Light is a dual force both electric and magnetic
micro...@hotmail.com
Light or Electromagnetic Order is part of physics and it is important.
Light has electric energy not kinetic. If it had kindetic energy there
would be only one colour of light for the spectrum.
Mitch Raemsch; Light order over matter
Inertial
news:d2165d50-a710-4ff1...@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>
You do realise that you're about a century behind everyone else in terms of
physics
Salmon Egg
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
If x is to physics as astrology is to astronomy, then the OP would be an
expert in x.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
Jos Bergervoet
> In article<4e30a214$0$30003$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com>,
> "Inertial"<relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:d2165d50-a710-4ff1...@j9g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> You do realise that you're about a century behind everyone else in terms of
>> physics
>
> If x is to physics as astrology is to astronomy, then the OP would be an
> expert in x.
Of course! It is Mitch, this OP! A very clever person, if I may
say so. And an expert in many things. I think Mitch is a general
expert!
We should be proud to have him here, Salmon. People like Mitch
make this newsgroup what it is..
(J)
Vilas Tamhane
wrote:
First you (and everybody else) have to decide if light is photon
particles or electromagnetic wave. Both cannot be true.
Inertial
news:e25a2d97-aa9d-4e07...@z14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
It is neither just a particle, nor just a wave .. though it is wave-like and
particle-like. You seem to think that particle or wave are the only two
mutually exclusive possibilities. Perhaps you should study quantum physics
before posting such statements.
PD
Or entertain the notion that it is a third kind of entity, neither
particle nor wave, but exhibiting some of the properties of both. This
is in fact our present understanding.
hanson
Paul "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> Raemsch microm2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It is dual force wave. Two forces acting together are better than one.
>>> Light or Electromagnetic Order is part of physics and it is important.
>>> Light has electric energy not kinetic. If it had kindetic energy there
>>> would be only one colour of light for the spectrum.
>>> Mitch Raemsch; Light order over matter
>>
>> First you (and everybody else) have to decide if light is photon
>> particles or electromagnetic wave. Both cannot be true.
>
Paul "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or entertain the notion that it is a third kind of entity, neither
> particle nor wave, but exhibiting some of the properties of both. This is
> in fact our present understanding.
>
hanson wrote:
So, one can make the case that:
=1= If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
=2= If light consists of energy packets (E=hf) then these
"balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
Which one is it?... 1 or 2?....
>
If it's both, or neither, what kind of "animal" are you,
Paul, talking about by that "third kind of entity"?
It is not unreasonable to propose that, Paul.
Here is an artist's notion of /about
"What you see is NOT what you get"
<http://carnet.simplicitevolontaire.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Whats_it_Made_Of-pps.pps>
(1- it takes a while to load 2- left click on/in the pix...)
PD
>
>>
> hanson wrote:
> So, one can make the case that:
> =1= If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
> by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
Nope. Waves do not "need a medium by definition". You have the wrong
definition of waves. Waves are solutions of the wave equation -- period
-- with or without a medium. The wave equation is the form of the laws
of physics pertaining to some systems without a medium at all, and it is
predicted AND observed in those systems that waves appear despite the
lack of a medium.
> =2= If light consists of energy packets (E=hf) then these
> "balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
And we know from direct observation that light does not behave
ballistically.
> Which one is it?... 1 or 2?....
Well, observation of light rules out both of the categories that you've
described above, and so there you are -- at a loss for what to do,
unless you consider a third possibility.
>>
> If it's both, or neither, what kind of "animal" are you,
> Paul, talking about by that "third kind of entity"?
It's neither. It's a third kind of entity -- called a quantum field.
Quantum fields are a class of *physical* entities that exhibit some wave
and some particle properties but are neither particles nor waves. Since
this is a very prevalent category in nature, it would be of interest to
you I'd think to understand how quantum fields behave.
mpc755
> On 7/29/2011 10:27 AM, hanson wrote:
>
> Nope. Waves do not "need a medium by definition". You have the wrong
> definition of waves. Waves are solutions of the wave equation -- period
> -- with or without a medium. The wave equation is the form of the laws
> of physics pertaining to some systems without a medium at all, and it is
> predicted AND observed in those systems that waves appear despite the
> lack of a medium.
>
>
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#The_Pilot_Wave_theory
"It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of quantum
mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current
experimental evidence to the same extent as the other interpretations."
Szczepan Bialek
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:4e32c5fe$0$29979$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
And you should read the Faraday's letter:
http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
S*
PD
>>
>> It is neither just a particle, nor just a wave .. though it is wave-like
>> and particle-like. You seem to think that particle or wave are the only
>> two mutually exclusive possibilities. Perhaps you should study quantum
>> physics before posting such statements.
>
> And you should read the Faraday's letter:
> http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
>
> Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
> But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
> damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
> S*
Faraday was dead long before any of the observations that ruled out the
classical notions were made.
People can come up with all sorts of perfectly self-consistent ideas
that sound reasonably compelling. The second they come up against
observations to the contrary, those ideas are in trouble.
mpc755
The following is the classical explanation of wave-particle duality.
"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#The_Pilot_Wave_theory
"It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of quantum
mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current
experimental evidence to the same extent as the other interpretations."
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
hanson
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
... hanson wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> So, one can make the case that:
>> =1= If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
>> by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
>
> Nope. Waves do not "need a medium by definition".
... ahahahaha... and Paul, your knee just jerkede without
moving... ahahahaha....
>
Paul wrote:
>You have the wrong definition of waves. Waves are solutions of the wave
>equation -- period -- with or without a medium. The wave equation is the
>form of the laws of physics pertaining to > some systems without a medium
>at all, and it is predicted AND observed in those systems that waves appear
>despite the lack of a medium.
>
.... ahahaha... Paul, you are getting better and better:
... pulling definitions out of your hat to suit your purposes
and mentioning that your need to selected domains and
observations which fit that need... Theoretical physics
is wonderful, isn't it... Theoretical physics is the
crack-pottery by crackpots who call others cranks....
ahahahaha....
>
hanson wrote:
>> =2= If light consists of energy packets (E=hf) then these
>> "balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
>
> And we know from direct observation that light does not behave
> ballistically.
>
Paul, say "we know from SOME direct observation", else
you'll have to make yet another one of your side-step tangos.
hanson wrote:
>> Which one is it?... 1 or 2?....
>
Paul wrote:
> Well, observation of light rules out both of the categories that you've
> described above, and so there you are -- at a loss for what to do, unless
> you consider a third possibility.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha.. Did you hear yourself, Paul?... ahahaha...
Your belletristics are awesome. Your logic not so much.
>>>
hanson wrote:
>> If it's both, or neither, what kind of "animal" are you,
>> Paul, talking about by that "third kind of entity"?
>
Paul wrote:
> It's neither. It's a third kind of entity -- called a quantum field.
> Quantum fields are a class of *physical* entities that exhibit some wave
> and some particle properties but are neither particles nor waves. Since
> this is a very prevalent category in nature, it would be of interest to
> you I'd think to understand how quantum fields behave.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Yeah, yeah... ahahahaha... But "prevalent"
only in the nature of the mind of mental masturbators.
Theoretical physics makes up all kinds of such useless
and irrational math that suggests stuff that's not there.. and
is only understandable to the one who cooks up that crap...
and by others who who just parrot it hoping to gain fame
by association... in the eyes of some gullible mooches
... ahahaha...ahaha... Too much!... arXiv is full o'crap
like that... "where prodigies go to die"... ahahaha...
PD
>
> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... hanson wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>> hanson wrote:
>>> So, one can make the case that:
>>> =1= If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
>>> by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
>>
> Paul wrote:
>> Nope. Waves do not "need a medium by definition".
> hanson wrote:
> ... ahahahaha... and Paul, your knee just jerkede without
> moving... ahahahaha....
Well, you can scoff all you want, hanson, but you're still wrong.
>>
> Paul wrote:
>> You have the wrong definition of waves. Waves are solutions of the
>> wave equation -- period -- with or without a medium. The wave equation
>> is the form of the laws of physics pertaining to > some systems
>> without a medium at all, and it is predicted AND observed in those
>> systems that waves appear despite the lack of a medium.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> .... ahahaha... Paul, you are getting better and better:
> ... pulling definitions out of your hat to suit your purposes
Not at all. This has been known for almost a century. No one is pulling
anything out of a hat. Just because it's stunning news to you doesn't
mean a thing.
If your complaint is, "Well, then why didn't anyone tell me that in high
school???" take that up with your high school science teachers.
> and mentioning that your need to selected domains and
> observations which fit that need... Theoretical physics
> is wonderful, isn't it... Theoretical physics is the
> crack-pottery by crackpots who call others cranks....
> ahahahaha....
>>
> hanson wrote:
>>> =2= If light consists of energy packets (E=hf) then these
>>> "balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
>>
> Paul wrote:
>> And we know from direct observation that light does not behave
>> ballistically.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Paul, say "we know from SOME direct observation", else
> you'll have to make yet another one of your side-step tangos.
Some observations is all you need to rule out a theory.
>
> hanson wrote:
>>> Which one is it?... 1 or 2?....
>>
> Paul wrote:
>> Well, observation of light rules out both of the categories that
>> you've described above, and so there you are -- at a loss for what to
>> do, unless you consider a third possibility.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> ... ahahahaha.. Did you hear yourself, Paul?... ahahaha...
> Your belletristics are awesome. Your logic not so much.
>>>>
> hanson wrote:
>>> If it's both, or neither, what kind of "animal" are you,
>>> Paul, talking about by that "third kind of entity"?
>>
> Paul wrote:
>> It's neither. It's a third kind of entity -- called a quantum field.
>> Quantum fields are a class of *physical* entities that exhibit some
>> wave and some particle properties but are neither particles nor waves.
>> Since this is a very prevalent category in nature, it would be of
>> interest to you I'd think to understand how quantum fields behave.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... Yeah, yeah... ahahahaha... But "prevalent"
> only in the nature of the mind of mental masturbators.
Not at all. It's prevalent in NATURE. Whether it is prevalent in the
minds of people like you who heard nothing about this in high school is
a completely different matter.
> Theoretical physics makes up all kinds of such useless
> and irrational math that suggests stuff that's not there..
This isn't math. This is a *physical* idea, just different than the two
you were raised with. So?
> and
> is only understandable to the one who cooks up that crap...
Actually, it's pretty easily understandable. Would you like some
introductory reading material about quantum fields? All you'd have to do
is decide that you're interested in learning about it. If you're not
interested, I'm sure not going to force it on you.
hanson
gave his usual street corner performance with a set
of side-step tangos and cranked himself some more,
but never produced a single example of what his
advertised 3rd state of a photon is... except for him
fielding that it is a quantum field... BFD... ahahaha...
>
>
>> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... hanson wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hanson wrote:
>>>> So, one can make the case that:
>>>> =1= If light consists of waves, then light needs a medium
>>>> by definition.... (for making waves in/of the medium)
>>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Nope. Waves do not "need a medium by definition".
>> hanson wrote:
>> ... ahahahaha... and Paul, your knee just jerkede without
>> moving... ahahahaha....
>
> Well, you can scoff all you want, hanson, but you're still wrong.
>>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> You have the wrong definition of waves. Waves are solutions of the
>>> wave equation -- period -- with or without a medium. The wave equation
>>> is the form of the laws of physics pertaining to some systems
>>> without a medium at all, and it is predicted AND observed in those
>>> systems that waves appear despite the lack of a medium.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> .... ahahaha... Paul, you are getting better and better:
>> ... pulling definitions out of your hat to suit your purposes
>
> Not at all. This has been known for almost a century. No one is pulling
> anything out of a hat. Just because it's stunning news to you doesn't mean
> a thing.
> If your complaint is, "Well, then why didn't anyone tell me that in high
> school???" take that up with your high school science teachers.
>
>> and mentioning that your need to selected domains and
>> observations which fit that need... Theoretical physics
>> is wonderful, isn't it... Theoretical physics is the
>> crack-pottery by crackpots who call others cranks....
>> ahahahaha....
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>>>> =2= If light consists of energy packets (E=hf) then these
>>>> "balls" of light are ballistic and need no medium.
>>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> And we know from direct observation that light does not behave
>>> ballistically.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Paul, say "we know from SOME direct observation", else
>> you'll have to make yet another one of your side-step tangos.
>
> Some observations is all you need to rule out a theory.
>>
>> hanson wrote:
>>>> Which one is it?... 1 or 2?....
>>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Well, observation of light rules out both of the categories that
>>> you've described above, and so there you are -- at a loss for what to
>>> do, unless you consider a third possibility.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> ... ahahahaha.. Did you hear yourself, Paul?... ahahaha...
>> Your belletristics are awesome. Your logic not so much.
>>>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>>>> If it's both, or neither, what kind of "animal" are you,
>>>> Paul, talking about by that "third kind of entity"?
>>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> It's neither. It's a third kind of entity -- called a quantum field.
>>> Quantum fields are a class of *physical* entities that exhibit some
>>> wave and some particle properties but are neither particles nor waves.
>>> Since this is a very prevalent category in nature, it would be of
>>> interest to you I'd think to understand how quantum fields behave.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> ahahahaha... Yeah, yeah... ahahahaha... But "prevalent"
>> only in the nature of the mind of mental masturbators.
>
> Not at all. It's prevalent in NATURE. Whether it is prevalent in the minds
> of people like you who heard nothing about this in high school is a
> completely different matter.
>
>> Theoretical physics makes up all kinds of such useless
>> and irrational math that suggests stuff that's not there..
>
> This isn't math. This is a *physical* idea, just different than the two
> you were raised with. So?
>
>> and
>> is only understandable to the one who cooks up that crap...
>
> Actually, it's pretty easily understandable. Would you like some
> introductory reading material about quantum fields? All you'd have to do
> is decide that you're interested in learning about it. If you're not
> interested, I'm sure not going to force it on you.
>
PD
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Paul cranked himself,
> gave his usual street corner performance with a set
> of side-step tangos and cranked himself some more,
> but never produced a single example of what his
> advertised 3rd state of a photon is... except for him
> fielding that it is a quantum field... BFD... ahahaha...
Oh dear. Still baiting/whining/simpering.
You want a *description* of the quantum field?
*Examples* are bosons and fermions, including photons, phonons,
electrons, quarks, pions, neutrinos, gluons, and so on.
Do you know what a field is?
A field is a property that maps across all space and time. Examples of
this are the gravitational field (or the spacetime metric, if you like),
the electric field, and others. What we know is that the behavior of
things depends on the value(s) of this field property where they are.
For example, a charged ping-pong ball is affected by the value of the
electric field at that location. Satellites are affected by the value of
the gravitational field where they are. Protons are affected by the
values of the gravitational, strong, weak, AND electromagnetic fields
where they are. On top of this, we know that fields have a reality in
themselves, because they bear energy -- the energy that is potentially
available to conversion to other energy forms is related to the strength
of the field in that location. Disturbances in the field that propagate
also carry momentum and angular momentum, and so in these ways the
fields are as real as baseballs and water in pipes that also carry
energy and momentum.
Now, even though a field is everywhere, a *disturbance* in the field --
a bump or a ripple or something like that -- may move through space with
time. So a radio tower has an electric and magnetic field everywhere
around it, but the *waves* from the radio tower propagate through space
and this is what we call electromagnetic radiation. Likewise true for
other fields, like the strong field or the gravitational field. The
FIELD doesn't move, but the DISTURBANCE in the field moves. This
behavior arises because of a fundamental property of ALL equilibrium
states in nature: in the vicinity of a stable equilibrium point,
everything -- and I mean EVERYTHING -- looks like a harmonic oscillator.
And neighboring harmonic oscillators with some coupling between them are
ALL described by the wave equation, which means you will ALWAYS see
waves in such states. This is why waves are so common in any field
situation.
So how small can this disturbance be? And does the energy carried get
delivered smoothly and continuously by the propagating disturbance? No,
and this is where quantum mechanics gets things right. In nature, what
we find in direct observation is that there is a minimum size to a
propagating wave in a field. This is what is called a quantum of the
field, or a quantum field. We know this because the energy and momentum
transported by field disturbances comes all at once in little lumps. Not
whooooooooooooosh but pop-pop-poppity-pop-pop-pop. And the energy
deposits are always localized, though the *collection* of deposits may
be distributed over the profile of the wave. There is nothing
"mathematical" about this. It is all the *physical* behavior of fields.
Finally, it turns out that things that we thought were particles are in
fact quanta of fields. That is, what we see as an electron is a quantum
of a charged electron field. And what we thought were waves (like sound
or radio, for example) are in fact delivered in quantum fields. So even
though many things may *appear* to be particles, they are in fact
quantum fields; and even things that *appear* to be waves are in fact
quantum fields.
I gather no one told you any of this in high school. That's a pity. Take
that up with your high school teachers.
Benj
> Of course! It is Mitch, this OP! A very clever person, if I may
> say so. And an expert in many things. I think Mitch is a general
> expert!
>
> We should be proud to have him here, Salmon. People like Mitch
> make this newsgroup what it is..
You said it Jos. I'm wondering why I haven't heard about his TWO Nobel
Prizes yer?
hanson
>
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 2:34 PM, hanson wrote:
>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Paul cranked himself,
>> gave his usual street corner performance with a set
>> of side-step tangos and cranked himself some more,
>> but never produced a single example of what his
>> advertised 3rd state of a photon is... except for him
>> fielding that it is a quantum field... BFD... ahahaha...
>
Paul wrote:
> Oh dear. Still baiting/whining/simpering.
> You want a *description* of the quantum field?
<snip lengthy high school text book cut& paste>
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... what "baiting"? BFD does not
mean "Big Field Description"... ahahaha... Just
illustrate your advertised 3rd state of what a
photon is, in an "it's like" fashion... You started
it and I even gave you Kudos and a link to
do so... But you preferred to make your
usual sidestep tango which you apparently
learned in high school....AHAHAHAHAHA...
Thanks for playing though. I'll catch you on
another round tomorrow or so.... ahahahanson
Inertial
news:4e32dcf6$0$3504$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
I'm not that interested in history, other than as a curiosity.
Physics has gone a long way since Faraday.
Szczepan Bialek
Uzytkownik "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:4e33355c$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
In details yes. But the fundamentals are the same.
Now you can read ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium
Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a
plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it the Sun's
magnetic field, is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the
Heliospheric current sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into
contact with a planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits
filamentation (such as in aurora).
Are pressure waves in plasma?
S*
>
Inertial
>Uzytkownik "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>news:4e33355c$0$29967$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
>> news:4e32dcf6$0$3504$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>
>>>And you should read the Faraday's letter:
>>>http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
>>
>> I'm not that interested in history, other than as a curiosity.
>> Physics has gone a long way since Faraday.
>
>In details yes. But the fundamentals are the same.
No .. they aren't. That's the point. Eg Maxwell's equations are (pretty
much) in the same form as Maxwell wrote them, but the underlying theory and
meaning .. the fundamentals .. is now is totally different.
Inertial
> Now you can read ): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium
That there is matter other than just the big lumps like the plane we live on
is not a surprise.
> Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics of
> a plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it the
> Sun's magnetic field,
That doesn't mean it is the medium for it
> is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the Heliospheric current
> sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into contact with a
> planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits filamentation
> (such as in aurora).
>
>Are pressure waves in plasma?
There could be .. I don't know enough plasma physics to comment further on
that. But that does not mean that plasma is luminiferous aether (ie the
medium in which light waves 'wave').
Szczepan Bialek
Tesla was an expert; He wrote:
""When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his
object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space,
called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet
solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the
hardest steel. He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed
them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory. But in
reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.
"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could
not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled
with a gaseous substance. On repeating the Hertz experiments with much
improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had
observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous
medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and
expansion. He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound
waves in the air."
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Maxwell's equations were wrote by Heaviside. His math is for Challis model.
Maxwell model was different:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Maxwell wrote:
". Professor Challis[20] conceives magnetism to consist in currents of a
fluid whose direction corresponds with that of the lines of magnetic force;
and electric currents, on this theory, are accompanied by, if not dependent
on, a rotatory motion of the fluid about the axes of the current. "
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be themselves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a
rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like
that of a screw, which connects a motion in a given direction along the axis
with a rotation in a given direction round it; and a motion of rotation,
though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself produce a
current in one direction along the axis rather than the other."
So "but the underlying theory and meaning .. the fundamentals .. is now is
totally different'" because it is Challis theory.
S*
>
Inertial
>
You're living in the past and ignorant of the present. Not a good position,
and one you should remedy.
Inertial
> Maxwell's equations were wrote by Heaviside. His math is for Challis
> model.
Blah blah.
All irrelevant to modern physics. Maxwell and Faraday had models that were
fundamentally different to those of modern physics.
Apparently you are still a century or so behind. Perhaps a better use of
your time would be to learn about the last century's advancements rather
than posting old quotes.
Bob Masta
<sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
>But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
>damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
>S*
Wouldn't the Michelson-Morely results rule out the "electron
sea" hypothesis?
Best regards,
Bob Masta
DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!
Szczepan Bialek
"Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:4e33e7d...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:16:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
> <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>>Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
>>But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
>>damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
>>S*
>
> Wouldn't the Michelson-Morely results rule out the "electron
> sea" hypothesis?
The "electron sea" is a Sun's product and rotate with it.
MM ruled out the solid like aether.
The rotating aether was proposed by Stokes and the solid by Lorentz.
Michelson-Morely results indicate Stokes as the winner.
S*
Inertial
>
>
> "Bob Masta" <N0S...@daqarta.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
> news:4e33e7d...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:16:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
>> <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>>Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
>>>But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
>>>damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
>>>S*
>>
>> Wouldn't the Michelson-Morely results rule out the "electron
>> sea" hypothesis?
>
>The "electron sea" is a Sun's product and rotate with it.
Which was ruled out by MM as well. You are incorrectly spouting history,
but you don't know your physics.
Szczepan Bialek
In the report is wrote: " Stokes has given a theory of aberration which
assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the
latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity have a
potential; but Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz
then proposes a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and
Fresnel, and assumes the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's
coefficient. If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work
that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to
Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also
fails."
See:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
In the suplement the Authors wrote: " But it is not impossible that at even
moderate distances above the level of the sea, at the top of an isolated
mountain peak, for instance, the relative motion might be perceptible in an
apparatus like that used in these experiments".
Now the Probe B satelites are a little above an isolated mountain peak. Do
you know the results?
S*
Inertial
> In the report is wrote
You really need to catch up with modern physics .. you're wasting your time
looking at theories that are refuted .. other than for historical interest
mpc755
The aether does not have to be at rest with respect to the surface of
the Earth. The aether needs to be in the same state, or almost the same
state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.
This is what the Gravity Probe B detected.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
the aether in neighboring places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
What is referred to as the spin detected in the Gravity Probe B
experiment is the direction of the force associated with the state of
displacement of the aether by the Earth. What is referred to as
frame dragging is the direction of the force associated with the state
of displacement of the aether as determined by its connections with the
Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
Szczepan Bialek
"mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:j13e7j$irv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
In 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the Earth movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
"On the other hand, the stationary ether concept (except Lorentz's ether)
contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus special relativity is the
only theory which explains both experiments[1]."
So the "ether" is in rest in orbit of the Sun and is not at rest throughout
the Earth's rotation about its axis.
It is the Sun's ether drag or rotational frame drag.
>
> This is what the Gravity Probe B detected.
>
> Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the aether
> as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
> aether in neighboring places.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>
> What is referred to as the spin detected in the Gravity Probe B experiment
> is the direction of the force associated with the state of displacement of
> the aether by the Earth. What is referred to as
> frame dragging is the direction of the force associated with the state of
> displacement of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth
> and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
In the space are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAGEOS
The Probe B and LAGEOS are above the poles. So they are able to detect the
"velocity potential" or "the relative motion might be perceptible".
In MM no relative motion but an apparatus "above the level of the sea"
should detect it.
I am asking about this. (As the relative motion or the frame drag).
The goal of Probe B is "This provided a test of general relativity,
gravitomagnetism and related models." In the related models can be also
Michelson prediction.
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Up to now the all facts are in agreement with the SR and the Stokes ether.
Sun's ether drag = rotational frame drag.
You wrote: "That doesn't mean it is the medium for it".
So you are not sure. Take than into consideration:
1. Heliosphere rotate with the Sun,
2. The Sun emits electrons (like the hot cathode),
3. The MM and Michelson - Gale experiments suggest that the Heliosphere is a
medium for the electric waves. The all modern measurements confirm the
Michelson's results.
Are you sure that the heliosphera is not a medium?
S*
mpc755
It is incorrect to ever think of the aether as being at rest with
respect to matter. That is what Einstein meant when he said, "The state
of the [ether] is at every place determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places".
What I have figured out is this is the state of displacement of the aether.
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth
is the state of displacement of the aether connected to and neighboring
the Earth.
The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Sun is
the state of displacement of the aether connected to and neighboring the
Sun.
The state of aether where the Michelson-Morly experiment and where the
Gravity Probe B experiments where performed is much more determined by
its connections with the Earth than it is the Sun.
> It is the Sun's ether drag or rotational frame drag.
>>
>> This is what the Gravity Probe B detected.
>>
>> Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the aether
>> as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the
>> aether in neighboring places.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>>
>> What is referred to as the spin detected in the Gravity Probe B experiment
>> is the direction of the force associated with the state of displacement of
>> the aether by the Earth. What is referred to as
>> frame dragging is the direction of the force associated with the state of
>> displacement of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth
>> and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
>
> In the space are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAGEOS
>
> The Probe B and LAGEOS are above the poles. So they are able to detect the
> "velocity potential" or "the relative motion might be perceptible".
> In MM no relative motion but an apparatus "above the level of the sea"
> should detect it.
>
> I am asking about this. (As the relative motion or the frame drag).
>
> The goal of Probe B is "This provided a test of general relativity,
> gravitomagnetism and related models." In the related models can be also
> Michelson prediction.
>
> S*
>
>
What all of these experiments are detecting is the state of displacement
of the aether.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was meant to detect the 'aether wind'.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was meant to detect the stationary
aether of Lorentz.
The aether of relativity is not stationary. The aether of relativity is
mobile. The state of the aether of relativity is the state of
displacement of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
the aether in neighboring places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
What you are seeing in the video above is the state of the aether. The
video could represent anytime of the year. The video could represent
anywhere the Earth could be in orbit of the Sun.
The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state,
or almost the same state, throughout its rotation about its axis and
orbit of the Sun. That is the reason for the near-null result of the MMX
experiment.
The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth does not
change with respect to the Earth. That does not mean the aether is at
rest with respect to the Earth.
The state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Sun does not
change with respect to the Sun. That does not mean the aether is at rest
with respect to the Sun.
mpc755
To understand the aether of relativity you must understand the
difference between 'a change in the state of' and 'being at rest with
respect to'.
As long as the aether remains in the same state as the Earth rotates on
its axis and orbits the Sun the Michelson-Morley experiment will have a
near-null result.
This does not imply the aether is at rest with respect to the Earth.
Think of a mesh bag full of marbles placed into and spinning in a tank
full of a frictionless superfluid. The state of the frictionless
superfluid will be the same with respect to the marbles. The
frictionless superfluid will not be at rest with respect to the marbles.
As the marbles spin in the frictionless superfluid the state of the
frictionless superfluid with respect to the marbles stays the same even
though the marbles are spinning in the frictionless superfluid.
The marbles and the frictionless superfluid are not at rest with respect
to one another. However, the marbles are always in the same state with
respect to the frictionless superfluid. The state of which is the state
of displacement of the frictionless superfluid.
Inertial
>
>
> "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:4e353ba1$0$29990$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
>> news:4e3514c8$0$2504$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>> In the report is wrote
>>
>> You really need to catch up with modern physics .. you're wasting your
>> time looking at theories that are refuted .. other than for historical
>> interest
>
>Up to now the all facts are in agreement with the SR and the Stokes ether.
If your now is a century ago perhaps
>Sun's ether drag = rotational frame drag.
>
>You wrote: "That doesn't mean it is the medium for it".
That's right
> So you are not sure.
No .. I am sure. What you said provides no reason or evidence or logical
reason to assume it is the medium. Quite the opposite
> Take than into consideration:
Facts.
> 1. Heliosphere rotate with the Sun,
Irrelevant
> 2. The Sun emits electrons (like the hot cathode),
Irrelevant
>3. The MM and Michelson - Gale experiments suggest that the Heliosphere is
>a medium for the electric waves.
No .. they don't at all. The suggest there is NO medium.
> The all modern measurements confirm the Michelson's results.
Irrelevant
>Are you sure that the heliosphera is not a medium?
It is NOT the medium for light. MM and subsequent experiments refute a
ponderable medium, whether it rotates with the sun or not. As does common
sense ... if that was the medium for light, then we would not be able to see
stars and galaxies from well outside the heliosphere.
Szczepan Bialek
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:4e3590fe$0$2491$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>
>>
>> "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomosci
>> news:4e353ba1$0$29990$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
>>> news:4e3514c8$0$2504$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>>>> In the report is wrote
>>>
>>> You really need to catch up with modern physics .. you're wasting your
>>> time looking at theories that are refuted .. other than for historical
>>> interest
>>
>>Up to now the all facts are in agreement with the SR and the Stokes ether.
>
> If your now is a century ago perhaps
>
>>Sun's ether drag = rotational frame drag.
>>
>>You wrote: "That doesn't mean it is the medium for it".
>
> That's right
>
>> So you are not sure.
>
> No .. I am sure. What you said provides no reason or evidence or logical
> reason to assume it is the medium. Quite the opposite
>
>> Take than into consideration:
>
> Facts.
>
>> 1. Heliosphere rotate with the Sun,
>
> Irrelevant
>
>> 2. The Sun emits electrons (like the hot cathode),
>
> Irrelevant
Irrelevant = Yes.
>
>>3. The MM and Michelson - Gale experiments suggest that the Heliosphere is
>>a medium for the electric waves.
>
> No .. they don't at all. The suggest there is NO medium.
They stated that the Stokes is right. The Stokes ether rotate with the Sun.
"" Stokes has given a theory of aberration which
>> assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the
>> latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity have a
>> potential;"
>
>> The all modern measurements confirm the Michelson's results.
>
> Irrelevant
>
>>Are you sure that the heliosphera is not a medium?
>
> It is NOT the medium for light. MM and subsequent experiments refute a
> ponderable medium, whether it rotates with the sun or not. As does common
> sense ... if that was the medium for light, then we would not be able to
> see stars and galaxies from well outside the heliosphere.
For Faraday it had sense.
Before MM was Arago and many others. They prove that the medium rotate with
the Sun. What they were thinking about ponderability I do not know.
But L. Lorenz (not A.H. Lorentz) was opinion that the medium is a matter.
Outside the heliosphere starts Starsphere. All stars product electrons.
Stars produce medium for their waves. Has it sense?
S*
Szczepan Bialek
Uzytkownik "mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:j14coo$t63$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
"To understand the aether of relativity".
They who "understand" the "aether of relativity" take big afford to "prove"
that it is in full agreement with the Stokes ether.
I am writing about this because it is a surprise for me that Faraday
dismissed the solid aether and textbooks do not mention it.
There is that the transverse waves are Faraday's idea. Without any doubts it
is not true. But that was wrote the first time by Maxwell.
So the science history is also "interesting" and difficult to understand..
S*
Inertial
> They stated that the Stokes is right.
But we know better.
> The Stokes ether rotate with the Sun.
And that is refuted by MM style experiments. You have a century of physics
to catch up on.
[snip more pointless anachronism]
Inertial
>"To understand the aether of relativity".
>They who "understand" the "aether of relativity" take big afford to "prove"
>that it is in full agreement with the Stokes ether.
Wrong
>I am writing about this because it is a surprise for me that Faraday
>dismissed the solid aether and textbooks do not mention it.
>There is that the transverse waves are Faraday's idea. Without any doubts
>it is not true. But that was wrote the first time by Maxwell.
>So the science history is also "interesting" and difficult to understand..
And outdated.
mpc755
>
> "To understand the aether of relativity".
> They who "understand" the "aether of relativity" take big afford to "prove"
> that it is in full agreement with the Stokes ether.
>
> I am writing about this because it is a surprise for me that Faraday
> dismissed the solid aether and textbooks do not mention it.
> There is that the transverse waves are Faraday's idea. Without any doubts it
> is not true. But that was wrote the first time by Maxwell.
> So the science history is also "interesting" and difficult to understand..
> S*
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis#Partial_aether_dragging
"The other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the
aether is completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter."
The aether is not completely entrained.
mpc755
The MMX does not refute a completely entrained ether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#The_experiment
"The original Michelson�Morley experiment was useful for testing the
Lorentz�FitzGerald contraction hypothesis only."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis#Problems_of_complete_aether_dragging
"Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether
drift experiments (like the Michelson-Morley experiment)."
There are other experiments which show only a partially entrained ether.
"The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of
light."
It is the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment which refutes a completely
dragged ether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment
"According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the
idea of a stationary ether and special relativity, and it contradicts
the hypothesis of complete aether drag."
The aether is not completely dragged. The aether of relativity is
determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
the aether in neighboring places.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
What can be described as a partially entrained aether is more correctly
described as the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Szczepan Bialek
> Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> "To understand the aether of relativity".
>> They who "understand" the "aether of relativity" take big afford to
>> "prove"
>> that it is in full agreement with the Stokes ether.
>>
>> I am writing about this because it is a surprise for me that Faraday
>> dismissed the solid aether and textbooks do not mention it.
>> There is that the transverse waves are Faraday's idea. Without any doubts
>> it
>> is not true. But that was wrote the first time by Maxwell.
>> So the science history is also "interesting" and difficult to
>> understand..
>> S*
>>
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis#Partial_aether_dragging
>
> "The other one was proposed by George Stokes in 1845, in which the aether
> is completely entrained within or in the vicinity of matter."
I have took a glance into oryginal Stokes paper and letters Stokes-Kelvin.
Michelson also did it. He wrote: "" Stokes has given a theory of aberration
which
>> assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the
>> latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity have a
>> potential;"
At rest means that they travel together. If the Earth travel around the Sun
the ether do the same. Some wrote "The Sun ether drag". Rotational drag of
course.
>
> The aether is not completely entrained.
It is quite different problem. If the relative speed is zero no problem if
"The aether is not completely entrained".
>
> Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
> aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
> the aether in neighboring places.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
I am not interested in so sophisticated connections with the Earth. I know
that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun together with
helisphere.
I only do not know how shape have the heliosphere. The "velocity potential"
in the plane of planets orbit is known. But how it is in the direction of
the Sun axis.
That can be measured with the satellites with the inclination close to 90
deg.
It seems that today's writers do not read the most important originals.
S*
mpc755
>>
>> Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
>> aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
>> the aether in neighboring places.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>
> I am not interested in so sophisticated connections with the Earth.
It is not difficult to understand.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
properties of a solid.
What the following video starting at 0:45 and let me know what you don't
understand in terms of the video visualizing the state of the aether at
every place determined by its connections to the Earth and the state of
the aether neighboring the Earth.
shuba
> I only do not know how shape have the heliosphere.
It's not like that information is hard to find.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/heliosph.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016101807.htm
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Heliosphere.shtml
> It seems that today's writers do not read the most important
> originals.
Why are you spending time with discredited dragged aether theories
of the nineteenth century? I suggest you focus on learning about
special relativity instead. From a modern source.
---Tim Shuba---
mpc755
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
The halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the
aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced
the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether
looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
disk and halo formed.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections
with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
Inertial
> I have took a glance into oryginal Stokes paper and letters Stokes-Kelvin.
> Michelson also did it.
Ancient history
> At rest means that they travel together. If the Earth travel around the
> Sun the ether do the same. Some wrote "The Sun ether drag". Rotational
> drag of course.
The planets don't travel together with each other or with the heliosphere
>I am not interested in so sophisticated connections with the Earth. I know
>that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun together with
>helisphere.
That's just not right. They don't rotate together. They rotate at
different rates and with different amounts of eccentricity
>I only do not know how shape have the heliosphere. The "velocity potential"
>in the plane of planets orbit is known. But how it is in the direction of
>the Sun axis.
>That can be measured with the satellites with the inclination close to 90
>deg.
>
>It seems that today's writers do not read the most important originals.
It seems you have no idea of the last century of physics .. you are in no
position to talk about what "today's writers" have to say until you catch
up.
Androcles
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:j17bip$iqc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Why are you spending time with discredited relativity theories
of the twentieth century? I suggest you focus on learning about
real physics instead. From a math course.
Who wrote modern relativity, shithead? Shuba, I suppose.
Inertial
>
> Why are you spending time with discredited relativity theories
> of the twentieth century?
Only 'discredited' by morons like you .. and that is why your claims only
discredit yourself. Relativity is fully supported by experimental evidence.
> I suggest you focus on learning about
> real physics instead. From a math course.
You know next to nothing about math .. you can't do algebra, you can't do
logic, you don't even understand numbers. You'd flunk a first year math
course.
eric gisse
news:4e377fee$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
Do yourself a favor. Killfile Androcles every month when he changes his
email a time or five. Same for most of the other morons.
Inertial
news:Xns9F34F064A8547jo...@88.198.244.100...
> Do yourself a favor. Killfile Androcles every month when he changes his
> email a time or five. Same for most of the other morons.
But there is some fun in pointing out their mistakes and solving their
little 'challenges'
If I kill-file them all, there'd be nothing to reply to .. how dull. Its
very rare for there to be someone posting that is genuinely interested in
learning or has a genuine problem.
Szczepan Bialek
> "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> news:4e36e8a7$0$3501$6578...@news.neostrada.pl...
>> I have took a glance into oryginal Stokes paper and letters
>> Stokes-Kelvin.
>> Michelson also did it.
>
> Ancient history
>
>> At rest means that they travel together. If the Earth travel around the
>> Sun the ether do the same. Some wrote "The Sun ether drag". Rotational
>> drag of course.
>
> The planets don't travel together with each other or with the heliosphere
>
>>I am not interested in so sophisticated connections with the Earth. I know
>>that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun together with
>>helisphere.
>
> That's just not right. They don't rotate together. They rotate at
> different rates and with different amounts of eccentricity
The Suns rotate. The heliosphere rotate with everything what is suspendende
in it.
The rates and eccentricity are details.
>
>>I only do not know how shape have the heliosphere. The "velocity
>>potential" in the plane of planets orbit is known. But how it is in the
>>direction of the Sun axis.
>>That can be measured with the satellites with the inclination close to 90
>>deg.
>>
>>It seems that today's writers do not read the most important originals.
>
> It seems you have no idea of the last century of physics .. you are in no
> position to talk about what "today's writers" have to say until you catch
> up.
Tell me than who are the Authors of the last century of physics. Who is
better than Ampere, Faraday, Stokes and Tesla?
S*
>
Szczepan Bialek
> Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>>
>>> Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the
>>> aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of
>>> the aether in neighboring places.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>>
>> I am not interested in so sophisticated connections with the Earth.
>
> It is not difficult to understand.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with
> the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
> disregarding the causes which condition its state."
>
> The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state
> of displacement of the aether.
>
> The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
> properties of a solid.
Einstein also wrote: "It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the
fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must
be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible
in a fluid, but only in a solid."
Faraday explained polarisation of light without the transverse waves. Every
theories with the transverse waves are only math.
>
> What the following video starting at 0:45 and let me know what you don't
> understand in terms of the video visualizing the state of the aether at
> every place determined by its connections to the Earth and the state of
> the aether neighboring the Earth.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
The Earth rotate in the ether and it must have connections to the Earth.
But such Satellite can have many detectors. For example the detectors of
collisions with the dust. Such is able to measure the "velocity potential".
If the Solar System is a whirl than it has the velocity field. I am asking
about this.
S*
mpc755
>
> [snip]
eric gisse wrote:
>
> "There isn't a single observation that cannot be explained by a non-
> aether theory."
>
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
The halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the
aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced
the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether
looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
disk and halo formed.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
mpc755
'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm
"Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that
superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid
that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without
resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot
penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct
sound waves."
'"Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism
were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy
at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that
magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a
previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is
of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with
properties of a solid.
>>
>> What the following video starting at 0:45 and let me know what you don't
>> understand in terms of the video visualizing the state of the aether at
>> every place determined by its connections to the Earth and the state of
>> the aether neighboring the Earth.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
> The Earth rotate in the ether and it must have connections to the Earth.
>
> But such Satellite can have many detectors. For example the detectors of
> collisions with the dust. Such is able to measure the "velocity potential".
>
> If the Solar System is a whirl than it has the velocity field. I am asking
> about this.
> S*
>
>
The Sun displaces the aether. The state of aether connected to and
neighboring the Sun is the state of displacement of the aether. The Sun
displaces the aether far past the Earth.
However, the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth
is determined by the Earth. The state of the aether connected to and
neighboring the Earth is the state of displacement of the aether.
The aether displaced by the Sun keeps Earth in orbit about it.
However, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Gravity Probe B
experiment are mostly detecting the state of the aether connected to and
neighboring the Earth because the Earth determines the state of the
aether connected to and neighboring it much more than the Sun does.
shuba
> Do yourself a favor. Killfile Androcles every month when he changes
> his email a time or five. Same for most of the other morons.
Consider playing around with a newsreader that has regex
capabilities in the killfile. It's a lot of fun, and you can even
remove direct responses to certain posters or posts. Plus using regular
expressions is a useful skill.
I'd say 'Inertial' deserves some time in an optimally managed
killfile, as a large number of his posts are not worth shit, and he
spends much more time enabling and supporting idiots than providing
anything valuable or insightful. I personally have never minded if
people want to killfile my posts, which is one reason I still use
an old munged email that has long been discarded.
---Tim Shuba---
Inertial
>> That's just not right. They don't rotate together. They rotate at
>> different rates and with different amounts of eccentricity
>
> The Suns rotate.
Irrelevant
> The heliosphere rotate with everything what is suspendende in it.
Nope
> The rates and eccentricity are details.
No. . they refute your nonsense. Go learn some real physics before you post
again
Inertial
>Tell me than who are the Authors of the last century of physics.
BAHAHAH. You really are a moron
Inertial
>
>eric gisse wrote:
>
>> Do yourself a favor. Killfile Androcles every month when he changes
>> his email a time or five. Same for most of the other morons.
>
>Consider playing around with a newsreader that has regex
>capabilities in the killfile. It's a lot of fun, and you can even
>remove direct responses to certain posters or posts. Plus using regular
>expressions is a useful skill.
>
>I'd say 'Inertial' deserves some time in an optimally managed
>killfile, as a large number of his posts are not worth shit,
I respond in kind. Sometimes there is nothing insightful to be said to the
morons here
> and he
>spends much more time enabling and supporting idiots than providing
>anything valuable or insightful.
I never support morons.
> I personally have never minded if
>people want to killfile my posts, which is one reason I still use
>an old munged email that has long been discarded.
Those who killfile you haven't missed much.
micro...@hotmail.com
> PD wrote:
> > On 7/29/2011 11:16 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
> >>> It is neither just a particle, nor just a wave .. though it is wave-like
> >>> and particle-like. You seem to think that particle or wave are the only
> >>> two mutually exclusive possibilities. Perhaps you should study quantum
> >>> physics before posting such statements.
>
> >> And you should read the Faraday's letter:
> >>http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html
>
> >> Light is a pressure wave in the electron sea.
> >> But the natural light is not coherent. It is emitted in portions as the
> >> damped waves. You can say in photons. A piano emits tons.
> >> S*
>
> > classical notions were made.
> > People can come up with all sorts of perfectly self-consistent ideas
> > that sound reasonably compelling. The second they come up against
> > observations to the contrary, those ideas are in trouble.
>
> The following is the classical explanation of wave-particle duality.
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...
>
> "Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> both slits."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#The_Pilot_Wave_theory
>
> "It uses the same mathematics as other interpretations of quantum
> mechanics; consequently, it is also supported by the current
> experimental evidence to the same extent as the other interpretations."
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we measure the quantum wave does it change size if the particle
moves differently with a different kinetic energy?
micro...@hotmail.com
2011> wrote:
> "shuba" <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
What wave is the particle in?
eric gisse
news:4e37f504$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
> "shuba" wrote in message news:j18qql$pak$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>eric gisse wrote:
>>
>>> Do yourself a favor. Killfile Androcles every month when he changes
>>> his email a time or five. Same for most of the other morons.
>>
>>Consider playing around with a newsreader that has regex
>>capabilities in the killfile. It's a lot of fun, and you can even
>>remove direct responses to certain posters or posts. Plus using
>>regular expressions is a useful skill.
>>
>>I'd say 'Inertial' deserves some time in an optimally managed
>>killfile, as a large number of his posts are not worth shit,
>
> I respond in kind. Sometimes there is nothing insightful to be said
> to the morons here
>
>> and he
>>spends much more time enabling and supporting idiots than providing
>>anything valuable or insightful.
>
> I never support morons.
You give them Oxygen.
mpc755
>
> [snip]
eric gisse wrote:
>
> "There isn't a single observation that cannot be explained by a
non-aether theory."
>
I must have missed your post where you explain how the Milky Way disk
and halo formed in a non-aether theory.
The halo is the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts force toward the
matter.
The matter which would form the Milky Way was moving as it displaced the
aether. The aether displaced perpendicular to the major direction of
motion became the majority force of the displaced aether and forced the
matter into the disk. This resulted in the angular momentum of the
matter. It is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the
plane of the angular momentum which exerts force toward the center of
the Milky Way. This force, along with the state of displacement of the
aether as determined by the angular momentum of the Milky Way, forced
the matter closer together which resulted in the displaced aether
looking like a squished beach ball.
Aether displacement explains how the Milky Way was created and how the
disk and halo formed.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
Androcles
<micro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d962c74-fd60-468f...@m3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
=======================
I see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680xwwEs7Lg
What wave are you babbling about?
Inertial
> You give them Oxygen.
Pot kettle black.
You do the same. I think neither of us like to see lies posted and left
unchallenged. Its an act of chivalry to reply .. defending the honour of
the truth :)
eric gisse
news:4e389259$0$29985$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com:
No, I don't.
Seto, Ralph, Androcles [whatever his mail is today], poncho, 'noeinstein',
, fake idiot, homeless mitch, relf, koobywooby, etc. I don't see them. They
are gone. I don't respond to them, and immediately killfile AGAIN when they
change shit around.
Some folks like Laurent/Oldershaw/Stowe are marginally interesting and thus
aren't. Plus they try to pretend to be interested in observation.
mpc755
I must have missed your post where you explain how the observed Milky
Way disk and halo were created in a non-aether theory.
Byron Forbes
> The Sun displaces the aether. The state of aether connected to and
> neighboring the Sun is the state of displacement of the aether. The Sun
> displaces the aether far past the Earth.
>
What is it that makes you say that aether swirl due to the sun
occurs as far out as the earth?
mpc755
I didn't say there is an aether swirl. What I said is the Sun displaces
the aether far past the Earth.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter IS gravity.
The aether displaced by the Sun exerts force toward the Sun. This is
what keeps everything in orbit about the Sun.
What is mistaken for an aether swirl, or the spin of spacetime, is the
state of displacement of the aether. Watch the following video starting
at 0:45 to see the state of the aether at ever place determined by its
connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring
places; which is the state of displacement of the aether connected to
and neighboring the Earth.
Szczepan Bialek
Uzytkownik "mpc755" <mpc...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:j18qgn$oku$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The ISM (Intersellar matter) = rare plasma and dust. Plasma is like metal.
Metal is like solid.
>
>>>
>>> What the following video starting at 0:45 and let me know what you don't
>>> understand in terms of the video visualizing the state of the aether at
>>> every place determined by its connections to the Earth and the state of
>>> the aether neighboring the Earth.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>> The Earth rotate in the ether and it must have connections to the Earth.
>>
>> But such Satellite can have many detectors. For example the detectors of
>> collisions with the dust. Such is able to measure the "velocity
>> potential".
>>
>> If the Solar System is a whirl than it has the velocity field. I am
>> asking
>> about this.
>> S*
>>
>>
>
> The Sun displaces the aether. The state of aether connected to and
> neighboring the Sun is the state of displacement of the aether. The Sun
> displaces the aether far past the Earth.
>
> However, the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is
> determined by the Earth. The state of the aether connected to and
> neighboring the Earth is the state of displacement of the aether.
>
> The aether displaced by the Sun keeps Earth in orbit about it.
>
> However, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Gravity Probe B
> experiment are mostly detecting the state of the aether connected to and
> neighboring the Earth because the Earth determines the state of the aether
> connected to and neighboring it much more than the Sun does.
The question is: Is the ISM a medium for light?
For Faraday, L. Lorenz, Tesla and many others it was obvious.
The connections of ISM and bodies are very interesting but it is a separate
issue.
S*
mpc755
>
> The question is: Is the ISM a medium for light?
>
> For Faraday, L. Lorenz, Tesla and many others it was obvious.
>
> The connections of ISM and bodies are very interesting but it is a separate
> issue.
> S*
>
>
Aether is the medium for light.
Plasma exists in, and displaces, the aether.
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Szczepan Bialek
> Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>>
>> The question is: Is the ISM a medium for light?
>>
>> For Faraday, L. Lorenz, Tesla and many others it was obvious.
>>
>> The connections of ISM and bodies are very interesting but it is a
>> separate
>> issue.
>> S*
>>
>>
>
> Aether is the medium for light.
But is it the Tesla's?: "I had maintained for many years before that such a
medium as supposed could
not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled
with a gaseous substance. On repeating the Hertz experiments with much
improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had
observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous
medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and
expansion. He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound
waves in the air."
>
> Plasma exists in, and displaces, the aether.
Plasma consists of ions and electrons. Electrons are medium for light and
ions for acoustic waves.
>
> Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
I prefer the wave model of gravity.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Yes. And oscillating particle also.
S*
PD
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha...
>
>
>
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/29/2011 2:34 PM, hanson wrote:
> >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Paul cranked himself,
> >> gave his usual street corner performance with a set
> >> of side-step tangos and cranked himself some more,
> >> but never produced a single example of what his
> >> advertised 3rd state of a photon is... except for him
> >> fielding that it is a quantum field... BFD... ahahaha...
>
> Paul wrote:
> > Oh dear. Still baiting/whining/simpering.
> > You want a *description* of the quantum field?
>
> <snip lengthy high school text book cut& paste>
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahaha... what "baiting"? BFD does not
> mean "Big Field Description"... ahahaha... Just
> illustrate your advertised 3rd state of what a
> photon is, in an "it's like" fashion...
I did. But I also mentioned to you that this is UNLIKE anything that
you know from classical or high school physics, so asking for a
description that makes it "like" something you know will not be right.
Are you prepared to entertain the idea that quantum fields are NOT
like anything you've seen before?
> You started
> it and I even gave you Kudos and a link to
> do so... But you preferred to make your
> usual sidestep tango which you apparently
> learned in high school....AHAHAHAHAHA...
> Thanks for playing though. I'll catch you on
> another round tomorrow or so.... ahahahanson
hanson
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
< snipped Paul's sidestep tango palaver>
>
hanson wrote:
Where are the number of your patents that YOU
got from making inventions of gismos by you
having looked at the equations of "quantum fields"?
.... ahahahahahanson
PD
I've never filed a patent application before in my life.
But other people who have used the same equations of quantum fields have.
Is it your thought that every scientist should be filing patent
applications? Why?
hanson
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
in message news:j1eiou$p4q$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 8/3/2011 1:44 PM, hanson wrote:
>>
>> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> < snipped Paul's sidestep tango palaver>
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Where are the number of your patents that
>> YOU got from making inventions of gismos by you
>> having looked at the equations of "quantum fields"?
>> .... ahahahahahanson
>
Paul wrote:
> I've never filed a patent application before in my life.
> But other people who have used the same equations
> of quantum fields have.
> Is it your thought that every scientist should be filing patent
> applications? Why?
>
hanson wrote:
Like who?.. Name 1 person that looked at any equation
and in astonishment said: "It tells me that I should make a
machine and how to make it"... "Without knowing that eq.
it would be utterly inconceivable and totally impossible
for me to build that gismo"... Sheesh!... Paul give it a
rest. Go have the last word, Paul... ahahahahanson
PD
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Lubomir Vlcek
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:4e33be2b$0$29966$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
> >> Now you can read ):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_medium
>
> > That there is matter other than just the big lumps like the plane we live
> > on is not a surprise.
>
> >> Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics
> >> of a plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it
> >> the Sun's magnetic field,
>
> > That doesn't mean it is the medium for it
>
> >> is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the Heliospheric current
> >> sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into contact with a
> >> planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits filamentation
> >> (such as in aurora).
>
> >>Are pressure waves in plasma?
>
> > There could be .. I don't know enough plasma physics to comment further on
> > that. But that does not mean that plasma is luminiferous aether (ie the
> > medium in which light waves 'wave').
>
> Tesla was an expert; He wrote:
> ""When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his
> object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space,
> called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet
> solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the
> hardest steel. He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed
> them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory. But in
> reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.
> "I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could
> not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled
> with a gaseous substance. On repeating the Hertz experiments with much
> improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had
> observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous
> medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and
> expansion. He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound
> waves in the air."
>
Aether not exist , exist only medium as an enviroment in which wave
motion is spread.
Spacetime is a phantasy of 1905. Now is 2011.
See you please
L. Vlcek : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava
1996
ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen.
Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
Einstein corrected the real difference of light speeds in different
inertial frames (skeletons) by "different times" in a fictitious
"SPACE-TIME". He helped himself with a mixture of "space-time"
mathematically expressed by the Lorentz transformation equations. Then
he helped himself with other new expressions, that rescue what is not
possible to rescue, whereby those notions represent the following
closed vicious circle:
Lorentz transformation equations => local time => covariant equations
=> physical definition of simultaneity =>
=> invariant interval => Lorentz transformation equations
We have shown that the idea of space-time frames is entirely wrong.
All notions in the closed vicious circle, including "mean proper
lifetime of particle" calculated on the basis of the Einstein’s theory
of relativity which was not measured experimentally in fact are
absolutely wrong. Physics is overflown by such anabashed points. It is
necessary to clean the physics. It is necessary to strictly
distinguish the measured values of the particles lifetime from the so
called proper (shorter) Einstein’s doubtful particle lifetimes, which
takes into consideration velocity and shortens the real lifetime to
the shorter fictitious (incorrect) proper lifetime, shown in the
tables. The table proper lifetimes of particles have to be removed
from the physical literature and be replaced by the measured real
lifetimes simultaneously with the measured velocities of elementary
particles. The incorrect notions of Einstein’s closed vicious circle
lead to logical assumptions for the incorrect notions in physics such
as different times in different frames, length contraction, energy-
momentum tensor, paradox of twins, clock paradox, equivalence of mass
and energy etc. That’s why it is necessary to remove this chaos from
physics and to bring the results of classical experiments in the right
proportion (the place they belong to).
See you please
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
See you please
Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment
2.1.Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and
Magnetic Field
2.1.1.Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory
2.1.2.Kaufmann's Experiment
2.1.3.Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations.
2.2.Non-linear form of the interference field
2.2.1.Fizeau's Experiment
2.2.2.Harre's Experiment
2.3.Doppler's principle - correct relations
See you please
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
because radius of force reach / as Einstein´s lenght / depends on
velocity.
See you
Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is
beautifull PDF
Szczepan Bialek
"Lubomir Vlcek" <lubomi...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ac6bf96a-0a20-449d...@w16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
For Faraday and Tesla the medium is the rare plasma produced by stars and
rotated with them. What are your medium like?
<Spacetime is a phantasy of 1905. Now is 2011.
<See you please
L. Vlcek : New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava
1996
ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen.
Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
Einstein corrected the real difference of light speeds in different
inertial frames (skeletons) by "different times" in a fictitious
"SPACE-TIME". He helped himself with a mixture of "space-time"
mathematically expressed by the Lorentz transformation equations. Then
he helped himself with other new expressions, that rescue what is not
possible to rescue, whereby those notions represent the following
closed vicious circle:
Lorentz transformation equations => local time => covariant equations
=> physical definition of simultaneity =>
=> invariant interval => Lorentz transformation equations
<We have shown that the idea of space-time frames is entirely wrong.
Einstein assumed that is impossible to detect the movement relative to the
medium.
For such assumption the rest what he wrote is right.
<All notions in the closed vicious circle, including "mean proper
lifetime of particle" calculated on the basis of the Einstein’s theory
of relativity which was not measured experimentally in fact are
absolutely wrong. Physics is overflown by such anabashed points. It is
necessary to clean the physics. It is necessary to strictly
distinguish the measured values of the particles lifetime from the so
called proper (shorter) Einstein’s doubtful particle lifetimes, which
takes into consideration velocity and shortens the real lifetime to
the shorter fictitious (incorrect) proper lifetime, shown in the
tables. The table proper lifetimes of particles have to be removed
from the physical literature and be replaced by the measured real
lifetimes simultaneously with the measured velocities of elementary
particles. The incorrect notions of Einstein’s closed vicious circle
lead to logical assumptions for the incorrect notions in physics such
as different times in different frames, length contraction, energy-
momentum tensor, paradox of twins, clock paradox, equivalence of mass
and energy etc.
One simple assumption and many excitating possibilities.
<That’s why it is necessary to remove this chaos from
physics and to bring the results of classical experiments in the right
proportion (the place they belong to).
Everybody can read Faraday, Ampere, Stokes and Tesla. But they are too
sophisticated for students.
S*
<See you please
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
See you please
Theory and Its Comparison with Experiment
2.1.Form of the Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and
Magnetic Field
2.1.1.Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field - A New Theory
2.1.2.Kaufmann's Experiment
2.1.3.Electromagnetic field. Maxwell's equations.
2.2.Non-linear form of the interference field
2.2.1.Fizeau's Experiment
2.2.2.Harre's Experiment
2.3.Doppler's principle - correct relations
<See you please
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics HTML
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
because radius of force reach / as Einstein´s lenght / depends on
velocity.
<See you
Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is
beautifull PDF
You wrote about Einstein. What about that listed by me?
S*
Y.Porat
> "Lubomir Vlcek" <lubomir.vl...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomoscinews:ac6bf96a-0a20-449d...@w16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
----------------------
see my new thread:
'(EM equations and the 'Circlon' idea )!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Circlon works for the protons too yporat.
Light is a double force; electric and magnetic together in time