Re: What Empirical Evidence Supports the Ballistic Emission of Light (I.e. C*=C+or-v)

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
> source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
> ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
> (demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
> contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
> dependent on the
> speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

> Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
> patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
> propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
> (apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
> behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
> muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
<shrug>

> As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
> the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
> compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
> IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
> relativity or
> Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. <shrug> All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. <shrug>

> What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
> light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. <shrug>

> My understanding is that the null result of the MIchelson Morley
> experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
> (C) on speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
> result consistently advanced as a proof of the ballistic emission
> of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
> theories?

You are so misinformed. <shrug>

> Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
> water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
> medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. <shrug>

> Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
> water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
> accepted that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
> radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. <shrug>

> Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dc1fad8-5102-40ec...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

_______________________________________________
No, it doesn't, and this was the motivation for Einstein developing the
theory of relativity. Hence the title of his paper, "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies". It was already known that "classical electromagnetism"
does *not* transform according to Galilean transform (it uses Lorentz), so
something strange is going on.

Your statement that classical electromagnetism satisfies the Galilean
transform is simply false. This was known to be false well before Einstein
solved the problem. Not only have you not read Einstein's seminal 1905 paper
on SR, you apparently are not even aware that is was largely about solving
this issue in "classical electromagnetism", as the title suggests.

My recommendations:

Before posting any more on the subject of SR, you learn the basics of SR.
Before posting on the subject of "classical electromagnetism", you learn the
basics of "classical electromagnetism".

At the moment, it is almost embarassing to see what a fool you make of
yourself almost every day.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 27, 9:59 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > described below.
>
> > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity
>
> > Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
> > patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
> > propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
> > (apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
> > behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
> > muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.
>
> > Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
> > <shrug>
>

> No, it doesn't, and this was the motivation for Einstein developing the
> theory of relativity. Hence the title of his paper, "On the Electrodynamics
> of Moving Bodies". It was already known that "classical electromagnetism"
> does *not* transform according to Galilean transform (it uses Lorentz), so
> something strange is going on.

Wow,such virulent, vile, and personal remarks against Him. You are
merely playing with pieces of His divine remarks and viciously
attempting to twist them into your evil agenda. <shrug>

> Your statement that classical electromagnetism satisfies the Galilean
> transform is simply false. This was known to be false well before Einstein
> solved the problem. Not only have you not read Einstein's seminal 1905 paper
> on SR, you apparently are not even aware that is was largely about solving
> this issue in "classical electromagnetism", as the title suggests.

He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
Galilean transform. Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged. The
other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
classical particle as described by Newton and Michell. <shrug>

> My recommendations:
>
> Before posting any more on the subject of SR, you learn the basics of SR.
> Before posting on the subject of "classical electromagnetism", you learn the
> basics of "classical electromagnetism".
>
> At the moment, it is almost embarassing to see what a fool you make of
> yourself almost every day.

More cheap shots to boot the ego of the very fvcking stupid and
incompetent Peter Webb. Any more cheap shots, punk? <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:292aa475-c6bf-4fe6...@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

______________________________________
Not against "Him". Against *you*. You pretend to know something about
physics, but in fact you are ignorant of the most basic facts. You do this
so you can deride Einstein. You do this so you can then launch into some
anti-semitic tirade. I am in no position to do anything about your
anti-semitism, distasteful though it is, but I can point out the many basic
errors you make in the physics, and this is fact a physcis newsgroup.

> Your statement that classical electromagnetism satisfies the Galilean
> transform is simply false. This was known to be false well before Einstein
> solved the problem. Not only have you not read Einstein's seminal 1905
> paper
> on SR, you apparently are not even aware that is was largely about solving
> this issue in "classical electromagnetism", as the title suggests.

He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
Galilean transform.

___________________________________
If by "he" you mean Einstein, to the extent that this sentence of yours has
any meaning, it is completely wrong. It was known well before Einstein that
the Maxwell equations transform according to the Lorentz transform, not the
Galilean, and this fact is used throughout the second half of Einstein's
paper. This is nothing to do with the MMX; it is a mathemetical fact derived
directly from Maxwell's equations. I expect that you don't know the
difference between the "Galilean transform" and "Galielean Principe of
Relativity", if you substitute the latter phrase for where you have used teh
former your sentence almost makes sense. As it stands, it is 100% wrong.

Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged.

_______________________________________
The MMX is just one of thousands of experiments that confirm Relativity. It
was not a major motivator for the development of SR, Einstein was not
setting out to explain it, and its not clear he even knew of it.

The
other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
classical particle as described by Newton and Michell. <shrug>

_______________________________________
This is just more pompous shit from you. You are in no position to propose
alternative approaches; you don't even understand the standard approach
(SR). If you can model light as a classical particle as described by Newton
<shrug>, and this provides an alternate theory which equally well explains
experimental results, please do so. If you cannot, don't try and pretend
this is an alternative explanation and you are in some position to pass
judgement.

> My recommendations:
>
> Before posting any more on the subject of SR, you learn the basics of SR.
> Before posting on the subject of "classical electromagnetism", you learn
> the
> basics of "classical electromagnetism".
>
> At the moment, it is almost embarassing to see what a fool you make of
> yourself almost every day.

More cheap shots to boot the ego of the very fvcking stupid and
incompetent Peter Webb. Any more cheap shots, punk? <shrug>

_____________________________________________
The only cheap thing was the target. Doesn't take much knowledge of physics
to shoot it down.

[G=EMC^2]

What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? Do not
relate these waves with water waves. TreBert

[Zinnic]

Why not? Do you reject all analogy? Would you care to discuss why
electromagnetism disturbances are not an all pervading
electromagnetic background waving at us. How could undisturbed
electromagnetism bedetected? Just a thought!

[Zinnic]

Most of what you write repeats what I wrote in my post. Cf the MMX.
Try thinking instead of shrugging.

[Brad Guth]

Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
wen disturbed. It's also polarized, and multiple EMFs can harmonize
in order to produce secondary photons. Go figure.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/28/11 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
> wen disturbed.

Physics and astronomy get along just fine with any aether, Brad.
Try some self-education.

[mpc755]

Exactly. Another way to say disturbed is to say displaced. Quantum
electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does when displaced.

This is what Einstein was referring to in the following.

"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The above more correctly stated as the following.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

'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 connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

[mpc755]

Physics and astronomy get along most correctly with the aether of
relativity, Sam. Try some self-education.

[Zinnic]

Why do you need to invent an aether for which there is zero evidence?
As i suggested previously, (Quantum)electromagnetic waving could be
what electromagnetism does when disturbed.
Zinnic

[PD]

On 11/28/2011 12:29 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
> with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
> Galilean transform. Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
> modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
> principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
> electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged. The
> other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
> experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
> classical particle as described by Newton and Michell.<shrug>

LOL! KW at his best. Whups, sorry.... His Best.

[mpc755]

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature to cause
gravity or don't you?

Do you want to understand what occurs physically in nature in a double
slit experiment or don't you?

'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 connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

'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."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfliud with
properties of a solid. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies
three dimensional space unoccupied by matter. Aether is physically
displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts pressure toward
the matter.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf

“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was
looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles,
of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in
his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the
physical reality of waves and particles.”

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous
“energetic contact” with a hidden medium”

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether of
relativity. The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of
the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters
and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave
which enters and exits both slits. The aether displacement wave
creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle
exits a single slit, it is the wave interference which alters the
direction the particle travels. This is the wave piloting the particle
of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle turns the associated
aether displacement wave into chop, there is no wave interference, and
the direction the particle travels is not altered.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 28, 4:34 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

You made a mistake of claiming the observed light speed is dependent
of the source, and that is just wrong. Do you even understand the
speed of light is always c relative to the stationary background of
the Aether under classical electromagnetism? <shrug>

You don’t even understand the significance of (E = m c^2). Without (m
= m0 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)), (E = m c^2) is useless. Understand
that? It was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar. If claimed so, show so. In fact, no one has derived that
equation. It was just stated or fudged with convoluted mathemaGics.
This allows the pagans (ballistic theory guys) to model (E = m c^2 /
2) as in the classical kinetic energy which also satisfies (E = h f).
<shrug>

> Try thinking instead of shrugging.

Why? Can’t shrug? No shoulder? <shrug>

Hey, in order to point out the shit the pagans and the Einstein
Dingleberries worship, you have to understand their point of views.
As an Einstein Dingleberry, you apparently do not even attempt to
understand the pagans, and you are not fit to criticize the pagans.
What a bigot! <shrug>

Who knows? Classical electromagnetism was also built on top of many
assumptions not fully characterized. Maybe after someone modifies
classical electromagnetism, the pagans’ belief would stand to be
valid. The pagans actually have a slight chance that their belief
would turn out to be valid, but there is just no hope that the
Einstein Dingleberries would stand a fvcking chance. <shrug>

[eric gisse]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:jb0jne$do1$3
@speranza.aioe.org:

Why is KW not talking in first person anymore?

[mpc755]

On Nov 28, 1:39 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You made a mistake of claiming the observed light speed is dependent
> of the source, and that is just wrong.  Do you even understand the
> speed of light is always c relative to the stationary background of
> the Aether under classical electromagnetism?  <shrug>
>

The aether is not stationary. MMX disproved a stationary aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as
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, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is
referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of
the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of
displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the
aether of relativity.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 28, 2:57 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > described below.
>
> > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity
>

> > Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
> > <shrug>
>

> Not against "Him". Against *you*. You pretend to know something about
> physics, but in fact you are ignorant of the most basic facts. You do this
> so you can deride Einstein. You do this so you can then launch into some
> anti-semitic tirade. I am in no position to do anything about your
> anti-semitism, distasteful though it is, but I can point out the many basic
> errors you make in the physics, and this is fact a physcis newsgroup.

Gee, punk! After your god is exposed as a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
lair, there is just no need to take it out on Him. It is your fault
and your bad judgment to worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist,
and the liar after all. Is the truth that difficult to swallow?
<shrug>

> > He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
> > with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
> > Galilean transform.
>

> If by "he" you mean Einstein, to the extent that this sentence of yours has
> any meaning, it is completely wrong.

No, He is yours truly, idiot. <shrug>

> It was known well before Einstein that
> the Maxwell equations transform according to the Lorentz transform, not the
> Galilean,

Bullshit! Classical Maxwell equations do not have to satisfy the
principle of relativity. There is no need to transform to do so. You
are totally ignorant. <shrug>

> and this fact is used throughout the second half of Einstein's
> paper.

Not just the second half, the whole shit was fudged by Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>

> This is nothing to do with the MMX; it is a mathemetical fact derived
> directly from Maxwell's equations.

Wrong! Again, without the MMX as the base, you only have assumptions,
and assumptions are not reality. Assumptions usually lead to
fantasy. <shrug>

> I expect that you don't know the
> difference between the "Galilean transform" and "Galielean Principe of
> Relativity", if you substitute the latter phrase for where you have used teh
> former your sentence almost makes sense. As it stands, it is 100% wrong.

Well, you are wrong again. <shrug>

> > Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
> > modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
> > principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
> > electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged.
>

> The MMX is just one of thousands of experiments that confirm Relativity.

Wrong again. The MMX does not validate relativity, or any other
experiments. <shrug>

> It was not a major motivator for the development of SR,

Yes, the MMX was the motivation behind the Lorentz transform.
However, there are other transforms (the Voigt type) that do not
satisfy the principle of relativity but do with the null results.
Learn the basics. <shrug>

> Einstein was not
> setting out to explain it, and its not clear he even knew of it.

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew the final
answer should be and fudged the derivations to get there. Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was just a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. You can sum up Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar in merely three words: nitwit, plagiarist,
and liar. Just which of these three words you do not understand?
<shrug>

> > The
> > other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
> > experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
> > classical particle as described by Newton and Michell. <shrug>
>

> This is just more pompous shit from you. You are in no position to propose
> alternative approaches; you don't even understand the standard approach
> (SR).

He merely stated the historical facts. You are just a fvkcing moron.
<shrug>

> If you can model light as a classical particle as described by Newton
> <shrug>, and this provides an alternate theory which equally well explains
> experimental results, please do so. If you cannot, don't try and pretend
> this is an alternative explanation and you are in some position to pass
> judgement.

Ask the pagans (the ballistic theory guys). He is merely pointing out
historic facts in which peter webb is so clueless about. <shrug>

> > More cheap shots to boot the ego of the very fvcking stupid and
> > incompetent Peter Webb. Any more cheap shots, punk? <shrug>
>

> The only cheap thing was the target. Doesn't take much knowledge of physics
> to shoot it down.

peter webb belongs in sewage drowning in the cesspool of diarrhea of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. peter webb
understands no physics and no history. <shrug>

Oh, He is still waiting for peter webb to point out which publication
shows Faraday’s derivation of Maxwell’s equations. You can never find
one because Faraday never did derive the missing term to Ampere’s
law. He never derived the Maxwell’s equations. peter webb does not
understand Maxwell’s equations. This is an example where peter webb
knows nothing about physics and nothing about history. All peter webb
can do is to worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. <shrug>

[PD]

Because he has gotten worse.

[mpc755]

On Nov 28, 2:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 12:45 PM, eric gisse wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote in news:jb0jne$do1$3

Nobody is as delusional as those who are in denial of the reality the
particle always enters and exits a single slit in a double slit
experiment.

[papa...@gmail.com]

On 28 nov, 16:05, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:57 am, "Peter Webb" wrote:

>
> > > He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
> > > with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
> > > Galilean transform.
>
> > If by "he" you mean Einstein, to the extent that this sentence of yours has
> > any meaning, it is completely wrong.
>
> No, He is yours truly, idiot.  <shrug>
>

We could submit today to this guy the King of Moronica crown.
Unfortunately, he is unable to differentiate himself from Him, and
with so many shrugging he (Him) would be unable to answer the phone to
collect the crown.

[Mike Cavedon]

[Zinnic]

You need to reread what I actully said
Qoute "The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of
the sound

ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank)."

("NOW NOTE WELL" that I continued with a question not a assertion!
"What is the evidence that, in contrast, the speed of an
electromagnetic wave (C*) is dependent on the speed of the light

source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?"

Is it too much to expect an apology?

> You don’t even understand the significance of (E = m c^2).  Without (m
> = m0 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)), (E = m c^2) is useless.  Understand
> that?  It was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
> the liar.  If claimed so, show so.  In fact, no one has derived that
> equation.  It was just stated or fudged with convoluted mathemaGics.
> This allows the pagans (ballistic theory guys) to model (E = m c^2 /
> 2) as in the classical kinetic energy which also satisfies (E = h f).
> <shrug>

In my post I made a made point of steering clear if the EINSTEIN
controversy which you seem determined to introduce. Now start again
and give me some evidence that strongly supports the BaTH of light
emission. Please think before you respond.
Zinnic

[Peter Webb]

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew the final
answer should be and fudged the derivations to get there. Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was just a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. You can sum up Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar in merely three words: nitwit, plagiarist,
and liar. Just which of these three words you do not understand?
<shrug>

______________________________________
See: crank.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Please tell us about any experiment that DOES NOT support hte ballistic
theory.

>Zinnic

[Peter Webb]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:k3k8d7pjisvkaknnj...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:28:27 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zeen...@gate.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 4:34 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > Most of what you write repeats what I wrote in my post. Cf the MMX.
>>>
>>> You made a mistake of claiming the observed light speed is dependent
>>> of the source, and that is just wrong. Do you even understand the
>>> speed of light is always c relative to the stationary background of
>>> the Aether under classical electromagnetism? <shrug>
>>
>>You need to reread what I actully said
>> Qoute "The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of
>>the sound
>>ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
>>(demonstrated in a ripple tank)."
>>
>>("NOW NOTE WELL" that I continued with a question not a assertion!
>>"What is the evidence that, in contrast, the speed of an
>>electromagnetic wave (C*) is dependent on the speed of the light
>>source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?"
>>
>>Is it too much to expect an apology?
>>
>>> You don't even understand the significance of (E = m c^2). Without (m

>>> = m0 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)), (E = m c^2) is useless. Understand

>>> that? It was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
>>> the liar. If claimed so, show so. In fact, no one has derived that
>>> equation. It was just stated or fudged with convoluted mathemaGics.
>>> This allows the pagans (ballistic theory guys) to model (E = m c^2 /
>>> 2) as in the classical kinetic energy which also satisfies (E = h f).
>>> <shrug>
>>
>>
>>In my post I made a made point of steering clear if the EINSTEIN
>>controversy which you seem determined to introduce. Now start again
>>and give me some evidence that strongly supports the BaTH of light
>>emission. Please think before you respond.
>
> Please tell us about any experiment that DOES NOT support hte ballistic
> theory.
>

1. Comstock and de Sitter observations of double stars

2. Sagnac effect

3. Babcock's recreation of MMX using a moving mirror

4. Alvager measured the speed of light emitted from decay of mesons moving
at hight speed

5. Thirring measuring the width of emission lines from the Sun.

For the corresponding technical papers, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory which is where I got these.

Were you too stupid or too lazy to Google this for yourself?



>>Zinnic
>

[Zinnic]

On Nov 28, 9:25 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

Too small and discourteous to admit your mistake? You cannot give
examples of experiments that DO support BaTH, so in desperation you
turn it around like a schoolboy.
A scientist would be ashamed to ask such a nonsensical question! You
are wasting my time! Are you by chance a Doctor of Scientology?
Zinnic

[Androcles]

"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jb1lbn$k7k$1...@news.albasani.net...

deSitter never saw a double star, not even the nearest, Sirius.

| 2. Sagnac effect

What is the Sagnac effect? You have no idea!

|
| 3. Babcock's recreation of MMX using a moving mirror

That's not a moving source.

|
| 4. Alvager measured the speed of light emitted from decay of mesons moving
| at hight speed

In a block of berylium, not a vacuum.

|
| 5. Thirring measuring the width of emission lines from the Sun.
|

Entire consistent with emission theory.

| For the corresponding technical papers, see
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory which is where I got these.
|
| Were you too stupid or too lazy to Google this for yourself?
|

Were you too stupid or too lazy to check on the author for yourself?

[Peter Webb]

"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote in message
news:EzZAq.32837$jP2....@newsfe28.ams2...

Read the paper.

> | 2. Sagnac effect
>
> What is the Sagnac effect? You have no idea!

Read the paper.

> |
> | 3. Babcock's recreation of MMX using a moving mirror
>
> That's not a moving source.
>

It is inconsistent with Ballistic theory of light. Read the paper.

> |
> | 4. Alvager measured the speed of light emitted from decay of mesons
> moving
> | at hight speed
>
> In a block of berylium, not a vacuum.
>

No, berylium is opaque. Read the paper.

> |
> | 5. Thirring measuring the width of emission lines from the Sun.
> |
> Entire consistent with emission theory.
>

No, the thermal motion would smear the spectral lines. Read the paper.

>
> | For the corresponding technical papers, see
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory which is where I got these.
> |
> | Were you too stupid or too lazy to Google this for yourself?
> |
> Were you too stupid or too lazy to check on the author for yourself?
>

The author of what?

The Ballistic theory of light is incompatible with observation. This has
been known for 100 years.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 28, 2:28 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> You need to reread what I actully said

Yes, the first sentence of the starting post reads:

“The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the

sound source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a
water ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source

(demonstrated in a ripple tank).”

You have demonstrated that you have understood the speed of sound and
the medium sound propagates through, but in the next sentence, it
appears your wisdom fell terribly apart by stating:

“What is the evidence that, in contrast, the speed (C*) of an

electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is dependent on the speed of the

light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?”

You even have emphasized the word “contrast” and “dependent”. In
prompted Him to guide you that:

“In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to

the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether

** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity”

The speed of light in the propagating medium theoretically behaves
like sound according to classical electromagnetism. So, just where
did He misinterpret your intention?

> Is it too much to expect an apology?

If it makes you feel better, an apology is always available, but the
bottom line is what you do actually mean since you don’t mean what you
said. <shrug>

> > You don’t even understand the significance of (E = m c^2). Without (m
> > = m0 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)), (E = m c^2) is useless. Understand
> > that? It was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
> > the liar. If claimed so, show so. In fact, no one has derived that
> > equation. It was just stated or fudged with convoluted mathemaGics.
> > This allows the pagans (ballistic theory guys) to model (E = m c^2 /
> > 2) as in the classical kinetic energy which also satisfies (E = h f).
> > <shrug>
>
> In my post I made a made point of steering clear if the EINSTEIN
> controversy which you seem determined to introduce.

He, Yours Truly, is not the one who has brought up (E = m c^2).
<shrug>

> Now start again
> and give me some evidence that strongly supports the BaTH of light
> emission.

The best support ironically is the null results of the MMX. <shrug>

> Please think before you respond.

Done. Anymore questions? <shrug>

[eric gisse]

Mike Cavedon <wpd...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e311a78e-27b4-4c0b...@i8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com:

You picked a great time to nymshift because I wanted to ask you a question.

WHY THE FUCK DOES FACEBOOK THINK I WOULD WANT TO BE FRIENDS WITH YOU?

[eric gisse]

Zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in
news:cbed3259-bfb9-41ca...@j15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

[...]

Do yourself a favor and research Ralph.

You can find posts by him like a week after starting to post in this
newsgroup repeating the same dumb shit as now.

He was given Fillipas and Fox more than a decade ago, and by all acocunts,
has yet to read it.

[Androcles]

"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jb1pbv$ni7$1...@news.albasani.net...

I did, years ago. de Sitter was full of shit.
In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.

|
| > | 2. Sagnac effect
| >
| > What is the Sagnac effect? You have no idea!
|
| Read the paper.

In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.

|
| > |
| > | 3. Babcock's recreation of MMX using a moving mirror
| >
| > That's not a moving source.
| >
|
| It is inconsistent with Ballistic theory of light. Read the paper.

In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.

|
| > |
| > | 4. Alvager measured the speed of light emitted from decay of mesons
| > moving
| > | at hight speed
| >
| > In a block of berylium, not a vacuum.
| >
|
| No, berylium is opaque. Read the paper.
|

Where do the mesons originate, moron?
In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.

|
| > |
| > | 5. Thirring measuring the width of emission lines from the Sun.
| > |
| > Entire consistent with emission theory.
| >
|
| No, the thermal motion would smear the spectral lines. Read the paper.
|

Entirely consistent with emission theory. Look at the spectrogram.

In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.

|
| >
| > | For the corresponding technical papers, see
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory which is where I got
these.
| > |
| > | Were you too stupid or too lazy to Google this for yourself?
| > |
| > Were you too stupid or too lazy to check on the author for yourself?
| >
|
| The author of what?

Bwahahahahaha!
Wackypedia writes itself, does it?
In other words you haven't got a fucking clue, you are all bluff and
bluster.
You were too stupid or too lazy to check on the author for yourself!

|
| The Ballistic theory of light is incompatible with observation. This has
| been known for 100 years.

Which observation, moron?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:19:25 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zeen...@gate.net> wrote:

>On Nov 28, 9:25 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:28:27 -0800 (PST), Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 28, 4:34 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

>>
>> >In my post I made a  made point of steering clear if the EINSTEIN
>> >controversy which you seem determined to introduce. Now start again
>> >and give me some evidence that strongly supports the BaTH of light
>> >emission. Please think before you respond.
>>
>> Please tell us about any experiment that DOES NOT support hte ballistic
>> theory.
>
>Too small and discourteous to admit your mistake?

No mistake, zinnic...The MMX is the most obvious one. The fact that TWLS is
always equal to c is another. BaTh predicts the correct Sagnac effect.

But by far the most conclusive evidence is that from variable star curves.

Do you know what a variable star is? Many stars appear to vary cyclically
with a very constant period. If a star is orbited by a large planet, it
wobbles around a barycentre with enough speed to behave like a moving light
source. Its light moves at c + vsin(xt) towards planet Earth many LYs away,
meaning that faster light has plenty of time to encroach on slower light,
resulting in a spatial bunching and rarefaction of the photon stream. To a
distant observer, that gives the impression that the star is varying.
It so happens that the narrow range of curves predictable by BaTh using
this principle matches most of the commonly observed variable star
brightness curves.

Here are some:
www.scisite.info/fig2.jpg
www.scisite.info/fig5.jpg
www.scisite.info/fig6.jpg
www.scisite.info/fig7.jpg
www.scisite.info/fig8.jpg
www.scisite.info/poorjerry2.jpg

I happen to have done the work. You can only preach Ensteiniana with
absolutely no evidence that it has any credibility. The plain fact is there
has never been an experiment that directly supports his theory.

>You cannot give
>examples of experiments that DO support BaTH, so in desperation you
>turn it around like a schoolboy.

I referred you to my thesis but you apparently cannot read it because you
are scared of the truth.
Read the whole thing:
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html

>A scientist would be ashamed to ask such a nonsensical question! You
>are wasting my time! Are you by chance a Doctor of Scientology?
>Zinnic

Anyone with a names beginning with 'z' is invariably a pretentious
bullshitter. I'm sure you will be welcomed into the EPG (Einsteinian Papal
Guard) with open arms.

[Y.Porat]

-----------------
you are right
th e Gangster gang of modern clergy
that turned science to
private bussiness are
a disaster for advance in science

the blockheads arestil with the
E=hf and th4 fornula of the single photon
and the main shit human being on that
is the crippled - both body and mind
Eric Scaise !!
Y.Porat
--------------------
------------------

[Zinnic]

Sneaky, sneaky! First question is -- why did you change the subject
from the speed of the light source moving through the aether to the
speed of the light observer moving through the aether? Two entirely
different situations. You need to explain, otherwise I must conclude
that your game rules include moving the goal posts.
Do you really think that the movement of an observer can be equated
with the movement of a source? That would be real action at a
distance!!!!
Zinnic

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 28, 7:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/28/11 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
> > wen disturbed.
>

>    Physics and astronomy get along just fine with any aether, Brad.
>    Try some self-education.

But I don't want to be another snookered and dumbfounded parrot like
yourself, Sam.
Try a truly deductive thought of your own.

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 28, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 28, 10:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/28/11 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
> > > wen disturbed.
>
> >    Physics and astronomy get along just fine with any aether, Brad.
> >    Try some self-education.
>

> Physics and astronomy get along most correctly with the aether of
> relativity, Sam. Try some self-education.

>
> '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 connections with

> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the

> state of displacement of the aether.
>

> Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.
>

> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>

> Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

Parrots like our Sam can't possibly understand any of that.

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 28, 7:59 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:03 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 4:36 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Nov 28, 12:33 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
>

> > > > > The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
> > > > > source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
> > > > > ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source

> > > > > (demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in

> > > > > contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
> > > > > dependent on the
> > > > > speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?
>

> > > > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > > > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > > > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > > > described below.
>
> > > > **  [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > > > Where
>
> > > > **  [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > > > **  [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > > > **  [v] = observer’s absolute velocity
>

> > > What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave?   Do not
> > > relate these waves with water waves.  TreBert
>

> > Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
> > wen disturbed.
>

> Exactly. Another way to say disturbed is to say displaced. Quantum
> electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does when displaced.
>
> This is what Einstein was referring to in the following.
>
> "Einstein's 'First Paper'"http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
>
> "The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
> elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
> proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
>
> The above more correctly stated as the following.
>
> The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
> elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely
> proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

>
> '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 connections with
> the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
> state of displacement of the aether.
>
> Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

Seems logical, and helps to explain how the nonzero mass of each and
every photon propagates without the original or progenitor photon
necessarily moving.

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 28, 9:33 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> > wen disturbed.  It's also polarized, and multiple EMFs can harmonize
> > in order to produce secondary photons.  Go figure.
>
> >  http://translate.google.com/#
> >  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> Why do you need to invent an aether for which there is zero evidence?
> As i suggested previously, (Quantum)electromagnetic waving could be
> what electromagnetism does when disturbed.
> Zinnic

That's okay too. Ether/aether could be quantum electromagnetism.

Got any objective proof that the original photon actually moves?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[mpc755]

I just don't understand how any could be so screwed up as to not
understand the particle always enters and exits a single slit in a
double slit experiment.

If the particle enters and exits a single slit then what waves?

The aether.

What property does the aether have which allows it to wave?

Mass.

Matter and aether are different states of the same material.

Matter is condensations of the aether.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The
evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/29/11 6:53 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> That's okay too. Ether/aether could be quantum electromagnetism.

The quantum mechanics gets along just fine with any aether, Brad.
Try some self-education.
>

> Got any objective proof that the original photon actually moves?

Shine a flash light (torch) in somebody's eyes and ask them
if any photons made their way from your source to their eyes.
Ask them Brad!

[Brad Guth]

Sounds good, reasons good, solves issues.

[Brad Guth]

What does parrot speak have to do with physics or science?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

presumably, meant without aether. true,
unless aether is merely the actual atoms & plasmas
of space, as in the Alfven cosmology ... with,
y'know, Alfven waves!

unfortunately for teh would-be aetherist,
there is no absolute (Pascalian) vacuum (NB,
"pascal" is the primary unit of pressure .-)

> > quantum mechanics gets along just fine with any aether.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 29, 7:03 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:

> Sneaky, sneaky! First question is -- why did you change the subject
> from the speed of the light source moving through the aether to the
> speed of the light observer moving through the aether?

Huh! He did not change the subject at all. Both sound wave and light
under classical electromagnetism both propagates at a certain and
specific speed, and anyone attempts to measure such a speed will
always measure according to the following that obeys the Galilean
transform. There can only be one subject discussing this issue.
<shrug>

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity”

> Two entirely
> different situations. You need to explain, otherwise I must conclude
> that your game rules include moving the goal posts.

<shrug>

> Do you really think that the movement of an observer can be equated
> with the movement of a source?

What does that mean? The propagating speed of light under classical
electromagnetism is always the speed of light relative to the
stationary background of the Aether regardless the speed of the
source. <shrug>

> That would be real action at a distance!!!!

What? That is according to the classical Maxwell’s equations. In
fact, this was one of the greatest achievements in the history of
physics that one can write down the mathematical models that
definitively explain why light always propagate at that certain
speed. <shrug>

[Sam Wormley]

Perhaps you think the bright stuff coming out of your flashlight
is something other than photons, eh Brad?

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02549bc4-6e50-465b...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

_______________________________________
No, that's not correct. In "classical electromagnetism", Maxwell's equations
transform according to Lorentz, not the Galilean transform. This is not an
experimental result per se, it is what happens if you substitute into
Maxwell's equations a reference frame moving at a current velocity. This was
a major motivator for the development of SR, and is reflected in the title
of Einstein's 1905 paper ("On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies").

You should learn something about physics before posting to a physics
newsgroup.

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3c08397c-14ae-4ef1...@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...

____________________________________
No. Read a book on "classical electromagnetism". It is nothing similar. In
fact, the equations are completely different. If you have a look at the
equations governing sound compression waves, they are completely and totally
different to Maxwell's equations. They don't even have the same form.
Specifically the solutions for the speed of the waves are totally different.

Why do you invent crap like saying the speed of light theoretically behaves
like sound according to classical electromagnetism, when anybody who had
actually ever studied "classical electromagnetism" knows this is the case?
Why don't you learn some basic physics instead of inventing bullshit on the
spot?

[mpc755]

On Nov 29, 8:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    The quantum mechanics gets along just fine with any aether, Brad.
>

Does it? Does it really?

If it does then explain what occurs physically in nature in a double
slit experiment in a non-pilot wave interpretation of quantum
mechanics.

Should I post the <crickets> response now or wait awhile?

Are particles which do not exist until detected getting along fine
without an aether?

Are particles which are traveling an infinite number of paths
simultaneously getting along fine without an aether?

Are particles which exist in mutliuniverses simultaneously getting
along fine without an aether?

The reason why you can't explain what occurs physically in nature in a
double slit experiment in a non-pilot wave interpretation of QM is
because what is really happening is the particle always enters and
exits a single slit and it is the associated physical wave which
enters and exits both. And do you know what physically waves in a
double slit experiment? The aether.

So, you like most on this forum, keep deluding yourself into thinking
quantum mechanics is fine without an aether.

From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new
form of matter. This is the real substance"

You aren't as deluded as others to not be able to understand all of
the nonsense associated with physics today is due to not understanding
aether has mass, are you?

[Brad Guth]

Your subjective parrot speak is noted. Now prove or find objective
proof that the original photon actually moves.

[Koobee Wublee]

peter webb intoxicated with the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar ranted:

> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > described below.
>
> > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

> No, that's not correct. In "classical electromagnetism", Maxwell's equations
> transform according to Lorentz, not the Galilean transform. This is not an
> experimental result per se, it is what happens if you substitute into
> Maxwell's equations a reference frame moving at a current velocity. This was
> a major motivator for the development of SR, and is reflected in the title
> of Einstein's 1905 paper ("On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies").

Nonsense, since the classical Maxwell’s equations do not satisfy the
principle of relativity, the results of the Galilean transform applied
to the Maxwell’s equations are not expected to satisfy the principle
of relativity as well. This was fine until the null results of the
MMX. That means either the Galilean transforms or the classical
Maxwell’s equations are wrong in general. <shrug>

One approach is to keep the Galilean transform and modify the
Maxwell’s equations to satisfy the ballistic theory of light if this
can be done. It was decided that the modification of the Maxwell’s
equations to satisfy the ballistic theory of light was too difficult
or impossible. Thus, the motivation to develop SR was to keep the
Maxwell’s equations and modify the Galilean transform. <shrug>

The modified transform must then satisfy the null results. Since one
of the assumptions of SR is the general validity in the principle of
relativity, it is then decided that Maxwell’s equations must now
satisfy the principle of relativity under the new transform. In the
meantime, any of the Voigt type transforms does not satisfy the
principle of relativity and does not have the constraint on the
transformed Maxwell’s equations to satisfy the principle of
relativity. This assumption under SR is frivolous and unscientific.
<shrug>

So what if the Maxwell’s equations transform under the new transform
into something that also satisfy the principle of relativity. It
remains untested. <shrug>

> You should learn something about physics before posting to a physics
> newsgroup.

It is your lousy opinion. <shrug>

> No. Read a book on "classical electromagnetism". It is nothing similar. In
> fact, the equations are completely different. If you have a look at the
> equations governing sound compression waves, they are completely and totally
> different to Maxwell's equations. They don't even have the same form.
> Specifically the solutions for the speed of the waves are totally different.

Just because you worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar, you should not be a plagiarist and a liar. After all, we know
peter webb is a nitwit, and peter webb cannot change that fvcked up
personal trait. <shrug>

> Why do you invent crap like saying the speed of light theoretically behaves
> like sound according to classical electromagnetism, when anybody who had
> actually ever studied "classical electromagnetism" knows this is the case?
> Why don't you learn some basic physics instead of inventing bullshit on the
> spot?

You are totally out of it. Before the MMX, it was unanimously
believed that Aether exists, and the speed of light would always
propagate at c relative to the stationary background of the Aether.
If you have any objections, why don’t you point out a prominent
scientist who did not believe that? Can you deliver, punk? <shrug>

[Peter Webb]

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70cd8e9b-73bc-41d5...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

peter webb intoxicated with the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar ranted:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
> > the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
> > light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
> > described below.
>
> > ** [c’] = [c] – [v]
>
> > Where
>
> > ** [c’] = observed velocity of light
> > ** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
> > ** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

> No, that's not correct. In "classical electromagnetism", Maxwell's
> equations
> transform according to Lorentz, not the Galilean transform. This is not an
> experimental result per se, it is what happens if you substitute into
> Maxwell's equations a reference frame moving at a current velocity. This
> was
> a major motivator for the development of SR, and is reflected in the title
> of Einstein's 1905 paper ("On the Electrodynamics of moving bodies").

Nonsense, since the classical Maxwell’s equations do not satisfy the
principle of relativity, the results of the Galilean transform applied
to the Maxwell’s equations are not expected to satisfy the principle
of relativity as well.

______________________________________
You should really, really learn some basic physics before proceeding, if
only to learn what the terms mean. What do think the statement "the
classical Maxwell’s equations do not satisfy the principle of relativity" is
supposed to mean, for example? The principle of Relativity is a statement
about different frames of reference. And of course "classical Maxwell's
equations" provide the same result in every frame of reference.

You desperately need to actually learn basic Physics - not so much that you
are actually capable of doing the calculations, but sufficient so you
understand what the words that you are using mean. At the moment, it may
look scientific to you, but its actually just word salad.

I tried to find an explanation on how Maxwell's equations transform on the
web suitable for beginners. I couldn't find one which did not assume some
basic knowledge of electromagneticism. Lost of sites give the correct
transform (eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_electromagnetism#Maxwell.27s_equations_in_the_Lorenz_gauge),
the only thing I could find suitable for an beginner was
http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v65/i5/p412_s1?isAuthorized=no

I strongly urge that before posting again you at least learn what the words
that you use are supposed to mean. That way your sentences will at least
make sense, even if they are wrong.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 29, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:

> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You should really, really learn some basic physics before proceeding, if
> only to learn what the terms mean. What do think the statement "the
> classical Maxwell’s equations do not satisfy the principle of relativity" is
> supposed to mean, for example? The principle of Relativity is a statement
> about different frames of reference. And of course "classical Maxwell's
> equations" provide the same result in every frame of reference.

peter webb has no fvcking idea of what it is talking about. <shrug>

> You desperately need to actually learn basic Physics - not so much that you
> are actually capable of doing the calculations, but sufficient so you
> understand what the words that you are using mean. At the moment, it may
> look scientific to you, but its actually just word salad.

The above twisted sentences are perfect example of word salad.
<shrug>

> I tried to find an explanation on how Maxwell's equations transform on the
> web suitable for beginners. I couldn't find one which did not assume some
> basic knowledge of electromagneticism. Lost of sites give the correct

> transform (eghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_elect...),

> the only thing I could find suitable for an beginner washttp://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v65/i5/p412_s1?isAuthorized=no

So, peter webb doesn’t know anything that it doesn’t even know where
it should begin to do research. <shrug>

> I strongly urge that before posting again you at least learn what the words
> that you use are supposed to mean. That way your sentences will at least
> make sense, even if they are wrong.

More word salad. <shrug>

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:52:54 -0800 (PST), Koobee Wublee
<koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You should really, really learn some basic physics before proceeding, if
>> only to learn what the terms mean. What do think the statement "the
>> classical Maxwell�s equations do not satisfy the principle of relativity" is
>> supposed to mean, for example? The principle of Relativity is a statement
>> about different frames of reference. And of course "classical Maxwell's
>> equations" provide the same result in every frame of reference.
>
>peter webb has no fvcking idea of what it is talking about. <shrug>

I wholeheartedly agree....
He's even more clueless than diaper, inertial and little eric combined.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:19:03 -0800 (PST), mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 7:47 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 8:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
>> > the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
>> > state of displacement of the aether.
>>
>> > Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.
>>
>> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>>
>> > Curved spacetime is displaced aether.
>>
>> Parrots like our Sam can't possibly understand any of that.
>
>I just don't understand how any could be so screwed up as to not
>understand the particle always enters and exits a single slit in a
>double slit experiment.
>
>If the particle enters and exits a single slit then what waves?

Photons carry their own 'little bit of aether' with them. It possesses an
intrinsic oscillation of some kind that gives them wavelike properties under
certain conditions.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Michelson and Morely's results were not null;
the rather small annual variation that they found,
was improved upon, several times.

you should stick with elucidating a method to "save the phenomenon"
of SR, since I believe that you are correct
about the Doppler shifts vis-a-vu the Lorentz Twins ...
Alice and Bob?

yes, try to do that, even though
you believe Einstein was actually wrong about ...
more than the two things that I can show, he was wrong about.

[Brad Guth]

A photon wave or oscillation I can grasp. However, do we have
objective proof that individual photons actually move through space or
through aether?

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/30/11 6:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
However, do we have

> objective proof that individual photons actually move through space...

New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

"Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.

Average trajectory

"By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
"connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
at each detector position".

See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle

[Sam Wormley]

[mpc755]

On Nov 30, 11:38 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/11 6:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>   However, do we have
>
> > objective proof that individual photons actually move through space...
>
>    New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>

> See: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."

What waves is the aether.

[mpc755]

On Nov 30, 11:40 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/11 11:37 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 9:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>     Perhaps you think the bright stuff coming out of your flashlight
> >>     is something other than photons, eh Brad?
>
> > Your subjective parrot speak is noted.  Now prove or find objective
> > proof that the original photon actually moves.
>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>

> See: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."

What waves is the aether.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587

"For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a
limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I
feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really
is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've
learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've
lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any
natural language. "I think that this has really hampered our ability
to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how
new systems ought to behave.""

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

what part of electromagnetism don't you get --
the electrons in space, or the nucleii in space?

> > Photons carry their own 'little bit of aether' with them. It possesses an
> > intrinsic oscillation of some kind that gives them wavelike properties under
> > certain conditions.
>
> A photon wave or oscillation I can grasp.  However, do we have
> objective proof that individual photons actually move through space or
> through aether?

-A church-school McCrusade (Blair's ideals):
Harry-the-Mad-Potter want's US to kill Iraqis;
so does Usama's MacJihad wish a 100-year War,
for a 1000-year "anglo-american hegemony?"
"HEY, GEORGE; LET'S YOU & SADDAM FIGHT" -Dame Maggie ('92)
http://www.tarpley.net/bush25.htm ("Thyroid Storm" ch.)
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:14:15 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, light certainly does travel from distant galaxies to Earth.

It might be argued that large radio telescopes using interferometry would
not work if they were each receiving different photons. In fact, that might
apply to optical telescopes receiving very weak light. My view is that all
photons moving in a particular direction might slowly interact such that
they effectively form a broad wavefront.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

most of us have moved onto stringtheory,
after Klein needlessly offered his piece of string
to Kaluzastein, and everyone else grabbed onto it.

I'd guess that Larmor's "absolute frame" could be chosen
as one of Lorentz's, and you can just sit, therein.

> >> You should learn to reply to your correspondents; thank you.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

why does interferometry not work Okay with *waves*
in the wavefront, cf. Huyghens?

no waves, aEPR pardoxon.

is "paradoxon" a wordsvile?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

so, here are the three thoughtcriminals or relativity:
Minkowski's spacetime (mere phase space);
Klein's string (compactified dimension);
Feynman's pants (mere phase space).

but, at least, Minkowski had an excuse!

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

dood, why don't you just fart into the speech-to-text?

which part of lectromgnetism do you get; a)
the elctrons in "free space," or b)
the nucleii in "space of various permeability and
permitivity?"

the unit of pressure is the pascal,
whence you get your ideal of an absolute vacuum,
his Plenum.

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 30, 8:38 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/11 6:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>   However, do we have
>
> > objective proof that individual photons actually move through space...
>
>    New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle
>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>

> See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

You and other parrots quite miss the entire point of my question.

If such an individual photon moves, then its path or trajectory could
be viewed from the side, top or bottom. It sounds more like the
newest "double-slit experiment" confirmed aether, and not that an
individual singular photon moves.

Fiber optics doesn't not represent a perfect vacuum.

How many quadrillion atom electrons per cm exist within each glass
fiber? (depending on the light pipe diameter, I'm rough guessing at
1e22 atoms x14 electrons each)

Are you parrots now claiming that electrons have nothing to do with
photons?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 30, 8:40 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/11 11:37 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 9:10 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>     Perhaps you think the bright stuff coming out of your flashlight
> >>     is something other than photons, eh Brad?
>
> > Your subjective parrot speak is noted.  Now prove or find objective
> > proof that the original photon actually moves.
>

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

>
> "Steinberg's group sent photons one by one through a double slit by
> using a beam splitter and two lengths of fibre-optic cable. Then they
> used an electronic detector to measure the positions of photons at some
> distance away from the slits, and a calcite crystal in front of the
> detector to change the polarization of the photon, and allow them to
> make a very rough estimate of each photon's momentum from that change.
>
> Average trajectory
>
> "By measuring the momentum of many photons, the researchers were able to
> work out the average momentum of the photons at each detector. They then
> moved the crystal progressively further away from the slits, and so by
> "connecting the dots" were able to trace out the average trajectories of
> the photons. They did this while still recording an interference pattern
> at each detector position".
>

> See:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-expe...

You and other parrots quite miss the entire point of my question.

If such an individual photon moves, then its path or trajectory could
be viewed from the side, top or bottom. It sounds more like the
newest "double-slit experiment" confirmed aether, and not that an
individual singular photon moves.

Last time I'd checked, fiber optics does not represent a perfect

vacuum.

How many quadrillion atom electrons per cm exist within each glass
fiber?

Oops; depending on the light pipe diameter, I'm still rough guessing
at
4e20 atoms x14 electrons for each cm of optical pipe or fiber.

[mpc755]

I do not think it can be known if the photon is a particle which has
an associated external aether displacement wave or if the photon
'particle' occupies a very small region of the associated wave itself.

In a double slit experiment, the photon 'particle' has a well-defined
trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated aether

[Sam Wormley]

Poor Pitiful Brad, can't grasp the fact that photons can only be
"seen" at the end point!

From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.

1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)

Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ

Photon Energy
E = hν


Glass doesn't absorb photons, per se - however, they photons are
absorbed by the inter atomic bonds (phonons) and re-emitted, this
is essentially why the speed of light in glass appears slower.

[Aetherist]

> p = h?/c = h/?
>
> Photon Energy
> E = h?

>
>
> Glass doesn't absorb photons, per se - however, they photons are
> absorbed by the inter atomic bonds (phonons) and re-emitted, this
> is essentially why the speed of light in glass appears slower.

????"Glass doesn't absorb photons", really Sambo, really?

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/3/11 7:19 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

>
> If such an individual photon moves, then its path or trajectory could
> be viewed from the side, top or bottom.

Viewed by what, Brad? You can't seem to grasp the fact that photons
can only be "seen" by the process of absorption!

From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.

1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)

Photon momentum

p = hν/c = h/λ

Photon Energy
E = hν

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

this reminds me of skimming a recent *Nud Scientist*,
preceding another abstruse talkie about QM, something like,
"Accept the many-worlds formalism, or else!"

well, I *do* accept Solopsism -- for what it is.

> > "The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum,

> > a new form of matter.

thus quoth:
Einsteinmania was surpassed decades ago
by the Alfven school of plasma physics,
which uses antimatter in equal amounts
per classical quantum theory cum cosmology ...
and that, below, is the sound of one hand, applauding.
> Single handedly, I have imploded special rel.!

--Harry Potter wants US in ... whereveristan!
http://wlym.com/drupal/

[mpc755]

On Dec 6, 6:21 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dark matter is aether. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Displaced aether exerts pressure toward matter.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system.

This is gravity.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

dark matter is nothing, but Einsteinmania,
the ideal that only gravity has long-range effects,
completely overthrown by the laboratory-tested physics
of plasma & the Alfven cosomlogy, and
the labwork garnering an actual Nobel Prize
(as opposed to the Swedish Bank Prize for Econ .-)

> Dark matter is aether.

[mpc755]

On Dec 6, 6:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

so which part of "electrrons & nucleii in free space,
providing various readings of permitivity & permeability,"
do you comprehend -- teh two-letter words?

> This is gravity.

[mpc755]

On Dec 7, 12:06 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> so which part of "electrrons & nucleii in free space,
> providing various readings of permitivity & permeability,"
> do you comprehend -- teh two-letter words?
>

So, which part of the space outside of the solar system is pushing
back toward the solar system are you unable to understand?

So, which part of the interstellar space which exists outside of the
solar system is exerting inward pressure toward the solar system are
you unable to understand?

Dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies
three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter pushes back toward the matter. Aether
displaced by matter exerts pressure toward the matter.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

Okay; how about the one-letter words?

> So, which part of the space outside of the solar system is pushing
> back toward the solar system are you unable to understand?

> This is gravity.

thus:
and the late Stephen Schneider;
I spoke with him at a conference at the LA Central Library;
it is certainly true, that these models especially improve the art
of computer science.

> limitations of the models are even known and
> stated by the likes of Jones.

thus:
the Kyoto Protocol is *nothing* but cap & trade,
which I prefer to call "free-er trade," as a large vehicle
for hedge funds, such as the one that Sen. Obama started
in 2003 with the 2nd Gulf War. and, you probably thought that
only Sen. Gore had his own hedgie!

thus:
it is quite a bit easier to follow Morner's article
in http://21stcenturysciencetech.com, as it was written
for the magazine, not a journal -- not peer-reviewed,
like the vast majority of his papers.

not the same subject, of course, but
all of the usual slanders without bothering to read the ****.

anyway, Miskolczi is an excellent subject,
since it is comparing the Pippins of one GCMer
with the Delicious of others. Morner's is essentially,
"tidegauges versus reanalysis of satellite telemetry,"
where you get the "tilt" as in pinball.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes, Minkowski died at 43. Feynman is also dead, so that
he cannot be bullied about his silly lightconeheadisms.

I mean, these guys were human;
they had to put their pants on,
one lightcone at a time!

> Minkowski's spacetime (mere phase space);
> Klein's string (compactified dimension);
> Feynman's pants (mere phase space).

[mpc755]

On Dec 7, 11:24 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay; how about the one-letter words?
>
> > So, which part of the space outside of the solar system is pushing
> > back toward the solar system are you unable to understand?
> > This is gravity.
>
> thus:
> and the late Stephen Schneider;
> I spoke with him at a conference at the LA Central Library;
> it is certainly true, that these models especially improve the art
> of computer science.
>

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter

exerts pressure toward the matter.

The aether displaced by the solar system pushing back and exerting
inward pressure toward the solar system is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which

takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes

through both.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

nothing doing. Okay, if
you "really don't want to talk about it,"
then stop behaving like a middleschooler.

anway, Gauss showed the curvature of space
-- not the Minkowskian silliness of spacetime --
in surveying the border with France
of Alsace-Lorraine, paid by the German government. before that,
it was shown somewhat indirectly by Eratosthenes (or
Aristarchus?), using two gnomons at noon,
the other being reported by a correspondent
in a city on the same meridian ... using,
what we at-least-semi-literate-math-folk call,
planar trig.

God-am, waht a silly comment you make,
"Curved spacetime is displaced aether!"

not light's velocity. wouldn't it be accurate to say that
its speed was a "found" constant, or an empirical one?

to show the advance of the wavefront from the center,
one can use the planar pythagorean theoremm, but why,
not the spatial one?

it would be nice to have a "lunes proof" of the spatial one,
analogous to the (constructed) proof by similarity of Euclid,
sometimes known as Einstein's (not using the P-word,
however, members of the court .-)

there is no need to teach the trivium, since
it is really just literacy per se; better,
to work *mathematica* in a hands-on method,
and the fluency will come at around eleven (for kids
whose parents didn't go to school e.g.;
could be much earlier for the "savants.")

i.e. they can also be extras
in the middleschoolers' staging of Shakespeare.

[mpc755]

On Dec 8, 12:00 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically
displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is
pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system
is evidence of the aether.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

well, that expains every thing in Universe. but,
what do you do to antimatter, and
what do you do to "electrons & nuclei and
positrons & antinucleii in free space," so that
they will not be able to transmit light?

probably, nothing, as usual.

[mpc755]

On Dec 8, 10:26 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> well, that expains every thing in Universe.  but,
> what do you do to antimatter, and
> what do you do to "electrons & nuclei and
> positrons & antinucleii in free space," so that
> they will not be able to transmit light?
>
> probably, nothing, as usual.
>

Yes, it does explain most of the outstanding issues in physics today;
and if you really understood that you wouldn't still be calling it
'free space', you would know to call it the aether.

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter

pushes back toward the matter. Aether displaced by matter exerts
pressure toward the matter.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system
is evidence of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a

double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

your prose is like that, offramp. "please,
stop the speedreading course I want to get off!

there is only relative vacuum, whether or
not one "reifies the God-am math of Schroedinger's God-am cat, or
otherwise refuzes to open the God-am box ... lost my googles;
lost my 3d glasses; lost my marbles -- garden globes.

> Yes, it does explain most of the outstanding issues in physics today;
> and if you really understood that you wouldn't still be calling it
> 'free space', you would know to call it the aether.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

why say, stationary, if the results say, otherwise?... wait;
envelopes & letterhead!?

> > propagate at c relative to the stationary background of the Aether.

[mpc755]

On Dec 13, 8:29 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> your prose is like that, offramp.  "please,
> stop the speedreading course I want to get off!
>
> there is only relative vacuum, whether or
> not one "reifies the God-am math of Schroedinger's God-am cat, or
> otherwise refuzes to open the God-am box ... lost my googles;
> lost my 3d glasses; lost my marbles -- garden globes.
>
>

How does vacuum push back and exert pressure inward toward the solar
system?

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically
displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is
pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system
is evidence of the aether.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter by aether
displaced by matter is gravity.

In de Broglie wave mechanics the particle is in continuous energetic
contact with a hidden medium. This energetic contact with a hidden
medium is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

'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 connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

well, at least, thank God, I found my 3d glasses.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

C.F.Huyghens?

> is "paradoxon" a word?

[mpc755]

On Dec 13, 8:48 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> well, at least, thank God, I found my 3d glasses.

Maybe now you can tell us how a vacuum pushes back and exerts pressure

inward toward the solar system.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."

Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically
displaced by matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is
pushing back and exerting pressure inward toward the solar system.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward the solar system
is evidence of the aether.

The pushing back and pressure exerted inward toward matter by aether
displaced by matter is gravity.

In de Broglie wave mechanics the particle is in continuous energetic
contact with a hidden medium. This energetic contact with a hidden

medium is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory
which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave
passes through both.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

you are a completely hopeless correspondent;
I'm sorry if I wasted so much of your spacetime.

so, how can people seriously consider the albedo
of the Arctic Ocean, without knowing the angle of total reflectance
of water, say at noon on the summer solistice?

[mpc755]

On Dec 14, 7:37 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I just want you to note that
Koobee-doo *never* replies to me, either, even though
I have recently guessed that he is correct
about the Alice and Bob, viz-a-vu Doppler shifts -- not that
relativity is wrong, though.

he is just like you, in that he cannot describe any
of the phenomena of electrromagnetism by ignoring electrons
and nucleii in free space, although he couches this
in a bit of quadratic algebra.

[mpc755]

On Dec 15, 11:30 am, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I just want you to note that
> Koobee-doo *never* replies to me, either, even though
> I have recently guessed that he is correct
> about the Alice and Bob, viz-a-vu Doppler shifts -- not that
> relativity is wrong, though.
>
> he is just like you, in that he cannot describe any
> of the phenomena of electrromagnetism by ignoring electrons
> and nucleii in free space, although he couches this
> in a bit of quadratic algebra.
>

I have figured out what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity,
the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment, the relationship
between mass and energy, and more correctly defined time.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

yes, by completely ignoring electromagnetism and, thusly,
electrons & nucleii, thus matter,
not to mention antimatter; congradulation. for instance,
how do you explain Snell's law with aether?

in other words,
it is not unlike "dark matter," as you have said,
but without anything else in Universe.

another example of this sort of argument is
from Neinstein, with his "iotas" and no electromagnetism.

Young's two-pinhole esperiment is easily explained
as simple, wavelike phenomenon, and that is what he did,
completely destroying Fig Newton's corpuscular "theory."

> I have figured out what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity,
> the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment, the relationship
> between mass and energy, and more correctly defined time.

about the angle of total reflection
of water, poleward of the arctic & antarctic circles,
viz albedo; what do the GCMers say about it?... nothing?

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

all that one has to do,
is get rid of the assumption of stationarity, then
procede to utilize the electrons & nucleii of free space,
qua electromagnetism, The End.

> > Before the MMX, it was unanimously
> > believed that Aether exists, and the speed of light would always

[mpc755]

On Dec 15, 12:52 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I also figured out it's not the big bang; it's the big ongoing.