Does the Lorentz Ether Theory "Work"?
in [Relativity]
|
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 15:11 the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton. > Similarly it has all processes slowed down, but time is a simple absolute > orthogonal independent 'dimension' as it is in euclidean/galillean/newtonian > physics. Of course, the upshot of this is that all the rulers and clocks we > use to measure space and time are 'distorted' and the measurements you get > are the same as what SR predicts you would measure. --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 15:15 and, while it does nothing to say that there is needed an aether, MMX most certainly did not have a null result, and this was elaborated by others for decades, at least (see Dayton C. Miller e.g., if you can refrain from the googolplex).
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 16:43 Spring 1998 Vol. 11, No. 1 Michelson-Morley-Miller: The Coverup The Experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) and the Theory of Relativity Maurice Allais On My Experiments in Physics, 1952-1960 Maurice Allais Einsteins theories of special and general relativity rest on the allegedly null results of Michelsons interferometer experiment. Here, a French physicist and Nobel Laureate in economics, demonstrates that Michelsons results were not null, and that the interferometer experiments of the American scientist Dayton Miller produced positive results, thereby invalidating the foundation of the Theory of Relativity. Background: Optical Theory in the 19th Century, and the Truth about Michelson-Morley-Miller Laurence Hecht To understand the ground-breaking significance of Dayton Millers ether drift measurements, one must go back to the original discoveries of Fresnel on the wave theory of light and its subsequent development in the 19th century. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/highlights/hilt08.html thus: perhaps there should be incentives for minimizing the runoff; Earth is drying-up with desertification, which always precedes a glacial phase. thus: there is no fundamental difference between biodiesel and ordinary "fossilized" diesel, as I learned from teh movie, Fuel!... and that was about where the movie went kinda nuts, after the kiddies made their "smell comparison." it turns-out that there *is* a way to make clean-coal: you burn it as efficiently as possible (fluidized bed; ultimately, perhaps, fuel cells) and use the CO2 over methane to create methyl alcohol (and a further refinement, I forget; both are being done commercially). however, coal is such an oncredibly useful feedstock, it should ne'er be burned, at all. thus: you are simply ignoring what a wave actually is, three-dimensionally, just like Broglie, Dirac et al (math, good; interpretation, less good). there is simply no need for the particle, at all, as proven abundantly by Young, Fresnel etc. etc. -- nevermind what the 2nd Church of England says about Einstein and Newton! the real question is not, How can C-60 do this without aethe?, but How does it do it within the confines of the experimental apparatus? > The 'particle' occupies a very small region of the aether wave. thus: I always top-post my replies; the rest is simply misc.addendum.what.I.writ.today. it's funny, because you glom onto Newton's/Einstein's photon, but that is exactly the interpretation of the (merely instrumental) photo- electrical effect that supposedly alleviated any need for an aether; did they give E. the Nobel, just to validate N.?... well, whether there was any conspiracy (other than being at the Swedish Royal Palace, together), it certainly has made Newton's day -- and the Second (Secular) Church of England! thus: Finally, note that, in a sense, the whole world is going a) nuclear, and b) into space, while we are essentially frozen into '50s and '60s techniques in these crucial frontiers. (While some folks dither about Iran's nuke-weapons policy, they are rapidly achieving a full-scale nuke-e and process-heat capability for industry & infrastructure.) thus: I don't get his notation, either, but he must be trying to insert his "internal momentum" **** into some sort of mathematical form. so, when he patents his warp drive, he'll just have to be careful about travel "in" time -- and messing with his mama, before he was conceived! thus: the clocks are distorted by the curvature that was demonstrated by Aristarchus, and surveyed o'er Alsace-Lorraine by Gauss (with his theodolite .-) yes, time is not a dimension, or it is the only dimension, whereby we observe the others (Bucky's formulation). not only was Newton's law actually found by Hooke, but it was derived directly from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, Kepler thought that Sun was perhaps magnetic on planets, which may-well turn out to be more accurate than "gravitons" -- as long as you get rid of Newton's silly corpuscles, "photons" -- and his platonic ordering of the planets has alos proved to be more-or-less correct (if I could find that article, that gave a formula that was effective for all moons, as well). BTW, use quaternions for special rel., which shows the uniqueness of the "real, scalar, inner product" time/ dimension of Hamilton. --Light: A History! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --yr humble servant, the Voting Rights Act o'65 (deadletter since March 27, 2000, when Supreme Court refuzed appeal in LaRouche v. Fowler ('96))
From: victoria Bippart on 15 Apr 2010 16:53 thus quoth: The conception of Minkowski and his prede- cessors, about time as a fourth dimension of space, is a mathematical abstraction having no logical grounding in sci- entific reality; it is a fiction, which does not correspond to the real content of science, nor to a true scientific concep- tion of time. Time is not a dimension of metric geometry. Of course, time can be expressed in geometry by a vector, but it is obvious that such a representation of time does not sub- sume all of its properties in the natural phenomena studied by the naturalist; it provides him nothing real by way of knowledge. He has no use for it. Twentieth-century science is now at a stage, when the moment has arrived to study time, in the same way as we study the energy and matter filling space. Minkowskis time, considered as the fourth dimension of Euclidean space, does not correspond to the time, which is actually observed in physical space. We should not forget, that in concrete scien- tific work, we, generally speaking, are not dealing with the abstract absolute space of geometry. At every step, we are dealing with the much more complex real space of Nature. In a vacuum and very often in gaseous media we can extremely often, without need of corrections, use all the con- clusions that follow from the properties of the abstract space of Euclidean geometry. But, not always. Already in most of the problems we face, involving fluids and solid bodies, we cannot do this. In connection with this, it is convenient, as we shall see, to distinguish the real space of Nature in this case the biosphereas a physical space, from geometrical space; in the manner, that Helmholtz apparently, first pro- posed to do http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/Vernadsky_W00-01.pdf
From: dlzc on 15 Apr 2010 17:16
Dear victoria Bippart: On Apr 15, 12:15 pm, victoria Bippart <vickybipp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and, while it does nothing to say that > there is needed an aether, > MMX most certainly did not have a null result, and > this was elaborated by others for decades, at least > (see Dayton C. Miller e.g., if you can refrain > from the googolplex). There is no need for an aether, and Miller's results are not discernable from the error bars. This has been done to death. Others that tried to repeat it, that did not make the same mistakes, got a null result. Ether numb's the mind, similar to how aether numbs the imagination. David A. Smith |