Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Vern on 19 Feb 2010 16:17
On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > I understand that the Lorentz contraction formula works for both
> > velocities.  The CMBR is certainly evidence of a stationary ether, but
> > the Sagnac effect and ether drag affecting orbits if we assume the
> > higher velocities of planets and stars through that stationary ether
> > are correct would seem to indicate circulatory flows around the
> > planets and stars.  The MMX can also be explained if there is a local
> > circulatory flow.  Does the pushing gravity model work for either a
> > stationary ether or local circulatory flows?  Or does the Le Sage
> > model favor one over the other?  Tom VanFlandern was adamantly against
> > a local circulatory flow (for other reasons), but I'm not sure Tom had
> > considered the Le Sage model with the higher orbital velocities wrt to
> > the CMBR.
>
> > Vern
>
> First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the
> aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of
> a stationary ocean.  Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether
> affect but Sagnac's original version was.  You really are describing
> Fizeau's experiment (effect)
>
>    "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through
>     a flowing water stream.  Differences in the index
>     of refraction is to be measured relative to
>     stationary water.  The resulting measurements
>     were fully consistent with both relativity and
>     the aether concept."
>
> If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized
> vortices.  Thus circulations abound.
>
> Paul Stowe

Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more. But modeling gravity is the key
to understanding exactly what is going on with the ether, if you
assume that it causes gravity as well as being the medium for emr.
I'm just not that familiar with the Le Sage model to know whether it
would work if there is a local circulatory motion. The sink-vortex
model is the other alternative. Kepler's Laws supposedly can be
explained by object's slip-streaming the filament lines.

Vern
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 17:25
On Feb 19, 4:17 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > I understand that the Lorentz contraction formula works for both
> > > velocities.  The CMBR is certainly evidence of a stationary ether, but
> > > the Sagnac effect and ether drag affecting orbits if we assume the
> > > higher velocities of planets and stars through that stationary ether
> > > are correct would seem to indicate circulatory flows around the
> > > planets and stars.  The MMX can also be explained if there is a local
> > > circulatory flow.  Does the pushing gravity model work for either a
> > > stationary ether or local circulatory flows?  Or does the Le Sage
> > > model favor one over the other?  Tom VanFlandern was adamantly against
> > > a local circulatory flow (for other reasons), but I'm not sure Tom had
> > > considered the Le Sage model with the higher orbital velocities wrt to
> > > the CMBR.
>
> > > Vern
>
> > First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the
> > aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of
> > a stationary ocean.  Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether
> > affect but Sagnac's original version was.  You really are describing
> > Fizeau's experiment (effect)
>
> >    "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through
> >     a flowing water stream.  Differences in the index
> >     of refraction is to be measured relative to
> >     stationary water.  The resulting measurements
> >     were fully consistent with both relativity and
> >     the aether concept."
>
> > If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized
> > vortices.  Thus circulations abound.
>
> > Paul Stowe
>
> Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more.  But modeling gravity is the key
> to understanding exactly what is going on with the ether, if you
> assume that it causes gravity as well as being the medium for emr.
> I'm just not that familiar with the Le Sage model to know whether it
> would work if there is a local circulatory motion.  The sink-vortex
> model is the other alternative.  Kepler's Laws supposedly can be
> explained by object's slip-streaming the filament lines.
>
> Vern

Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when
displaced and 'displaces back'. How do we know the aether displaces
back? Because light from behind where Jupiter was in its orbit still
reaches us from distant stars (i.e. Jupiter does not leave a void it
its wake). The pushing back is the pressure the aether exerts towards
the matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by
massive objects is gravity.
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 18:34
On Feb 19, 4:17 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > > I understand that the Lorentz contraction formula works for both
> > > velocities.  The CMBR is certainly evidence of a stationary ether, but
> > > the Sagnac effect and ether drag affecting orbits if we assume the
> > > higher velocities of planets and stars through that stationary ether
> > > are correct would seem to indicate circulatory flows around the
> > > planets and stars.  The MMX can also be explained if there is a local
> > > circulatory flow.  Does the pushing gravity model work for either a
> > > stationary ether or local circulatory flows?  Or does the Le Sage
> > > model favor one over the other?  Tom VanFlandern was adamantly against
> > > a local circulatory flow (for other reasons), but I'm not sure Tom had
> > > considered the Le Sage model with the higher orbital velocities wrt to
> > > the CMBR.
>
> > > Vern
>
> > First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the
> > aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of
> > a stationary ocean.  Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether
> > affect but Sagnac's original version was.  You really are describing
> > Fizeau's experiment (effect)
>
> >    "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through
> >     a flowing water stream.  Differences in the index
> >     of refraction is to be measured relative to
> >     stationary water.  The resulting measurements
> >     were fully consistent with both relativity and
> >     the aether concept."
>
> > If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized
> > vortices.  Thus circulations abound.
>
> > Paul Stowe
>
> Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more.  But modeling gravity is the key
> to understanding exactly what is going on with the ether, if you
> assume that it causes gravity as well as being the medium for emr.
> I'm just not that familiar with the Le Sage model to know whether it
> would work if there is a local circulatory motion.  The sink-vortex
> model is the other alternative.  Kepler's Laws supposedly can be
> explained by object's slip-streaming the filament lines.
>
> Vern

Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when
displaced and 'displaces back'. How do we know the aether displaces
back? Because light from where Jupiter was in its orbit still reaches
us from distant stars (i.e. Jupiter does not leave a void it its
wake). The pushing back is the pressure the aether exerts towards the
matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.
From: BURT on 19 Feb 2010 21:03
The speed of light is through space-time. Frames can move below the
speed of light through the same space-time.

MItch Raemsch - Light is turning at C in the sky
From: Inertial on 19 Feb 2010 23:22

"BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb1db695-ccf9-4bbf-8446-9dce4203e2cd(a)o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> The speed of light is through space-time.

Well .. derr .. Any speed is just a change in position over some a duration
of time as measured in some frame of reference. There is nothing special
about speed when referring to light. Its still just speed

> Frames can move below the
> speed of light

They have to .. if you are talking about inertial frames between which the
PoR says the laws of physics apply the same. They must always travel
relative to each other slower than c. Because c is c in every inertial
frame.

> through the same space-time.

Again .. derr. Though speed is not a movement through space-time .. that
makes no sense as movement means change in position over time. Speed is a
set of events in space-time.

> MItch Raemsch - Light is turning at C in the sky


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights