Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #544003 > unrolled thread

The Aether, Michelson and Einstein

Started byPeter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
First post2016-01-09 06:38 -0800
Last post2016-01-11 12:23 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 146 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-09 06:38 -0800
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:56 -0800
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0800
      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 09:57 +0100
      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 00:24 -0500
        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-10 23:13 -0800
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 02:18 -0500
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:19 -0600
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 02:14 -0500
        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:52 -0800
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:35 -0600
            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 15:56 -0800
              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:28 -0600
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:50 -0500
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:23 -0800
                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:40 -0600
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:12 -0500
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:24 -0800
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:08 -0600
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:25 -0600
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 02:22 -0500
            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-12 00:34 -0800
              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 08:58 -0500
            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 01:10 -0800
              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:27 -0600
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 02:27 -0800
      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:36 -0600
        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 08:51 -0800
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-01-10 09:25 +0100
      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 04:07 -0500
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-10 20:27 +1100
      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-10 16:21 -0800
        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-11 11:35 +1100
          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-10 21:23 -0800
            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 07:35 +0100
              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-10 23:25 -0800
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 08:39 +0100
                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 03:42 -0500
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:21 -0600
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0500
                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 10:03 -0800
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:18 -0600
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:26 -0800
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 10:34 -0800
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:43 -0800
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 11:24 -0800
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 11:41 -0800
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:02 -0600
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 11:21 -0800
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 13:46 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:05 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 10:40 -0500
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-12 16:26 -0800
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:47 -0600
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-13 09:30 -0500
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 00:51 -0800
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:46 -0800
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 12:38 -0500
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:28 -0600
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 00:49 -0800
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:50 -0600
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:17 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:39 -0600
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 16:56 -0800
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:11 -0600
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:31 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:52 -0500
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:36 -0600
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:18 -0500
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:03 -0600
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 08:10 -0800
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 10:14 -0600
                                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 08:36 -0800
                                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:13 -0500
                                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:15 -0500
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:14 -0500
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:19 -0500
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 14:03 -0600
                                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 17:53 -0500
                                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:58 -0600
                                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 00:19 -0500
                                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 07:58 -0600
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 17:46 -0500
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-19 09:06 -0800
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:27 -0800
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:13 -0500
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:22 -0600
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:17 -0500
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:16 -0600
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:22 -0600
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:18 -0500
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:18 -0600
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 11:59 -0600
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:21 -0500
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:26 -0600
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:28 -0500
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:27 -0600
                                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:43 -0800
                                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 14:38 -0500
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 12:11 -0600
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-19 16:15 -0800
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:29 -0600
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:03 -0800
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:31 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-01-11 21:56 -0800
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 18:03 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:36 -0500
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 10:24 -0500
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:51 +0100
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 14:49 -0600
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 17:15 -0500
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 16:19 -0600
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:42 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 20:33 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:18 -0500
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 09:06 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:18 -0500
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 08:45 +0100
                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-11 00:52 -0800
                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-14 18:09 -0500
                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-14 16:14 -0800
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 09:03 -0600
                          Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-15 15:49 -0800
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 18:43 -0600
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 10:13 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-16 15:33 -0800
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:27 -0600
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 08:33 -0800
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 02:43 -0500
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 00:11 -0800
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 12:15 -0500
                            Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 15:16 -0600
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 13:25 -0800
                              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-17 18:21 -0800
                                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:15 -0600
                                  Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-18 12:36 -0800
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 16:34 -0800
                                      Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-01-18 17:44 -0800
                                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 08:03 -0800
                                    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 09:28 -0600
                        Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 02:39 -0500
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 10:32 +0100
              Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 02:30 -0500
                Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:23 -0600
    Re: The Aether, Michelson and Einstein Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 12:23 -0600

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#546065

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-17 10:25 -0600
Message-ID<n7gfau$1b32$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#544667
On 1/11/2016 9:24 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:40:23 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 8:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:



<snip crap>

>
> Maybe you should consider a gentler hobby.  I heard pressing leaves
> in books can be quite satisfying.
>

is that your job ?
How many years experience do you have pressing leaves in books ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544698

FromYousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date2016-01-12 02:22 -0500
Message-ID<JvqdnUGwhqUxNAnLnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#544537
On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
>
> Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?

Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already 
by that point. Talking by today's standards, physics was trending 
towards his point of view, he put the final finishing touches on 
existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right 
within a year after he published them!

Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in 
the 21st century! For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending 
towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544707

FromPeter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-01-12 00:34 -0800
Message-ID<d3e2c08c-b903-4b06-a6d7-da4cbad92fd5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544698
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:22:23 PM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
> >
> > Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?
> 
> Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already 
> by that point. Talking by today's standards, physics was trending 
> towards his point of view, he put the final finishing touches on 
> existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right 
> within a year after he published them!
> 
> Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in 
> the 21st century! For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending 
> towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.
> 
> 	Yousuf Khan

You may have a point but I will stick with my aether which has only two attributes: It is everywhere where matter is not and it is compressible. It is responsible for gravity, inertia and centrifugal forces as I will show in my gravity theory. Better not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545054

FromYousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com>
Date2016-01-13 08:58 -0500
Message-ID<zJOdnQmLabacxQvLnZ2dnUU7-N2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#544707
On 12/01/2016 3:34 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> You may have a point but I will stick with my aether which has only
> two attributes: It is everywhere where matter is not and it is
> compressible. It is responsible for gravity, inertia and centrifugal
> forces as I will show in my gravity theory. Better not.

Then you're arguing for Le Sage Gravity, which is an even older theory 
than Luminoferous Aether. It was around in the late 17th and early 18th 
centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Modern physics has its own concept of an all-encompassing fluid that 
fills all of space with energy. It's called the Vacuum Energy. It comes 
from Quantum field theory, specifically Quantum Electrodynamics, which 
is the theory of the Electric, Magnetic, and Weak fields.

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

You don't need to tilt at windmills any longer, come on over to modern 
physics and get to learn it. There are answers to almost everything in 
there already: where mass comes from, where time comes from, where space 
comes from, where energy comes from, etc.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544713

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-12 01:10 -0800
Message-ID<b268ad82-6809-451e-83b3-b785ce09968b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544698
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
> >
> > Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?
> 
> Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already 
> by that point.

No. His first papers were almost totally ignored.


 Talking by today's standards, physics was trending 
> towards his point of view,

No.  One person, I forget who, recognized it. 



 he put the final finishing touches on 
> existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right 
> within a year after he published them!
> 
> Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in 
> the 21st century

Have you a substantive dispute?  No.  Then go away.


 For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending 
> towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.

Trends are arbitrary.  They are not evidence.  They are  not substance.  Stick with substance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546066

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-17 10:27 -0600
Message-ID<n7gfea$1b32$5@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#544713
On 1/12/2016 3:10 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 11/01/2016 3:52 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:24:43 PM UTC-8, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>> Because you're a crank, and the moderator was trying to be nice to you.
>>>
>>> Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906?
>>
>> Nope, Einstein was stating stuff that was plainly becoming clear already
>> by that point.
>
> No. His first papers were almost totally ignored.
>

liar.


>   Talking by today's standards, physics was trending
>> towards his point of view,
>
> No.  One person, I forget who, recognized it.
>

Liar.

>
>   he put the final finishing touches on
>> existing physics trends. Parts of his theories were already proven right
>> within a year after he published them!
>>
>> Peter Riedt on the other hand is arguing for the Luminoferous Aether in
>> the 21st century
>
> Have you a substantive dispute?  No.  Then go away.


troll, you have meth habit.

>
>   For pete's sake, not only is physics not trending
>> towards that idea, it is trending away (far away) from that idea.
>
> Trends are arbitrary.  They are not evidence.  They are  not substance.  Stick with substance.

you, jamie-boy, never have "substance",
you smoke it all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544723

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-12 02:27 -0800
Message-ID<4b7ee480-c06e-42b0-a8d6-f756d5c75be1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544537
Would he not have said the same to Einstein back in 1906? 
-----------

The saying goes: "Tho some laughed at Einstein, they also laugh at bozo the clown".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544456

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 10:36 -0600
Message-ID<n70lm2$rgf$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#544137
On 1/9/2016 6:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was outright rejected by a
> moderator in Frankfurt with the justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too speculative".
>
> Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau,
> Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others
> and Einstein? Were they speculative too?

None of the people you mentioned ever posted to sci.physics.research.
Furthermore, it was not unusual for papers by those people to be 
rejected from one or more publications, and they would have to find 
another to try to get it published.

So what exactly are you complaining about?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544459

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 08:51 -0800
Message-ID<97f0cdeb-8d5b-4f72-9b60-1ebd24a7fffd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544456
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:36:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/9/2016 6:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > I posted this thread a week ago in sci.physics.research. It was
> > outright rejected by a moderator in Frankfurt with the
> > justification: "It is inappropriate because it is too
> > speculative".
>
> > Why did the moderator ignore Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens,
> > Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald,
> > Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes, others
> > and Einstein? Were they speculative too?
> 
> None of the people you mentioned ever posted to sci.physics.research.
> Furthermore, it was not unusual for papers by those people to be 
> rejected from one or more publications, and they would have to find 
> another to try to get it published.

Now, circa 2016, publishing is as simple as Twitter. Deal with it It IT.

> So what exactly are you complaining about?

Your rude condescending idiotic ways, Odd you never made anything.

> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: David Bowie Dies. Who is next? Queue?”
Starman, Ch ch Changes, Grounds Control To Major Tom, ...
Queue is a funny word, because it is pronounced Q. Easy rhyme that.
Give me the Queue boys and free my soul... lost I in your rock and roll.
I bet they all end up dead, Do Be Grey. Why the fuck is that, Q==Queue->Who?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544205

FromHelmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat>
Date2016-01-10 09:25 +0100
Message-ID<qb449blgqkf3mnmf9d5t81b9jg24hjj8r3@4ax.com>
In reply to#544003
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:38:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt
<riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes 


WRONG!

The aether does not exist, its existence is a mere assumption.
How do you describe something that does not exist.
All you can do is develop phantasies and phantasmorgasms.

The aether is for physics what the Holy Spirit is
for the Christian religious preponderous Holy Bullshit.
Nobody knows what it is, what it is good for
and why it would be needed.

Read what religious opium eaters pull out of their asses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Light has wave properties and particle properties.
How light moves through space and matter is unknown 
and any speculation about a "medium" must be disregarded.
There is no "medium", period.

There is no "medium" in the conventional sense,
like the infamous false analogy to duck pond physics:
http://places.wishful-thinking.org.uk/DBY/Foolow/DuckPond.html
An emitator (duck) causes wave ripples in a medium (water).

Instead of admitting the lack of knowledge,
(AKA known as ignorance),
scientists fill the empty brain space with brain farts.

w.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544209

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-10 04:07 -0500
Message-ID<cbpky.166083$rj1.155258@fx27.iad>
In reply to#544205
On 01/10/2016 03:25 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 06:38:51 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt
> <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes
>
>
> WRONG!
>
> The aether does not exist, its existence is a mere assumption.
> How do you describe something that does not exist.
> All you can do is develop phantasies and phantasmorgasms.

> Instead of admitting the lack of knowledge,
> (AKA known as ignorance),
> scientists fill the empty brain space with brain farts.
>
> w.

Well, glad we have the final word right from the most reliable source in 
the universe (your opinion).

Too bad Einstein didn't agree with you. And too bad your statements have 
nothing to back them up but hot air. (You know just like all HVAC 
pronouncements)

Logically something cannot come from nothing. To assert that is 
religion. Hence if space has properties (that it does is BEYOND doubt) 
then something which we can term "aether" MUST exist. Playing liberal 
word games by changing names and waving hands is just garbage not science.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544211

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-10 20:27 +1100
Message-ID<dfemg0Fsh95U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#544003
On 10/01/2016 1:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The Aether, Michelson and Einstein
>
> The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes (Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes and others). The aether was disowned only by Michelson after his failure to experimentally prove it because he applied an incorrect logic in his interferometer experiment and did not want to admit his error.
>
> Michelson incorrectly assumed the light path on the perpendicular arm (AB) of the interferometer traversed an isosceles triangle but the light path is a right angle triangle. In the correct logic of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts at the mirror B and leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals distance ADC.	
> The Proof:
> 2D(1+vv/cc)-(D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)) = 0
>
> B
> ^\
> ^ \             The perpendicular and parallel arm
> ^  \           light paths of the MMX interferometer
> ^   \
> ^    \
> ^     \
> ^      \
> ^       \
> ^        \
> ^         \
> A>---------\-------------------------------->D
>              C<------------------------------<D
>
> ADC  = 2D(1+vv/cc) = 22.00000022m (according to Michelson)	
> ABC  = D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)
> 	= 11m + 11.00000022m = 22.00000022m (according to Riedt)              AB   = D = 11m
> AC   = (2D(1+vv/cc)) = 0.0000000733333340666667sec
> AC   = ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v = 0.002200000022m
> BC   = sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11.00000022m
>
> D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec
>
> Albert Einstein is thought to have himself also distanced from the aether. However in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden he lectured on the topic 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity'. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922. At the end of the lecture he said:
>
> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time".
>
> Peter Riedt
>
A rose by any other name is still a rose.

And vice versa.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544350

FromPeter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-01-10 16:21 -0800
Message-ID<b944c350-555d-43cd-b139-323213c67ac5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544211
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:27:35 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 10/01/2016 1:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The Aether, Michelson and Einstein
> >
> > The aether has been described by various scientists in different forms and with differing attributes (Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle, Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday, Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac, Stokes and others). The aether was disowned only by Michelson after his failure to experimentally prove it because he applied an incorrect logic in his interferometer experiment and did not want to admit his error.
> >
> > Michelson incorrectly assumed the light path on the perpendicular arm (AB) of the interferometer traversed an isosceles triangle but the light path is a right angle triangle. In the correct logic of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts at the mirror B and leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals distance ADC.	
> > The Proof:
> > 2D(1+vv/cc)-(D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)) = 0
> >
> > B
> > ^\
> > ^ \             The perpendicular and parallel arm
> > ^  \           light paths of the MMX interferometer
> > ^   \
> > ^    \
> > ^     \
> > ^      \
> > ^       \
> > ^        \
> > ^         \
> > A>---------\-------------------------------->D
> >              C<------------------------------<D
> >
> > ADC  = 2D(1+vv/cc) = 22.00000022m (according to Michelson)	
> > ABC  = D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)
> > 	= 11m + 11.00000022m = 22.00000022m (according to Riedt)              AB   = D = 11m
> > AC   = (2D(1+vv/cc)) = 0.0000000733333340666667sec
> > AC   = ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v = 0.002200000022m
> > BC   = sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11.00000022m
> >
> > D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec
> >
> > Albert Einstein is thought to have himself also distanced from the aether. However in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden he lectured on the topic 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity'. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, in 1922. At the end of the lecture he said:
> >
> > "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time".
> >
> > Peter Riedt
> >
> A rose by any other name is still a rose.
> 
> And vice versa.
> 
> Sylvia.

Does it mean you agree with me?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544356

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-11 11:35 +1100
Message-ID<dfgbmhFblk4U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#544350
On 11/01/2016 11:21 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:27:35 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 10/01/2016 1:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> The Aether, Michelson and Einstein
>>>
>>> The aether has been described by various scientists in different
>>> forms and with differing attributes (Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle,
>>> Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday,
>>> Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac,
>>> Stokes and others). The aether was disowned only by Michelson
>>> after his failure to experimentally prove it because he applied
>>> an incorrect logic in his interferometer experiment and did not
>>> want to admit his error.
>>>
>>> Michelson incorrectly assumed the light path on the perpendicular
>>> arm (AB) of the interferometer traversed an isosceles triangle
>>> but the light path is a right angle triangle. In the correct
>>> logic of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at
>>> a right angle, impacts at the mirror B and leaves it at a small
>>> acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the
>>> split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray
>>> coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals
>>> distance ADC. The Proof:
>>> 2D(1+vv/cc)-(D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)) = 0
>>>
>>> B ^\ ^ \             The perpendicular and parallel arm ^  \
>>> light paths of the MMX interferometer ^   \ ^    \ ^     \ ^
>>> \ ^       \ ^        \ ^         \
>>> A>---------\-------------------------------->D
>>> C<------------------------------<D
>>>
>>> ADC  = 2D(1+vv/cc) = 22.00000022m (according to Michelson) ABC  =
>>> D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11m + 11.00000022m =
>>> 22.00000022m (according to Riedt)              AB   = D = 11m AC
>>> = (2D(1+vv/cc)) = 0.0000000733333340666667sec AC   =
>>> ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v = 0.002200000022m BC   =
>>> sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11.00000022m
>>>
>>> D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec
>>>
>>> Albert Einstein is thought to have himself also distanced from
>>> the aether. However in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University
>>> of Leiden he lectured on the topic 'Ether and the Theory of
>>> Relativity'. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd,
>>> London, in 1922. At the end of the lecture he said:
>>>
>>> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory
>>> of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this
>>> sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general
>>> theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in
>>> such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but
>>> also no possibility of existence for standards of space and
>>> time".
>>>
>>> Peter Riedt
>>>
>> A rose by any other name is still a rose.
>>
>> And vice versa.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Does it mean you agree with me?
>

No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a 
different meaning.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544397

FromPeter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-01-10 21:23 -0800
Message-ID<7efabdd4-a637-48f5-87d1-52956f7ee1cc@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544356
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 8:35:33 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 11:21 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:27:35 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 10/01/2016 1:38 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> The Aether, Michelson and Einstein
> >>>
> >>> The aether has been described by various scientists in different
> >>> forms and with differing attributes (Poincaré, Maxwell, Boyle,
> >>> Huygens, Young, Fresnel, Cauchy, Fizeau, Larmor, Faraday,
> >>> Fitzgerald, Kelvin, Hertz, Lorentz, Tesla, Lord Raleigh, Dirac,
> >>> Stokes and others). The aether was disowned only by Michelson
> >>> after his failure to experimentally prove it because he applied
> >>> an incorrect logic in his interferometer experiment and did not
> >>> want to admit his error.
> >>>
> >>> Michelson incorrectly assumed the light path on the perpendicular
> >>> arm (AB) of the interferometer traversed an isosceles triangle
> >>> but the light path is a right angle triangle. In the correct
> >>> logic of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at
> >>> a right angle, impacts at the mirror B and leaves it at a small
> >>> acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the
> >>> split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray
> >>> coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals
> >>> distance ADC. The Proof:
> >>> 2D(1+vv/cc)-(D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)) = 0
> >>>
> >>> B ^\ ^ \             The perpendicular and parallel arm ^  \
> >>> light paths of the MMX interferometer ^   \ ^    \ ^     \ ^
> >>> \ ^       \ ^        \ ^         \
> >>> A>---------\-------------------------------->D
> >>> C<------------------------------<D
> >>>
> >>> ADC  = 2D(1+vv/cc) = 22.00000022m (according to Michelson) ABC  =
> >>> D+sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11m + 11.00000022m =
> >>> 22.00000022m (according to Riedt)              AB   = D = 11m AC
> >>> = (2D(1+vv/cc)) = 0.0000000733333340666667sec AC   =
> >>> ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v = 0.002200000022m BC   =
> >>> sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2) = 11.00000022m
> >>>
> >>> D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec
> >>>
> >>> Albert Einstein is thought to have himself also distanced from
> >>> the aether. However in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University
> >>> of Leiden he lectured on the topic 'Ether and the Theory of
> >>> Relativity'. The lecture was published by Methuen & Co. Ltd,
> >>> London, in 1922. At the end of the lecture he said:
> >>>
> >>> "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory
> >>> of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this
> >>> sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general
> >>> theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in
> >>> such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but
> >>> also no possibility of existence for standards of space and
> >>> time".
> >>>
> >>> Peter Riedt
> >>>
> >> A rose by any other name is still a rose.
> >>
> >> And vice versa.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Does it mean you agree with me?
> >
> 
> No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a 
> different meaning.
> 
> Sylvia.

He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544400

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 07:35 +0100
Message-ID<n6vial$lus$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#544397
Dne 11/01/2016 v 06:23 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>
>> No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a 
>> different meaning.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.

Rather rejected by many experiments.

What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544410

FromPeter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2016-01-10 23:25 -0800
Message-ID<7f25008d-3505-401e-b77d-a66475c216db@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#544400
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/01/2016 v 06:23 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> >>
> >> No. From your quotes it appears Einstein was using the word with a 
> >> different meaning.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > He acknowledged the aether in general and as the transmitter of light. Every scientist had a different view of the aether but no one rejected it.
> 
> Rather rejected by many experiments.
> 
> What Einstein called an aether, is now called just space-time
> and is different to luminoferous aether, that was refuted.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
> 
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544414

FromPoutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 08:39 +0100
Message-ID<n6vm34$a4$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#544410
Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
> 
Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544417

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 03:42 -0500
Message-ID<SVJky.219248$983.149168@fx06.iad>
In reply to#544414
On 01/11/2016 02:39 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 11/01/2016 v 08:25 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:35:41 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>
>>
>> Einstein spoke in Leyden in defence of Lorentz's aether, not in defence of your space-time.
>>
> Experiments spoke againts aether, not for it.

Not true. Experiments spoke against the old properties previously 
assigned to aether not against an aether. Einstein was smart enough to 
see this and not reject aether, but everybody else decided to 
'interpret" Einstein for him by saying that Aether did not exist at all 
for unknown reasons.

Point is experiments showed that the original idea of an earth plowing 
through a fixed aether as it hurtles through space is not correct. 
However, the idea that waves can be propagated in "nothing at all" is 
simply insane.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#544528

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-11 14:21 -0600
Message-ID<n712ru$9cq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#544417
On 1/11/2016 2:42 AM, benj wrote:
> Point is experiments showed that the original idea of an earth plowing
> through a fixed aether as it hurtles through space is not correct.
> However, the idea that waves can be propagated in "nothing at all" is
> simply insane.

But nobody says waves propagate in nothing at all.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web