70 mph relative to the road, but it goes all
the way around the sun at 66,600 mph. Good gas milage, huh?
: 5. c+v = c ...if c is maximum possible velocity?
The idiot Einstein is responsible for that crap.
: 6. How can they arrive at the same time, if one beam has farther to
: travel....unless the difference in speed matches exactly the
: difference in distance....does it?
speed = distance ..... divided by time.
If I travel at 70 mph then I expect to travel 35 miles in 30 minutes.
Waddya know, that's just what happens.
: 7. c+v is impossible unless you or they mean: (c+v)/n versus (c-v)/n
: where n is the indice of refraction?
No, I mean that if I walk down the aisle of a plane at 3 mph and the
plane moves at 500 mph then I move at 503 mph relative to the ground.
How simple is that?
And if the plane has a light at back an the light moves down
the plane then it moves are 6+500mph relative to the ground.
: > In case you are wondering, Sagnac works just fine in air.
: > Kiss your aether goodbye.
:
: