Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #727202 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-13 17:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-02-16 14:13 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 50 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 17:39 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-14 13:48 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 21:06 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-14 16:31 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 21:53 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-14 17:25 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 23:47 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-14 19:56 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 23:28 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 16:49 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 17:43 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 07:34 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 12:38 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 17:46 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 16:52 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 06:19 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 17:56 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Buck Futter <DognPolisher@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 19:38 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 07:43 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 15:39 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 20:07 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Buck Futter <DognPolisher@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-16 16:44 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 01:55 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 17:40 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 23:25 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 15:32 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 19:32 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 09:47 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 13:25 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-16 10:13 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 15:37 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-17 06:51 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-16 19:42 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 07:42 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 01:55 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 01:48 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 02:49 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 23:59 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-14 19:53 +1100
Re: Aether, the playdough of God benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 16:22 -0500
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-14 18:07 -0600
Re: Aether, the playdough of God mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 19:59 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 15:10 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 17:36 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 17:30 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 20:02 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-16 09:47 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 15:34 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-16 14:11 -0800
Re: Aether, the playdough of God "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-16 14:13 -0800
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 20:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q4fkt9$1nt9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727980 |
On 2/18/2019 6:39 PM, Mahipal wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:43:54 AM UTC-5, benj wrote: >> On 2/17/2019 8:56 PM, Mahipal wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:19:54 AM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>> On 2/16/2019 7:52 PM, Mahipal wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 5:46:45 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 2/16/2019 3:38 PM, Mahipal wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:34:33 AM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/15/2019 7:49 PM, john wrote: >>>>>>>>> Banjo >>>>>>>>> “ As aether is not a fluid, it cannot be bottled and sold for >>>>>>>>> whatever reasons. No one has found a way to carve out aether into >>>>>>>>> anything solid, excepts plants and mothers (in my humble and >>>>>>>>> hopefully in due course uncontroversial opinion). “ >>>>>>>>> Aether does not move as the matter moves. >>>>>>>>> It is like the pixels on your TV screen. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing ‘makes waves’ in it. There is Space at the next level down >>>>>>>>> made from smaller versions of your Matter and the waves are in and >>>>>>>>> of THAT level matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many levels are there? From ground level to... is there even a ground level? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And the Aether is also how that matter expresses itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wait a darn second. Aether has a body language, with bits of sign language? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the ball gets kicked on your TV screen, the pixels don’t go >>>>>>>>> by it creating a ‘wind’. The ball simply ‘IS’ those pixels when >>>>>>>>> the ball is there, and ‘ISN’T’ again when it it passes. >>>>>>>>> Therefore, Aether has and can never have a ‘wind’. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everything Banjo has said is totally wrong as usual. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everything? When it comes to mathematics, he=BanjoJi sounds like you==BenjJi. >>>>>> >>>>>> I of course meant "everything he said in his post" He might actually be >>>>>> right about some things like say the quality of Bollywood songs and >>>>>> Lyrics (though that is not my opinion). Methinks Banjoji sounding like >>>>>> meji is some kind of insult! >>>>> >>>>> I like that, meji! Now I'm wishing I'd written meji Meji MEJI... SelfieMeJi. >>>>> Btw, I'm the one who posts Indian lyrics to this English newsgroup. I do try, >>>>> I suppose, I attempt to fish for persons who may also know them songs/lyrics. >>>>> In music, there's a certain connection amongst those who grew up, with the >>>>> same tunes in mind. Like... I have me my books and poetry to protect me... >>>> >>>> Most books (fiction) and poetry are fantasy (lies). Not much protectoin >>>> there! >> >>> Simon&Garfunkel(1966)... I have my books and poetry to protect me... I am a rock... >>> >>> There's non-fiction books, as you well know. You're reading the wrong poetry. >> >> Non-fiction poetry? Hmmmm. Not familiar with that Simon and Garfunkle tune. > > Hear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlSVNxLB-A be one more of 7+ million fans. So "yesterday" Looperji. I actually OWN that album in vinyl bought at the time. They are geezers now. Such is life. > The line "To be or not to be..." is non-fiction poetry. "2B or not 2B" > is Bugs Bunny contemplating if the room number on the door is correct. Bugs is totally cool, but you probably never noticed he is fiction. Cartoon characters are not alive and real people, Looper. >>>>> I also know many here, simply based on what they write. And vice versa... >>>> >>>> Well, THAT is a bad assumption in this troll pit! >>> >>> I know from trolls and real people discussions. At least, I hope I know. >>> >>>>> Per dictionary sample: science must be at the service of man, and not vice versa. >>>> >>>> That is up until the present when Science is in the service of politics. >>> >>> What do you call thousands of politicians drowned at sea? A good start?! >>> Here's a random, out of thin air question. Describe what happens to a dead >>> whale's carcas as it sinks to the bottom of the sea/ocean? >> >> I thought they washed up o beaches? > > Way more, if not most, whales sink dead to the bottom of the ocean/sea than > wash up on beaches. I like to travel, but not like some of the humans > who have traveled in submersibles to the bottom, something like 11km > deep at one place. BBC Blue Planet said it takes sharks, crabs, ..., > worms like ten years to recycle/devour one carcas. They did it by placing > cameras around a whale and filmed the devourment. Sharks be very happy! They really like whale carcass in Japan too! >>>>>>>> He denies all physics data. He denies, relativity, he denies Michelson >>>>>>>> Morley, he denies that matter is aether and he denies light exists. He's >>>>>>>> a real Indian science genius. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indian science? No such thing, BenjJi. Besides, BanjoJi is now of Australia. >>>>>>> Now that I put the pieces together, a Foster-bitch is a beer drinking chic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not "Indian Science" Looperji (is that like Jewish Physics? I'll have to >>>>>> think about that one), but science Indian! Get it? As for Foster's, it's >>>>>> said to be a cheap-ass ale, but very drinkable. What does that mean? You >>>>>> ever see any beer that wasn't very drinkable? Sure he lives now in Oz >>>>>> and has to put up with Foster's, but does that take the Indian out of >>>>>> him? I don't think so. It's just like my efforts to turn you into a real >>>>>> Merkin. So long as you are still GaGa over Bollywood trash I've failed >>>>>> miserably. >>>>> >>>>> I ain't nationalistic about me my science. I'm no mere Merkin, should >>>>> they even let me cross their orangish wall. I've never voluntarily >>>>> listened to any Lady Gaga song. Bollywood trash, I'll presume that >>>>> refers to movies, are something I no longer watch. Quality of contents >>>>> was better, in both movies and music, when I was younger. Hollywood too. >>>> >>>> No longer watch movies? Wow! Is that progress or WHAT? I"m not sure >>>> quality has ever been better. A few try hard but the rest just coast. >>>> Movies are all about reflecting styles of the present and trying to use >>>> fantasy to influence the future. >>> >>> No not really, I'll watch old movies once in a while. Either Hindi or English. >>> I'm trying to go watch the new movie about the late musician Freddie >>> Mercury and the band Queen in Bohemian Rhapsody. Freddie was half-Indian >>> and half-English. Queen's music, just timeless. Brian May is an Astrophysicist. >> >> Yeah, it was at the local Dollar theater (re) but I just never got >> around to going to see it even though I wanted too. I figure, hey still >> online for download. Even though some theater(re) experiences require >> the big screen and speakers, indeed some even DEMAND the IMAX experience >> some even DEMAND that IMAX 3D experience, Indeed SOME enve demand the >> IMAX 3D experience in "the" optimum seat in the theater(re). > > The movie Bohemian Rhapsody is too new to be in Dollar theaters. I think. > The last 3D IMAX movie I saw was Star Trek at the National Air and Space Museum. > >>>>> Fun fact. I discovered a, new to me, old song the other day playing on a >>>>> radio show with a very limited range, less than about pi miles from home. >>>>> Song's here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKoeHJ0Wqr0 Released: 1975-01-12 >>>>> I stumbled on to it just 2019-02-12. Been repeatedly listening to it since. >>>>> Regret? Some. I bloody hell could've known this song since I was fourteen! >>>> >>>> Nice photo, but song? Not so much. I guess there has been progress but >>>> you are not free of your demons yet! >>> >>> Photos, pictures, semi-nude dancers do not make a song. Never have, >>> not from my perspective. Indians had music videos long before there >>> was MTV. I'll put with some photos-set-to-music, but music must stand >>> independent of any imagery placed upon or around it. It's just me. >>> >>> Do my demons have names or descriptions? I'm curious to find out. >> >> Demons with no name! Sounds like a song. > > I'm not gonna google it, you google for it, one of many I presume. > Forbidden topics, Hidden variables... seek with care, be very very quiet. Are we hunting wabbits or riding through the desert on a horse with no name? >>> Here's a great video/music combination in English song by The Verve: >>> https://tinyurl.com/Verve7638 more than 420+ million views, it has. >> >> 450 mil Teens in the world? And now I've added to that number myself. >> Brrr. I find myself misrepresented! > > One does not have to be a teen to love this song by The Verve. Great name Verve. I don't agree. Of course there is chronological age and mental age. > I have no real actual numbers for the estimate of teens in the world today. > > When My Pal John Lennon was asked what he meant by singing "she was just seventeen, > do you know what I mean" he said it's just a rhyme, means nothing really. Right sure. And when the Beatles were criticized for promoting drug use they loudly protested they did no such thing. Part of being a celebrity is assuming that everyone else in the world is totally stupid. >>>>> Time==Waqt जो भी तस्वीर बनाता हूँ... something about painting pictures... happens. >>>>> >>>>>>> He's, being ahem... a person and all, would be a real science Indian genius. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All said and done, everyone here is hoping to be doing/talking real science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Astrology, Palmistry, Kamasutra(y), add Numerology. Not just for India. >>>>>> >>>>>> Um...Please explain Kamasutra(y) more? :-) >>>>> >>>>> It's an attempt to make rhyme, sounding like Kamasutreee... words are all I have... >>>>> >>>>> Some complain: All you've got is word salad. >>>>> Some complain: All you've got is mathematics. >>>>> Some want: Models described in and by pictures. >>>>> Some want: Models described in and by equations. >>>> >>>> Music is mathematics Looprji. Think about that one. >>> >>> I wouldn't be thinking about that for the first time either. Music is >>> simultaneously very physical. I do try play bamboo flutes. Since that >>> makes loud sounds whilst I practice, disturbing hundreds of people that >>> per chance might surround me, I rarely practice any more. You're welcome! >> >> Playing Bamboo flute only counts if you'd carved it your self from a >> piece of bamboo you pulled from the ground, Grasshopper. And it helps if >> you speak softly and bear the scars of the temple on hyour forearms. > > When you can take the pebble from my hand, you shall go Grasshopping. Either that or beat Roger Federer in a game... >>> The only string instrument I'm good at playing is a tennis racquet. >> >> Sadly that is the ONE instrument I do not play well at all. It was >> always too hard on my elvow joints. > > Tennis elbow injuries are common among those with bad grips and strokes. Maybe Federer can give me a hint or two? >>>>> Summize Summe(y)es... how to unite them all and in the darkness bind them? >>>>> >>>>> -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! >>> -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! > > Three sig lines deep now, time to drift onto another thread. Goin' fishin'. Amen: As you have said it so shall it be! > -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Buck Futter <DognPolisher@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 16:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q4aapa$1kso$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727641 |
Welcome back idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 01:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1bed9ff9-d123-4758-9187-cf0dc64219ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727594 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 11:34:33 PM UTC+11, benj wrote: > On 2/15/2019 7:49 PM, john wrote: > > Banjo > > “ As aether is not a fluid, it cannot be bottled and sold for whatever reasons. No one has found a way to carve out aether into anything solid, excepts plants and mothers (in my humble and hopefully in due course uncontroversial opinion). “ > > Aether does not move as the matter moves. > > It is like the pixels on your TV screen. > > Nothing ‘makes waves’ in it. There is Space at the next level down made from smaller versions of your Matter and the waves are in and of THAT level matter. > > And the Aether is also how that matter expresses itself. > > > > When the ball gets kicked on your TV screen, the pixels don’t go by it creating a ‘wind’. The ball simply ‘IS’ those pixels when the ball is there, and ‘ISN’T’ again when it it passes. > > Therefore, Aether has and can never have a ‘wind’. > > > > Everything Banjo has said is totally wrong as usual. I am always right, in important matters at any rate, for I am divinely gifted and superbly talented, being the greatest genius of all time, and sole god among lotsa devils like you, benj. benj is a bokachoda (dumbfuck) like all other Einsteinian frauds and cretins. > He denies all physics data. What a lie. It is benj and Co. that denies physics data when it does not suit their biases and interests. > He denies, relativity, True > he denies Michelson > Morley, I respect their experimental data, but not their bungled analysis which has been accepted by generations of incompetent scientists. I fixed that bungle in 2005 and with that and other works, have thrown all of relativity into the rubbish bin. > he denies that matter is aether and he denies light exists. Another lie from the despicable benj. I was first to reinstate aether as matter permeating the infinite universe, overturning the wrong Einsteinian notion. I have upheld Maxwellian electrodynamics, which means that light is em wave motion. > He's > a real Indian science genius. The greatest, indeed. Cheers, Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <878e002f-984b-411d-989c-c5689b2e1cac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727483 |
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:28:15 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 7:56:31 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/02/2019 6:47 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 5:25:12 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else > > > wrote: > > >> On 14/02/2019 4:53 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:31:30 UTC+11, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 14/02/2019 4:06 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:48:12 PM UTC+11, Sylvia > > >>>>> Else wrote: > > >>>>>> On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>>>> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid > > >>>>>>> MATTER permeating the entire universe. Aether is so fine > > >>>>>>> that atoms glide through it. It fills up interatomic > > >>>>>>> space. Aether conceals into what we call mass as two > > >>>>>>> opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for the growth > > >>>>>>> of life forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass > > >>>>>>> to aether. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Aether is the playdough of God. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> If only things were that simple. The existence of the > > >>>>>> Aether raised all sorts of problems, which the bright minds > > >>>>>> of the century before last were unable to solve to their > > >>>>>> own satisfaction. Then Einstein showed that it's not > > >>>>>> needed, and most people were happy as a result. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Crooks and fools always makes things complicated. Stealing, > > >>>>> lying, twisting, not understanding deliberately or out of > > >>>>> stupidity, etc. never help. The make matters unnecessarily > > >>>>> complex. > > >>>> > > >>>> Fizeau's experimental results, and subsequent improvements on > > >>>> his work, present a real conundrum for those who favour an > > >>>> Aether hypothesis. He certainly wasn't trying to support > > >>>> Einstein, who had not even been born. > > >>>> > > >>>> Anyone who favours the Aether over relativity has to figure out > > >>>> how to include Fizeau's results into their world view. > > >>>> > > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> > > >>> A ridiculously wrong experiment. > > >> > > >> What is a "wrong"experiment? > > > > > > A wrong experiment is one which proceeds on the basis that > > > arbitrarily illogical and irrelevant notions are implicitly valid. > > > > Which are the arbitrarily illogical and irrelevant notions in the Fizeau > > experiment? > > > Quoting from the wiki link: > *** > According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. > *** > > That is a wrong notion to begin with. In 1851 it was not known that light is a travelling electromagnetic wave. > So all that happens is that the speed of light diminishes as it goes through the dense medium. > > Aether is a solid, so it cannot be dragged along like a fluid. This notion was not clear to them, but it became so at the time of the Michelson Morley Interferometry Experiment (MMIE). > > By that timeof MMIE, the aether as solid matter permeating the universe was universally accepted as the medium for the travel of electromagnetic waves. > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting by, just like static fields beside a moving train. Arindam, you have it precisely backward. The MMI experiment was looking for changes due to earth's motion through a static (non-moving) aether. the fat that they found none implied the either the aether was not static or the aether did not exist. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 23:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12c2da8a-878c-4832-af9e-6b96f89ed26c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727558 |
Ed, you are wrong. The MMI was for finding the Earth's speed through aether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b22ecb6f-e01c-4674-a53e-be5622ee90ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727584 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 2:25:32 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Ed, you are wrong. The MMI was for finding the Earth's > speed through aether. Arindam, Measuring the speed first requires measuring a change in position. The MMI experiment would not provide a numeric speed, only whether the speed was non-zero. this would be like detecting the motion of a car in a fog by opening the window and checking for a wind. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 19:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <67e7ecfe-36de-4670-bf04-b331727f24e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727661 |
Actually the MMI was supposed to tell the sped of Earth through aether. It failed to do so as the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as thought then, but they forgot that the Earth is also moving, so extra or lesser distances are travelled by the light beams. Together they show the null result. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 09:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b81617e-4fec-49d2-8ac3-8ce81225cce0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727828 |
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 10:32:25 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Actually the MMI was supposed to tell the sped of Earth through aether. Speed is a number. As a primary goal, the test was whether there was relative motion at all. That they continuously got zero was the surprising (and critical) result. enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <40bf3a65-22ab-462c-a74c-0295d132b0f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727889 |
Yes speed is a number and that was what they wanted to find. The speed of the Earth through fixed aether. Aether is a solid. Like finding the speed of a train going past fields.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8d676bb-de12-414c-b107-2b49a7a80cba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727558 |
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:40:15 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:28:15 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 7:56:31 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 14/02/2019 6:47 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 5:25:12 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else > > > > wrote: > > > >> On 14/02/2019 4:53 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday, 14 February 2019 16:31:30 UTC+11, Sylvia Else > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> On 14/02/2019 4:06 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>> On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 1:48:12 PM UTC+11, Sylvia > > > >>>>> Else wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>>>> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid > > > >>>>>>> MATTER permeating the entire universe. Aether is so fine > > > >>>>>>> that atoms glide through it. It fills up interatomic > > > >>>>>>> space. Aether conceals into what we call mass as two > > > >>>>>>> opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for the growth > > > >>>>>>> of life forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass > > > >>>>>>> to aether. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Aether is the playdough of God. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> If only things were that simple. The existence of the > > > >>>>>> Aether raised all sorts of problems, which the bright minds > > > >>>>>> of the century before last were unable to solve to their > > > >>>>>> own satisfaction. Then Einstein showed that it's not > > > >>>>>> needed, and most people were happy as a result. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Crooks and fools always makes things complicated. Stealing, > > > >>>>> lying, twisting, not understanding deliberately or out of > > > >>>>> stupidity, etc. never help. The make matters unnecessarily > > > >>>>> complex. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Fizeau's experimental results, and subsequent improvements on > > > >>>> his work, present a real conundrum for those who favour an > > > >>>> Aether hypothesis. He certainly wasn't trying to support > > > >>>> Einstein, who had not even been born. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Anyone who favours the Aether over relativity has to figure out > > > >>>> how to include Fizeau's results into their world view. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > >>> > > > >>> A ridiculously wrong experiment. > > > >> > > > >> What is a "wrong"experiment? > > > > > > > > A wrong experiment is one which proceeds on the basis that > > > > arbitrarily illogical and irrelevant notions are implicitly valid. > > > > > > Which are the arbitrarily illogical and irrelevant notions in the Fizeau > > > experiment? > > > > > > Quoting from the wiki link: > > *** > > According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. > > *** > > > > That is a wrong notion to begin with. In 1851 it was not known that light is a travelling electromagnetic wave. > > So all that happens is that the speed of light diminishes as it goes through the dense medium. > > > > Aether is a solid, so it cannot be dragged along like a fluid. This notion was not clear to them, but it became so at the time of the Michelson Morley Interferometry Experiment (MMIE). > > > > By that timeof MMIE, the aether as solid matter permeating the universe was universally accepted as the medium for the travel of electromagnetic waves. > > > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting by, just like static fields beside a moving train. > > Arindam, you have it precisely backward. > The MMI experiment was looking for changes due to earth's motion through > a static (non-moving) aether. the fat that they found none implied > the either the aether was not static or the aether did not exist. You are wrong. The MMX is a wrong experiment to detect the motion of the earth through the station aether. The correct past experiments detecting motion of the earth thorough the aether are described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 15:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3a7df457-890b-4124-aabe-0bb1068b5060@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727629 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:40:15 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:28:15 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: [] > > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, > > > meaning that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is > > > the speed of the the Earth with respect to the aether. The > > > aether would be drifting by, just like static fields beside > > > a moving train. > > > > Arindam, you have it precisely backward. > > The MMI experiment was looking for changes due to earth's motion through > > a static (non-moving) aether. the fact that they found none implied > > the either the aether was not static or the aether did not exist. > > You are wrong. The MMX is a wrong experiment to detect the > motion of the earth through the station aether. The correct > past experiments detecting motion of the earth thorough the > aether are described in the following link: > http://www.xxx please keep the discussion here. this isn't a group to advertise your site, Ken. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 06:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5a3b73e-3256-4313-a50b-8165549adac1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727663 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 6:38:01 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 8:40:15 PM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 2:28:15 AM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > [] > > > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, > > > > meaning that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is > > > > the speed of the the Earth with respect to the aether. The > > > > aether would be drifting by, just like static fields beside > > > > a moving train. > > > > > > Arindam, you have it precisely backward. > > > The MMI experiment was looking for changes due to earth's motion through > > > a static (non-moving) aether. the fact that they found none implied > > > the either the aether was not static or the aether did not exist. > > > > You are wrong. The MMX is a wrong experiment to detect the > > motion of the earth through the station aether. The correct > > past experiments detecting motion of the earth thorough the > > aether are described in the following link: > > http://www.xxx > > please keep the discussion here. this isn't a group to > advertise your site, Ken. > > Ed I was keeping the discussion here. I pointed out to you that the MMX is the wrong experiment to detect absolute motion of the earth through the aether. The correct past experiments detecting absolute motion are listed in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf How is that advertising my site?????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 19:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gcq0nuFcf3tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727483 |
On 15/02/2019 6:28 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning > that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the > the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting > by, just like static fields beside a moving train. Yet they got a null result. So either it doesn't exist, or it exists, but is not the medium through which light propagates, or the its speed relative to the Earth is zero. In the latter case, it has to remain zero despite the Earth's movement in its orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-16 07:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q490f0$1lr0$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727589 |
On 2/16/2019 3:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/02/2019 6:28 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> >> So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning >> that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the >> the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting >> by, just like static fields beside a moving train. > > Yet they got a null result. So either it doesn't exist, or it exists, > but is not the medium through which light propagates, or the its speed > relative to the Earth is zero. > > In the latter case, it has to remain zero despite the Earth's movement > in its orbit. Sylvia schools Banjo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 01:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b59d267-2624-46cf-b076-3fd6e5858ee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727597 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 11:42:13 PM UTC+11, benj wrote: > On 2/16/2019 3:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 15/02/2019 6:28 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >> > >> So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning > >> that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the > >> the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting > >> by, just like static fields beside a moving train. > > > > Yet they got a null result. So either it doesn't exist, or it exists, > > but is not the medium through which light propagates, or the its speed > > relative to the Earth is zero. > > > > In the latter case, it has to remain zero despite the Earth's movement > > in its orbit. > > Sylvia schools Banjo. Heh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-19 01:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fc26e3c8-af57-4ad4-b166-0fb1eaeed4e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727589 |
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 7:42:43 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/02/2019 6:28 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > So what they wanted to find with the MMI was aether drift, meaning > > that as the Earth goes through the aether, what is the speed of the > > the Earth with respect to the aether. The aether would be drifting > > by, just like static fields beside a moving train. > > Yet they got a null result. So either it doesn't exist, or it exists, > but is not the medium through which light propagates, or the its speed > relative to the Earth is zero. They made I bungle in analysing the results of the MMI experiment. I have recently posted that in this ng. The upshot is that you just cannot measure aether drift, that is, the speed of the Earth through the fixed solid aether. > > In the latter case, it has to remain zero despite the Earth's movement > in its orbit. What is happening is that becasue of the Earth's motion, the light in the apparatus is travelling greater or lesser distances at greater or lesser speeds, thus creating the null result. Anyone interested contact me if you want to publish the full article somewhere in Internet. I will provide the .htm file Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 02:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q436i3$1k6p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727224 |
On 2/13/2019 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid MATTER permeating >> the entire universe. Aether is so fine that atoms glide through it. It >> fills up interatomic space. Aether conceals into what we call mass as >> two opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for the growth of life >> forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass to aether. >> >> Aether is the playdough of God. >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >> > > If only things were that simple. The existence of the Aether raised all > sorts of problems, which the bright minds of the century before last > were unable to solve to their own satisfaction. Then Einstein showed > that it's not needed, and most people were happy as a result. > > Sylvia. So you think science is determined by a majority vote just like climate science? While it's true all the problems with aether were not solved by the brightest minds, they did make a pretty good start on it. Your worship of Einstein as the God of science is duly noted. More exactly Einstein just gathered up the speculation of his day that electomagnetic phenomena obeyed Galilean relativity just like mechanical system. As to "needed" well producing a formula that describes reality is not the same as explaining it. I presume you think Newton "explained" gravity. Sorry, neither he nor Einstein have done that. Oddly while everyone else became aether deniers Einstein did not, noting that empty space has properties therefore an "aether" must exist. It looks like even though Banjo is an idiot, he's still smarter than you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 23:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10a4ed4d-cdb8-4234-8193-6dac6127424f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727282 |
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 6:49:28 PM UTC+11, benj wrote: > On 2/13/2019 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid MATTER permeating > >> the entire universe. Aether is so fine that atoms glide through it. It > >> fills up interatomic space. Aether conceals into what we call mass as > >> two opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for the growth of life > >> forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass to aether. > >> > >> Aether is the playdough of God. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Arindam Banerjee > >> > > > > If only things were that simple. The existence of the Aether raised all > > sorts of problems, which the bright minds of the century before last > > were unable to solve to their own satisfaction. Then Einstein showed > > that it's not needed, and most people were happy as a result. > > > > Sylvia. > > So you think science is determined by a majority vote just like climate > science? While it's true all the problems with aether were not solved by > the brightest minds, they did make a pretty good start on it. Your > worship of Einstein as the God of science is duly noted. More exactly > Einstein just gathered up the speculation of his day that electomagnetic > phenomena obeyed Galilean relativity just like mechanical system. As to > "needed" well producing a formula that describes reality is not the same > as explaining it. I presume you think Newton "explained" gravity. Sorry, > neither he nor Einstein have done that. Oddly while everyone else became > aether deniers Einstein did not, noting that empty space has properties > therefore an "aether" must exist. > > It looks like even though Banjo is an idiot, he's still smarter than you. Not just a pain in the arse, but a dumbfuck too - Such is benj, as is known from Rome to Timubuktu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 19:53 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <gckol1F7jp6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727282 |
On 14/02/2019 6:49 pm, benj wrote: > On 2/13/2019 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid MATTER permeating >>> the entire universe. Aether is so fine that atoms glide through it. >>> It fills up interatomic space. Aether conceals into what we call mass >>> as two opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for the growth of >>> life forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass to aether. >>> >>> Aether is the playdough of God. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >> >> If only things were that simple. The existence of the Aether raised >> all sorts of problems, which the bright minds of the century before >> last were unable to solve to their own satisfaction. Then Einstein >> showed that it's not needed, and most people were happy as a result. >> >> Sylvia. > > So you think science is determined by a majority vote just like climate > science? While it's true all the problems with aether were not solved by > the brightest minds, they did make a pretty good start on it. They ended up with the Lorentz transform, which still bears his name. Though it was still ostensibly Aether based, it contained no reference to the Aether in the math. It amounted to saying that the Aether could be ignored, because it had no measurable effect on anything. By that time, nothing remained of the kind of Aether that present day relativity deniers favour, because the time dilation and length contraction effects were already there, as were the lack of simultaneity and the velocity composition rule, even if people hadn't necessarily realised the latter points the time. Einstein showed that you didn't need to start with an Aether, and then give it increasingly improbable attributes. All you needed to do was start with a couple of basic ideas, and you would arrive directly at the Lorentz transform. If you mysteriously delete Einstein from history, and assume that no one else did the same work, then you lose E=mc^2, and general relativity, but the other mathematical consequences of special relativity remain, because the Lorentz transform already existed. If you try to restore a denier's view of the world, you're just going back to a situation that those earlier minds spent so much effort trying explain. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q44m5t$jo0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727294 |
On 2/14/2019 3:53 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/02/2019 6:49 pm, benj wrote: >> On 2/13/2019 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 14/02/2019 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> Aether is infinitely fine, infinitely elastic solid MATTER >>>> permeating the entire universe. Aether is so fine that atoms glide >>>> through it. It fills up interatomic space. Aether conceals into what >>>> we call mass as two opposite charges. Aether supplies the mass for >>>> the growth of life forms. Death and decay cause return of that mass >>>> to aether. >>>> >>>> Aether is the playdough of God. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>> >>> If only things were that simple. The existence of the Aether raised >>> all sorts of problems, which the bright minds of the century before >>> last were unable to solve to their own satisfaction. Then Einstein >>> showed that it's not needed, and most people were happy as a result. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> So you think science is determined by a majority vote just like >> climate science? While it's true all the problems with aether were not >> solved by the brightest minds, they did make a pretty good start on it. > > They ended up with the Lorentz transform, which still bears his name. > Though it was still ostensibly Aether based, it contained no reference > to the Aether in the math. It amounted to saying that the Aether could > be ignored, because it had no measurable effect on anything. By that > time, nothing remained of the kind of Aether that present day relativity > deniers favour, because the time dilation and length contraction effects > were already there, as were the lack of simultaneity and the velocity > composition rule, even if people hadn't necessarily realised the latter > points the time. Generally relativity deniers also deny that the fact that no aether drift was found. This is of course science nonsense. Saying that aether can be ignored in math for certain calculations if far from saying it has no measurable effect. That is a nonsense statement requiring super powers (you must look at ALL possible effects and then show aether has nothing to do with any of them. > Einstein showed that you didn't need to start with an Aether, and then > give it increasingly improbable attributes. All you needed to do was > start with a couple of basic ideas, and you would arrive directly at the > Lorentz transform. However he was also smart enough not to buy into illogical nonsense like saying there is no aether when clearly empty space has properties and other mental trash like waves do not need a medium. > If you mysteriously delete Einstein from history, and assume that no one > else did the same work, then you lose E=mc^2, and general relativity, > but the other mathematical consequences of special relativity remain, > because the Lorentz transform already existed. I"m not all that versed in history of science but I believe E=mc^2 would actually not be lost (can be shown from Maxwell and Lorentz transforms) and of course general relativity is really just a gravity theory that explains very little more than Newton's theory. The role of aether in gravity is not known, but that does not prove there is no aether. > If you try to restore a denier's view of the world, you're just going > back to a situation that those earlier minds spent so much effort trying > explain. Relativity denying denies facts. In science facts are the ONLY thing that matters. Aether deniers do likewise. They take fantasy for reality and build a case that fantasy is science and facts don't matter. In other words totally anti-science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web