ok fellas, stop fooling around
josX
entrained aether = proved (MMX)
stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
shape of aether = shape of Earth electro-magnetic field which is
exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
aether, which is exactly ok with the fact that light is an electro
magnetic wave.)
So, let's stop fooling around and be happy.
This is your change to acknowledge that at least a serious and
at least qualitative alternative to relativity exists. If you want
to go down with relativity, then this is your chance also. Choose.
Be happy!
--
jos
Uncle Al
>
> relativity = disproved
[snip]
Tell it to FermiLab, you boring psychotic neducable idiot.
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
READ IT, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE, READ IT.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
YBM
> relativity = disproved
just as disproved as *two years* of Jos' intellectual
activity disproved escape velocity. (see google/groups)
...meaning only he didn't even understand the very first
words of it.
Harold Ensle
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> relativity = disproved
true
> entrained aether = proved (MMX)
false, entrained ether was only one of the solutions, so MMX
could not "prove" it.
there could also be:
A. physical length contraction in the direction of motion.
B. lenghth expansion perpendicular to motion.
C. source dependent light speed additive.
D. source dependent symmetric 2nd order speed
dependence, faster along the direction of motion or,
E. slower perpendicular to the motion or,
F-Z any combination of the above.
(BTW the correct answer is A)
> stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
>
> shape of aether = shape of Earth electro-magnetic field which is
> exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
> aether, which is exactly ok with the fact that light is an electro
> magnetic wave.)
????????????????
H.Ellis Ensle
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> relativity = disproved
Supported by experiment for over a century.
> entrained aether = proved (MMX)
Disproved by the fact of stellar abberration.
> stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
Stellar abberation is inconsistent with entrained aether.
0 for 3 which is just about right for you.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>relativity = disproved
>entrained aether = proved (MMX)
>stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
A hundred years ago scientists gave up their long-familiar aether
paradigm and embraced something radical and new. Find out why.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Martin Hogbin
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:ar6nts$jai$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> > exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
> > aether, which is exactly ok with the fact that light is an electro
> > magnetic wave.)
> ????????????????
Even a crackpot thinks you are mad Jos.
Martin Hogbin
Ronald Stepp
news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Pathetic as always
David Evens
A lunatic who says that people should cut holes in their skulls and
thinks the voices in her head are aliens from Zeta Reticulus thinks
JosX is mad. A mere crackpot hardly registers with him.
Titanpoint
> [snipped crap]
As a professional trollologist on messageboards and newsgroups, I can
confirm the tactic known as "stating something wrong to be correct and
everyone who believes that otherwise is a fool" to be characteristic of
people who either:
a) Haven't bothered to crack the books b) Read some descriptions but
thinks it's all an illusion c) Read some desciptions doesn't think its all
an illusion but does think that they can prove it using logical deduction
without math d) Thinks that everyone else doesn't understand the deep
meaning of the "paradox" as well as they do and that people working in the
field are deluded.
These people think that science is about making bold statements of their
beliefs and defying everyone else to disprove them.
What distinguishes them from people simply making mistakes, and what
betrays them is that they cannot even construct a simple logical argument
from premises to conclusion without fouling up. Repeatedly.
TP, PhD Trollology, University of Life.
josX
>In article <3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>relativity = disproved
>>entrained aether = proved (MMX)
>>stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
>
>A hundred years ago scientists gave up their long-familiar aether
>paradigm and embraced something radical and new. Find out why.
They hadn't thought of the possibility that the Earth aether might
be shaped thusly:
||
||
||
||
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| __ |
| / \ |
( ( ) )
\ \__/ /
\____/
\|/
-*- Sun
/|\
which explains stellar abberation ?
Which happens to be the shape of the Earth magnetic field.
If they didn't thought of it, then when do i get my Nobel.
I'd like to chare it with Caroline and spaceman if that's ok :-).
"For getting physics back to reality and hashing out a solution for
stellar abberation."
Last chance to turn around and face reality, or harden in your
nonsensical theories that will ultimately be the laughing stock
of historians.
Just acknowledge the simple fact that there is a competetor to
relativity that explains MMX and stellar abberation, and is consistant
with the fact that light is an electro-magnetic wave.
We didn't have the stellar abberation explanation before, so you
still had a marginal reason to honestly be for relativity even though
it was contradictory, because there "was no coherent alternative"
(and you ofcourse wouldn't want to find any alternative, because you
were already "so sure" of relativity.)
But now things have changed again and you didn't knew that before,
so you might want to rethink your opinion. Eventually you will all
get burned on relativity, so make it easy on yourself and hedge your
bets partly to the entrained aether theory, which explains it all
(at least qualitatively). No shame in being wrong, you are it all the
time except on one issue (escape velocity). You see i am still alive
after having made a mistake, its not as hard as you think to admit
you made a mistake.
--
jos boersema
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction.
But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept
of which I am convinced it will stand firm"
-- Albert Einstein on his 70th birthday in a letter to Solvine
josX
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:30:38 +0000, josX wrote:
>> [snipped crap]
>These people think that science is about making bold statements of their
>beliefs and defying everyone else to disprove them.
FYI, this is what the relativists do: "relativity has not been
disproven" and their statements are as bold as it gets (wormholes,
bending space, bending time, relativity of simultaneity, lightspeed
constancy, fourth or more dimensional universe, light speed limit,
mutual timedilation, mutual lengthcontraction etc etc).
And all they have to say for it is "it has not yet been disproven".
Pretty thin isn't it, considdering a very compact replacement theory
is on hand (Earth magnetic-field shaped entrained aether). Notice the
beauty of the argument, how it cuts both ways: that shape explains
stellar abberation, its the shape of the Earth electro magnetic field,
and light is an electro-magnetic wave!. What more can you ask for... ?
Its short, simple, intuitive, non selfcontradictory, and coherent accross
multiple given evidences, a piece of the puzzle that fits on three sides.
....................................................
....................................................
-----------------,..............,-------------------
___ |..............| ___
stellar /...\__|..............|__/...\ MMX showed
abbera- |.............____ ............| the light
tion |.....__.... / \ ... __.....| moves with
\___/ |...| |...| \___/ the Earth
|....\ /....| locally
_________________|_____| |_____|___________________
| |
| |
| light is an |
| electro |
| magnetic |
| wave |
| |
_________________|______________|___________________
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
................,--------------,....................
tear drop.___...| Entrained |...___..............
shaped.../ \__| aether |__/ \...Locally...
entrain-| ____ |..the lightmedium
ed aeth-| __ / \ __ |..moves with the
er.......\___/..| | | |..\___/...Earth.....
necessary.......| \ / |....................
................|_____| |_____|....................
....................the shape.......................
....................of the tear.....................
..................drop shaped aether................
is the shape of the
Earth magnetic field
Quite satisfying isn't it.
And this piece fits more data:
- The historical Einstein was less then brilliant and has many founded
accusation of plagiarism against him, had nothing to do with the bomb
etc etc.
- Lorentz couldn't believe in the MMX null result and loved the stationary
aether theory a lot.
- relativity is self contradictory and rigorously disproven
Kevin Aylward
> "Titanpoint" <titan...@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:30:38 +0000, josX wrote:
> >> [snipped crap]
> <snip>
> >These people think that science is about making bold statements of
their
> >beliefs and defying everyone else to disprove them.
> <snip>
>
> FYI, this is what the relativists do: "relativity has not been
> disproven" and their statements are as bold as it gets (wormholes,
> bending space, bending time, relativity of simultaneity, lightspeed
> constancy, fourth or more dimensional universe, light speed limit,
> mutual timedilation, mutual lengthcontraction etc etc).
>
> And all they have to say for it is "it has not yet been disproven".
>
> Pretty thin isn't it, considdering a very compact replacement theory
> is on hand (Earth magnetic-field shaped entrained aether). Notice the
> beauty of the argument, how it cuts both ways: that shape explains
> stellar abberation, its the shape of the Earth electro magnetic field,
> and light is an electro-magnetic wave!. What more can you ask for... ?
> Its short, simple, intuitive, non selfcontradictory, and coherent
accross
> multiple given evidences, a piece of the puzzle that fits on three
sides.
>
Please present your non SR, derivation of the, experimentally proven,
equation:
F=d(mo.v/(1+(v/c)^2)^1/2)dt
Kevin Aylward
sa...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Yes, be happy!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Relabsolute
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Freely
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NonEuclidean
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#3Physicists
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SpaceRight
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BoerChall
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#OutOfLine
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosNazi
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Euclidean
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#KnowingThat
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#OrderEvent
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#BiasedPeople
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AirjosX
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#OhYes
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#WrongWay
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Mentally
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SolidFact
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DeepGap
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NoDiagram
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#JosXGamma
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NothingWrong
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DontEven
Dirk Vdm
Titanpoint
> "Titanpoint" <titan...@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:30:38 +0000, josX wrote:
>>> [snipped crap]
> <snip>
>>These people think that science is about making bold statements of their
>>beliefs and defying everyone else to disprove them.
> <snip>
>
> FYI, this is what the relativists do: "relativity has not been
> disproven" and their statements are as bold as it gets (wormholes,
> bending space, bending time, relativity of simultaneity, lightspeed
> constancy, fourth or more dimensional universe, light speed limit,
> mutual timedilation, mutual lengthcontraction etc etc).
Relativists make bold statements because they've found solutions to the
equations, conducted experiments to see whether the universe really does
behave in the way the equations describe and RELATIVITY HAS BEEN PROVEN
EVERY TIME SO FAR.
Why is relativity wrong if it keeps getting the right answer? Don't try to
patronize us with "Einstein was lucky"
>
> And all they have to say for it is "it has not yet been disproven".
No. They have said that SR gives the correct predictions to experiments
whuwhich designed to falsify SR.
Like much else in science, SR is provisional. Any theory which takes over
from SR must explain why SR worked for so long and must explain a
phenomena that SR cannot explain. There have been no such phenomena.
> Pretty thin isn't it, considdering a very compact replacement theory
> is on hand (Earth magnetic-field shaped entrained aether). Notice the
> beauty of the argument, how it cuts both ways: that shape explains
> stellar abberation, its the shape of the Earth electro magnetic field,
> and light is an electro-magnetic wave!. What more can you ask for... ?
> Its short, simple, intuitive, non selfcontradictory, and coherent accross
> multiple given evidences, a piece of the puzzle that fits on three
sides.
Intuitive appears to be in the brain of the beholder.
Holy crap! He can draw jigsaw pieces in ASCII! Einstein is finished!
>
> And this piece fits more data:
> - The historical Einstein was less then brilliant and has many founded
> accusation of plagiarism against him, had nothing to do with the bomb
> etc etc.
Einstein, like everyone else in science, stood on the shoulders of giants.
> - Lorentz couldn't believe in the MMX null result and loved the stationary
> aether theory a lot.
Belief and love don't matter. I'm sure that Lorentz would have accepted SR
because it encapsulated his idea into a greater scheme.
> - relativity is self contradictory and rigorously disproven
> --
Only in your mind. Still the world has not stopped.
TP
josX
And the fact that relativity is self contradictory doesn't matter at all...
>> Pretty thin isn't it, considdering a very compact replacement theory
>> is on hand (Earth magnetic-field shaped entrained aether). Notice the
>> beauty of the argument, how it cuts both ways: that shape explains
>> stellar abberation, its the shape of the Earth electro magnetic field,
>> and light is an electro-magnetic wave!. What more can you ask for... ?
>> Its short, simple, intuitive, non selfcontradictory, and coherent accross
>> multiple given evidences, a piece of the puzzle that fits on three
>> sides.
>
>Intuitive appears to be in the brain of the beholder.
It is widely accepted that relativity is non intuitive.
The "Earth local co-moving lightmedium in the shape of a
teardrop pointing away from Earth"-theory however, would
be intuitive.
>> ....................................................
>> ....................................................
>> -----------------,..............,-------------------
>> ___ |..............| ___
>> stellar /...\__|..............|__/...\ MMX showed
>> abbera- |.............____ ............| the light
>> tion |.....__.... / \ ... __.....| moves with
>> \___/ |...| |...| \___/ the Earth
>> |....\ /....| locally
>> _________________|_____| |_____|___________________
>> | |
>> | |
>> | light is an |
>> | electro |
>> | magnetic |
>> | wave |
>> | |
>> _________________|______________|___________________
>> ....................................................
>> ....................................................
>> ....................................................
>> ................,--------------,....................
>> tear drop.___...| Entrained |...___..............
>> shaped.../ \__| aether |__/ \...Locally...
>> entrain-| ____ |..the lightmedium
>> ed aeth-| __ /....\ __ |..moves with the
>> er.......\___/..| |......| |..\___/...Earth.....
>> necessary.......| \..../ |....................
>> ................|_____|..|_____|....................
>> ....................the shape.......................
>> ....................of the tear.....................
>> ..................drop shaped aether................
>> is the shape of the
>> Earth magnetic field
>>
>> Quite satisfying isn't it.
>
>Holy crap! He can draw jigsaw pieces in ASCII! Einstein is finished!
He is finished, if it is because of my ascii-art or not is something for
the historians.
>> And this piece fits more data:
>> - The historical Einstein was less then brilliant and has many founded
>> accusation of plagiarism against him, had nothing to do with the bomb
>> etc etc.
>
>Einstein, like everyone else in science, stood on the shoulders of giants.
Yes, plagiarizing their work. But they weren't giants, he stole from the
wrong people.
>> - Lorentz couldn't believe in the MMX null result and loved the stationary
>> aether theory a lot.
>
>Belief and love don't matter. I'm sure that Lorentz would have accepted SR
>because it encapsulated his idea into a greater scheme.
>
>> - relativity is self contradictory and rigorously disproven
>> --
>Only in your mind. Still the world has not stopped.
In a world not infested with political intrigue, things could be quite
different soon.
I just wonder which physicists will plagiarize this anti-relativity
work and try to make a name for himself "using the shoulders of
others". Seems to be a theme in physics doesn't it.
I can see it already:
Kolker: "mister <blabla> did the math, he gets the credit, tough luck."
or
Kolker: "mister <blabla> has worked years on it, way before you were born."
And then maybe some hybrid is created between entrained teardrop aether and
relativity that keeps everybody happy until all relativists have died
out properly.
--
jos
Ken Seto
> news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > relativity = disproved
>
> true
>
> > entrained aether = proved (MMX)
>
> false, entrained ether was only one of the solutions, so MMX
> could not "prove" it.
>
> there could also be:
> A. physical length contraction in the direction of motion.
> B. lenghth expansion perpendicular to motion.
> C. source dependent light speed additive.
> D. source dependent symmetric 2nd order speed
> dependence, faster along the direction of motion or,
> E. slower perpendicular to the motion or,
> F-Z any combination of the above.
>
> (BTW the correct answer is A)
There is another explanation:
The MMX apparatus is moving vertically. This makes all the horizontal
orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
thus the null result. Notice that this is the only direction of
motion can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
the KTX and MMX gave null result.
Ken Seto
Gregory L. Hansen
Titanpoint <titan...@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:30:38 +0000, josX wrote:
>
>> [snipped crap]
>
>As a professional trollologist on messageboards and newsgroups, I can
>confirm the tactic known as "stating something wrong to be correct and
>everyone who believes that otherwise is a fool" to be characteristic of
>people who either:
>
>a) Haven't bothered to crack the books b) Read some descriptions but
>thinks it's all an illusion c) Read some desciptions doesn't think its all
>an illusion but does think that they can prove it using logical deduction
>without math d) Thinks that everyone else doesn't understand the deep
>meaning of the "paradox" as well as they do and that people working in the
>field are deluded.
An option I don't really see in there, although it might be considered
part of c), is they don't understand the standards of evidence. "I think
it sounds good, and I drew a nice picture, so it must be true." Or what's
called a hand-waving argument. Not even an effort at quantitative
prediction.
Not only does light bend around the Sun, Einstein's theory predicts by how
much it bends and Newton's doesn't. A crackpot wouldn't always even
bother to find the sign of the deflection, much less plot a curve of
deflection versus impact parameter, or show that he actually gets the
right number. Replace "light bend[s] around the Sun" with whatever
phenomenon or theory the crackpot is interested in. They never seem to
move past the part of sitting around in the coffee shop dreaming up a
pretty little picture. They never ask themselves "How can I be sure I'm
right?", only "How can I convince everyone else?"
jmfb...@aol.com
I think you're only discussing symptoms, not the disease.
The disease has to do with discrediting a discipline for
the sole purpose of promoting his/her religion; the goal
is to rule the world, literally. What I don't understand
is how these people think that they have The Answer to
all problems when they can't solve a single one locally.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Spaceman
>Why is relativity wrong if it keeps getting the right answer?
Because it does not always get the correct answer.
clocks malfunction and relativity allows that malfunction to be
"time changing"
Relativity stepped out of the science of measurement
when it does such.
Time does not change rate.
GR,SR and QM are wrong about such.
and will always be wrong about such simply
because clocks "DO" malfunction and it can not be ignored
like GR,SR and QM and foolish mechanically illiterate dupes
keep doing.
The function of a clock Kills relativity.
and killed it long ago.
only "atomic clock worshippers" still hold it true about all
instead of "wrong about time" like it really is.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
John Sefton
>
> josX wrote:
> >
> > relativity = disproved
> [snip]
>
> Tell it to FermiLab, you boring psychotic neducable idiot.
>
'you boring ineducable idiot' saved
somewhere so you don't misspell the tough
words like ineducable.
That way you don't have to remember to look
in your dictionary every time?
John
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> There is another explanation:
> The MMX apparatus is moving vertically. This makes all the horizontal
> orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> thus the null result. Notice that this is the only direction of
> motion can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
> the KTX and MMX gave null result.
I'd like you to think about this.
If one arm is vertical, will its length be affected by the orientation of
the other arm? I will assume you say no.
If one arm is horizontal and perpendicular to the "aether wind", will its
length be shortened? I will assume you say no.
So if all possible configurations of horizontal arms has been tried, some of
them surely had to be perpendicular to the "aether wind". And none of them
showed a positive result. A vertical leg test won't either.
David A. Smith
Mike Varney
MasterCougar
(Spaceman) posted news:20021117094142...@mb-mu.aol.com:
> Because it does not always get the correct answer.
> clocks malfunction and relativity allows that malfunction to be
> "time changing"
>
>
Bullshit.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Harold Ensle
Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:ar6q9l$hm0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
This is a clear indication of Hogbin's mental abilities.
Never once in the above post did I claim that Jos
was mad.
I simply disagreed with one point and did not understand
(with some suspicion) a second.
Please go somewhere and learn to read. (It could
benifit you greatly.)
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
news:<ar6nts$jai$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > > relativity = disproved
> >
> > true
> >
> > > entrained aether = proved (MMX)
> >
> > false, entrained ether was only one of the solutions, so MMX
> > could not "prove" it.
> >
> > there could also be:
> > A. physical length contraction in the direction of motion.
> > B. lenghth expansion perpendicular to motion.
> > C. source dependent light speed additive.
> > D. source dependent symmetric 2nd order speed
> > dependence, faster along the direction of motion or,
> > E. slower perpendicular to the motion or,
> > F-Z any combination of the above.
> >
> > (BTW the correct answer is A)
>
> There is another explanation:
> The MMX apparatus is moving vertically.
Upwards in a gravitational field?
>This makes all the horizontal
> orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> thus the null result.
??????????????
>Notice that this is the only direction of
> motion
How can there be only one direction of motion?
>can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
> the KTX and MMX gave null result.
H.Ellis Ensle
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: "Titanpoint" titan...@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com
>
>>Why is relativity wrong if it keeps getting the right answer?
>
>Because it does not always get the correct answer.
>clocks malfunction and relativity allows that malfunction to be
>"time changing"
You're talking about different right answers. Titanpoint is talking about
the result of a measurement, you're talking about a metaphysical assertion
of mechanism. The former is something we can investigate, the latter is
your opinion and will never be anything more.
John Holland
belachelijk. Iemand die in deze nieuwsgroep nog elementaire fouten in zijn
Engels maakt, wordt nooit serieus genomen, dus....................
terug naar school.
Cheers,
JH
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:3dd75a68$0$46609$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >In article <3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >>relativity = disproved
> >>entrained aether = proved (MMX)
> >>stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
> >
> >A hundred years ago scientists gave up their long-familiar aether
> >paradigm and embraced something radical and new. Find out why.
>
> They hadn't thought (terug naar de kleuterklas)
Titanpoint
[snipped crap]
>
> In a world not infested with political intrigue, things could be quite
> different soon.
>
> I just wonder which physicists will plagiarize this anti-relativity work
> and try to make a name for himself "using the shoulders of others".
> Seems to be a theme in physics doesn't it.
>
> I can see it already:
> Kolker: "mister <blabla> did the math, he gets the credit, tough luck."
> or
> Kolker: "mister <blabla> has worked years on it, way before you were
> born." And then maybe some hybrid is created between entrained teardrop
> aether and relativity that keeps everybody happy until all relativists
> have died out properly.
Compare this ego trip with the quote that's in your signature:
"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction.
But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single
concept of which I am convinced it will stand firm"
-- Albert Einstein on his 70th birthday in a letter to Solvine
Einstein knew that his work was provisional upon scientific testing and
predictive power. He knew that science moves on. Einstein did not overturn
Newton, he explained why Newton's laws worked. Newton's Laws are still
enough to send men to the Moon.
You however have not predicted a single anomalous phenomenon, nor
published a single paper in any recognised journal. You have not explained
why you can't simply write out the mathematical equations and state all
axioms used and all assumptions made. (Hint: ASCII diagrams aren't
mathematics). You have not justified why Einstein's theory has such great
predictive power. You have not explained why Mercury's orbit precesses
(due to the electromagnetic tail of the Earth perhaps?) but Einstein has.
You have not explained why starlight bends in the prescence of a strong
gravitational field. Einstein has. You have not set out any field
equations which predict black holes or the behavior of neutron stars. You
have not explanined why the clocks on probes well away from the Earth's
magnetic tail are still slightly quicker than those on the earth. Einstein
has.
You know what? Einstein didn't need Usenet to promote his image or bother
people with his work. He didn't compare himself favourably to Maxwell or
Newton, Riemann or Lorentz. He simply produced a synthesis of what was
known about phenomena like Maxwell's implication of the invariability of
the speed of light. He then used this synthesis to predict phenomena. When
the observed bending of light was observed by a deeply skeptical
physicist, he let the result speak for itself.
The results of Einstein's equations still predict to high accuracy the
behavior of the decay of the orbits of binary neutron stars by emission of
gravitational waves.
Einstein's work is provisional. In fact, I'm working on an idea that says
that Einstein's equations are incomplete. If I'm right, it doesn't mean
that Einstein was wrong or I am better. I means that I too shall stand on
the shoulders of giants. And I won't need a Usenet group posting to prove
it.
You however want the glory. You don't want to do the work.
Enough.
TP
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> relativity = disproved
> entrained aether = proved (MMX)
By you, I take it? You really should study the meaning of the words
"proved" and "disproved" before you go and make such idiotic claims.
Your "book" isn't worth the bits it's stored in...
--
Jos "josX" Boersema, crackpot, cook, psychotic:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html (updated!)
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> be shaped thusly:
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | __ |
> | / \ |
> ( ( ) )
> \ \__/ /
> \____/
>
So what does that drawing mean? That there's a "bubble" of aether
surrounding the earth? What's *outside* of this "bubble"? Nothing?
> If they didn't thought of it, then when do i get my Nobel.
They only thing you might eventually get is your very own room
at your local mental hospital.
> I'd like to chare it with Caroline and spaceman if that's ok :-).
And I'm sure Driscoll will eventually end up in the loonie-bin too.
josX
>Martin Hogbin <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
>news:ar6q9l$hm0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>>"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:ar6nts$jai$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>shape of aether = shape of Earth electro-magnetic field which is
>>>>exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
>>>>aether, which is exactly ok with the fact that light is an electro
>>>>magnetic wave.)
>>
>>>????????????????
>>
>>Even a crackpot thinks you are mad Jos.
>
>This is a clear indication of Hogbin's mental abilities.
>Never once in the above post did I claim that Jos
>was mad.
Maybe i am mad, i am the latest to contest that, but i can still
be right and have thought up the winning arguments. =)
>I simply disagreed with one point and did not understand
>(with some suspicion) a second.
>
>Please go somewhere and learn to read. (It could
>benifit you greatly.)
What didn't you understand ?
("???" isn't very helpfull.)
--
jos boersema
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
Relativity is not self-contradictory. You *think* it is because you
don't understand it, and so you have made up some caricature-theory
that you *think* is relativity, but really isn't. It is this caricature
theory of yours that is self-contradictory, not relativity.
> It is widely accepted that relativity is non intuitive.
"Non-intuitive" does not mean "wrong".
"Impossible for Jos Boersema to understand" does not mean "wrong".
> The "Earth local co-moving lightmedium in the shape of a
> teardrop pointing away from Earth"-theory however, would
> be intuitive.
Especially since we have never observed this "lightmedium", right?
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> Maybe i am mad, i am the latest to contest that, but i can still
> be right and have thought up the winning arguments. =)
You can drop the "maybe" and the part about "winning".
Ken Seto
> Dear Ken Seto:
>
> "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > There is another explanation:
> > The MMX apparatus is moving vertically. This makes all the horizontal
> > orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> > thus the null result. Notice that this is the only direction of
> > motion can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
> > the KTX and MMX gave null result.
>
> I'd like you to think about this.
>
> If one arm is vertical, will its length be affected by the orientation of
> the other arm? I will assume you say no.
You are correct. It will still be null result. However, if you
vary the vertical or hroizontal arm length there will be fringe shift.
>
> If one arm is horizontal and perpendicular to the "aether wind", will its
> length be shortened? I will assume you say no.
There is no ether wind. Objects are moving in a stationary ether.
>
> So if all possible configurations of horizontal arms has been tried, some of
> them surely had to be perpendicular to the "aether wind". And none of them
> showed a positive result. A vertical leg test won't either.
See above.
Ken Seto
YBM
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:ar6nts$jai$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>>shape of aether = shape of Earth electro-magnetic field which is
>>>exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
>>>aether, which is exactly ok with the fact that light is an electro
>>>magnetic wave.)
>>
>
>>????????????????
>
>
> Even a crackpot thinks you are mad Jos.
I have another (very rational in jos' sense) theory : some of the
traditional well known crackpots get into a conspiration and created
a so obviously dumb and stupid anti-relativity troll that it
makes them appear clever, quiet, open-minded and rational.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<CVPB9.24737$Ay3.2...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear Ken Seto:
> >
> > "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > There is another explanation:
> > > The MMX apparatus is moving vertically. This makes all the horizontal
> > > orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> > > thus the null result. Notice that this is the only direction of
> > > motion can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
> > > the KTX and MMX gave null result.
> >
> > I'd like you to think about this.
> >
> > If one arm is vertical, will its length be affected by the orientation
of
> > the other arm? I will assume you say no.
>
> You are correct. It will still be null result. However, if you
> vary the vertical or hroizontal arm length there will be fringe shift.
> >
> > If one arm is horizontal and perpendicular to the "aether wind", will
its
> > length be shortened? I will assume you say no.
>
> There is no ether wind. Objects are moving in a stationary ether.
If I have an arm oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion of the
Earth through the stationary aether, does it shorten? Or does this only
happen for arms directed in the same direction of motion of the Earth?
> > So if all possible configurations of horizontal arms has been tried,
some of
> > them surely had to be perpendicular to the "aether wind". And none of
them
> > showed a positive result. A vertical leg test won't either.
>
> See above.
See above.
David A. Smith
Titanpoint
> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> > And the fact that relativity is self contradictory doesn't matter at all...
>
> Relativity is not self-contradictory. You *think* it is because you
> don't understand it, and so you have made up some caricature-theory
> that you *think* is relativity, but really isn't. It is this caricature
> theory of yours that is self-contradictory, not relativity.
Completely agreed.
>
> > It is widely accepted that relativity is non intuitive.
>
> "Non-intuitive" does not mean "wrong".
> "Impossible for Jos Boersema to understand" does not mean "wrong".
Perhaps non-intuitive and "wrong" appears as synonyms in JosX's
thesaurus. Much of mathematical theory appears non-intuitive when it
is not understood. Perhaps he's just admitting ignorance.
He certainly betrays it.
>
> > The "Earth local co-moving lightmedium in the shape of a
> > teardrop pointing away from Earth"-theory however, would
> > be intuitive.
Being intuitive, like Newton's absolute space and time, or
phlegistons, or Ptolemy's epicycles, doesn't mean objectively true.
Look it up.
>
> Especially since we have never observed this "lightmedium", right?
Sheesh 150+ years after Maxwell, some idiot is still talking about
ether drift....
TP
Ken Seto
The arm remain the same length in all directions. What is changing
is its light path lemgth and light path length is dependent on the
state of absolute motion of the arm (rod). This means that your
claim of no physical rod length is absurd.
> Or does this only
> happen for arms directed in the same direction of motion of the Earth?
No the arm length remains the same even in the direction of motion
of the earth.
Ken Seto
Spaceman
>Relativity is not self-contradictory.
<ROFLOL>
The pardox twins are the same revs of EARTH WRT the Sun old.
You are wrong.
It is very self contradictory.
in fact.
almost all of it is once you find out the
clock malfuntioned.
<LOL>
poor brainwashed time travelers still refuse to
stop worshipping a clock malfuntions prediction.
sad..
just sad.
especially when the prediction states
(time itself changed)
<LOL>
Spaceman
>You're talking about different right answers. Titanpoint is talking about
>the result of a measurement, you're talking about a metaphysical assertion
>of mechanism.
You are the one with the metaphysical and "massless photon crap"
Results of measurements are on my side.
The science that knows the clock "can and does" malfunction
and time "as a force" does not exist at all.
You are the one with "forceless forces" such as time that can change rate.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>You're talking about different right answers. Titanpoint is talking about
>>the result of a measurement, you're talking about a metaphysical assertion
>>of mechanism.
>
>You are the one with the metaphysical and "massless photon crap"
>Results of measurements are on my side.
Which measurements?
MasterCougar
posted news:20021118095222...@mb-mu.aol.com:
> The pardox twins are the same revs of EARTH WRT the Sun old.
>
>
Moron
Nicholas Steele
valid explanation for stellar aberration - you might have a good theory but
you haven't settled anything.
Based on your diagram it appears you imagine the earth's entrained
aether to be shaped like the earth's magnetic field - pushed out of a
spherical shape by the solar wind. I can't remember exactly how you
explained in in your previous post but you say stellar aberration is caused
by the incoming light from a star changing velocity as it enters the
stretched out aether, and it is this change in velocity that accounts for
the aberration, correct? Now, if the solar wind blows the earth's entrained
aether out of the shape of a sphere, that introduces asymmetry, as shown
clearly in you diagram. If the entrained aether is asymmetric then shouldn't
the amount of aberration measured vary depending on the orientation of the
earth-sun-observed star. Wouldn't a star show more aberration when observed
when opposite the sun - the light has the thicker 'tail' of aether to go
through - then if it was only say at a right angle to the earth-sun line?
Does that make sense? Has it been measured?
Nicholas Steele
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:3dd75a68$0$46609$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >In article <3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>,
> >josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >>relativity = disproved
> >>entrained aether = proved (MMX)
> >>stellar abberation is ok with an entrained aether
> >
> >A hundred years ago scientists gave up their long-familiar aether
> >paradigm and embraced something radical and new. Find out why.
>
> They hadn't thought of the possibility that the Earth aether might
> be shaped thusly:
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | __ |
> | / \ |
> ( ( ) )
> \ \__/ /
> \____/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> \|/
> -*- Sun
> /|\
>
> which explains stellar abberation ?
>
> Which happens to be the shape of the Earth magnetic field.
>
> If they didn't thought of it, then when do i get my Nobel.
> I'd like to chare it with Caroline and spaceman if that's ok :-).
> "For getting physics back to reality and hashing out a solution for
> stellar abberation."
>
> Last chance to turn around and face reality, or harden in your
> nonsensical theories that will ultimately be the laughing stock
> of historians.
>
> Just acknowledge the simple fact that there is a competetor to
> relativity that explains MMX and stellar abberation, and is consistant
> with the fact that light is an electro-magnetic wave.
>
> We didn't have the stellar abberation explanation before, so you
> still had a marginal reason to honestly be for relativity even though
> it was contradictory, because there "was no coherent alternative"
> (and you ofcourse wouldn't want to find any alternative, because you
> were already "so sure" of relativity.)
> But now things have changed again and you didn't knew that before,
> so you might want to rethink your opinion. Eventually you will all
> get burned on relativity, so make it easy on yourself and hedge your
> bets partly to the entrained aether theory, which explains it all
> (at least qualitatively). No shame in being wrong, you are it all the
> time except on one issue (escape velocity). You see i am still alive
> after having made a mistake, its not as hard as you think to admit
> you made a mistake.
Spaceman
>On the dark and dreary 18 Nov 2002 agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman)
>posted news:20021118095222...@mb-mu.aol.com:
>
>> The pardox twins are the same revs of EARTH WRT the Sun old.
>>
>>
>
> Moron
>
Yes,
you are still one since you refuse to get the above at all.
<LOL>
Thanks for such observational proof!
<LOL>
Randy Poe
> shape of aether = shape of Earth electro-magnetic field which is
> exactly what you need to explain stellar abberation with a dragged
> magnetic wave.)
So you figure that e-m radiation only propagates in the vicinity
of earth, and all those stars are optical illusions.
Or are you saying the geomagnetic field is constant out to
infinity?
> So, let's stop fooling around and be happy.
You probably have a pretty pill given to you by a nice
man or lady, that is designed to do that for you.
- Randy
Robert Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> You probably have a pretty pill given to you by a nice
> man or lady, that is designed to do that for you.
You should read him when he does not take his Meds.
There he is, alone and happy in his Joseverse, where the laws of reality
are unreal indeed.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<CVPB9.24737$Ay3.2...@news1.west.cox.net>...
> > Dear Ken Seto:
> >
> > "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > There is another explanation:
> > > The MMX apparatus is moving vertically. This makes all the horizontal
> > > orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> > > thus the null result. Notice that this is the only direction of
> > > motion can explain why the speed of light is isotropic and why
> > > the KTX and MMX gave null result.
> >
> > I'd like you to think about this.
> >
> > If one arm is vertical, will its length be affected by the orientation of
> > the other arm? I will assume you say no.
>
> You are correct. It will still be null result. However, if you
> vary the vertical or hroizontal arm length there will be fringe shift.
> >
> > If one arm is horizontal and perpendicular to the "aether wind", will its
> > length be shortened? I will assume you say no.
>
> There is no ether wind. Objects are moving in a stationary ether.
A nice one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#EtherWind
For the title I allow one guess.
On perpendicularity and verticality, we also have:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#MMXVertical
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Vertical2
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#FumbleStack
and many many many more.
Dirk Vdm
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:75dd81d3.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:<ar6nts$jai$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > > josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3dd6c70d$0$46607$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > > > relativity = disproved
> > >
> > > true
> > >
> > > > entrained aether = proved (MMX)
> > >
> > > false, entrained ether was only one of the solutions, so MMX
> > > could not "prove" it.
> > >
> > > there could also be:
> > > A. physical length contraction in the direction of motion.
> > > B. lenghth expansion perpendicular to motion.
> > > C. source dependent light speed additive.
> > > D. source dependent symmetric 2nd order speed
> > > dependence, faster along the direction of motion or,
> > > E. slower perpendicular to the motion or,
> > > F-Z any combination of the above.
> > >
> > > (BTW the correct answer is A)
> >
> > There is another explanation:
> > The MMX apparatus is moving vertically.
>
> Upwards in a gravitational field?
Yes. This is the only direction of absolute motion that will
explain the isotropy of the speed of light in all horizontal
directions and the MMX and KTX null result. I know that it is
countertuitive but it is the only answer available that
does not require the more counterintuitive length contraction
explanation.
>
> >This makes all the horizontal
> > orientations of the arms to have the same light path length and
> > thus the null result.
>
> ??????????????
Why can't you see that? The light path length from each arm is
a slant path to the center mirror that re-combines them. This slant path
is constant in all the horizontal orientations of the arms.
>
> >Notice that this is the only direction of
> > motion
>
> How can there be only one direction of motion?
Why not? There is only one absolute motion.
Ken Seto