From: Paul Stowe on
On May 31, 6:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Stowe wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more...
>
> Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way.
>
> Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that supposedly
> supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis used in two
> different theories somehow proves your point.
>
> You've been doing it for years, no surprises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution

FYI, Maxwell's original physical model WAS! an inviscid (Perfect)
fluid model. That 'fluid' was the aether. Mathematical form comes
directly from physical properties & substance. IOW the 'fabric of
spacetime' IS the aether.

From: whoever on
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dd1c65e-84a4-4054-b6c9-1b55a113cb53(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 6:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more...
>>
>> Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way.
>>
>> Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that
>> supposedly
>> supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis used in two
>> different theories somehow proves your point.
>>
>> You've been doing it for years, no surprises.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution
>
> FYI, Maxwell's original physical model WAS! an inviscid (Perfect)
> fluid model. That 'fluid' was the aether. Mathematical form comes
> directly from physical properties & substance. IOW the 'fabric of
> spacetime' IS the aether.

You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the
aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' (ie geometry) of
spacetime. If you try to construct some substance as having the
appropriate properties to get the equivalent results you end up with
something nonsensical and preposterous.

Long ago the aether was thought to be a just a strange fluid with light as a
wave in it, but as more was found out about the nature of light, the
properties such an aether would have to have, in order not to be refuted by
experiment, became more bizarre. It would have to be fluid so it can fill
all space, it must be an extremely rigid solid for transerve waves, it also
has to be without mass and have no viscosity, totally transparent,
incompressible and continuous. Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the
properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, and all
fields, and the it must slow all processes.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Paul Stowe on
On Jun 1, 6:01 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4dd1c65e-84a4-4054-b6c9-1b55a113cb53(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 6:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> PaulStowewrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more...
>
> >> Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way.
>
> >> Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that
> >> supposedly
> >> supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis used in two
> >> different theories somehow proves your point.
>
> >> You've been doing it for years, no surprises.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution
>
> > FYI, Maxwell's original physical model WAS! an inviscid (Perfect)
> > fluid model.  That 'fluid' was the aether.  Mathematical form comes
> > directly from physical properties & substance.  IOW the 'fabric of
> > spacetime' IS the aether.
>
> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the
> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' (ie geometry) of
> spacetime.   If you try to construct some substance as having the
> appropriate properties to get the equivalent results you end up with
> something nonsensical and preposterous.
>
> Long ago the aether was thought to be a just a strange fluid with light as a
> wave in it, but as more was found out about the nature of light, the
> properties such an aether would have to have, in order not to be refuted by
> experiment, became more bizarre.  It would have to be fluid so it can fill
> all space, it must be an extremely rigid solid for transerve waves, it also
> has to be without mass and have no viscosity, totally transparent,
> incompressible and continuous.  Then Lorentz came along and also gave it the
> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, and all
> fields, and the it must slow all processes.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---

You know what the really sad part about your diatribe is?

!. You really believe it
2. Your parroting long term telephone stories
3. It truly is pure BS

You should REALLY READ

http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

I'm pretty sure you won't bother but your gross ignorance of this
topic is glaring...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersolid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid

If you bother to look at what Maxwell describes it is a quantized
vortex lattice. This, as Maxwell clearly demonstrated is all that is
needed to get those so-called bizarre behavior (like transverse waves
in a 'fluid'.

Paul Stowe
From: whoever on
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a220643-a160-47c2-8cd8-c220c0682cab(a)n20g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 6:01 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
>> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4dd1c65e-84a4-4054-b6c9-1b55a113cb53(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 31, 6:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> PaulStowewrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more...
>>
>> >> Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way.
>>
>> >> Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that
>> >> supposedly
>> >> supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis used in
>> >> two
>> >> different theories somehow proves your point.
>>
>> >> You've been doing it for years, no surprises.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution
>>
>> > FYI, Maxwell's original physical model WAS! an inviscid (Perfect)
>> > fluid model. That 'fluid' was the aether. Mathematical form comes
>> > directly from physical properties & substance. IOW the 'fabric of
>> > spacetime' IS the aether.
>>
>> You have it backwards .. what people used to think was a substance (the
>> aether), is actually just the results of the 'fabric' (ie geometry) of
>> spacetime. If you try to construct some substance as having the
>> appropriate properties to get the equivalent results you end up with
>> something nonsensical and preposterous.
>>
>> Long ago the aether was thought to be a just a strange fluid with light
>> as a
>> wave in it, but as more was found out about the nature of light, the
>> properties such an aether would have to have, in order not to be refuted
>> by
>> experiment, became more bizarre. It would have to be fluid so it can
>> fill
>> all space, it must be an extremely rigid solid for transerve waves, it
>> also
>> has to be without mass and have no viscosity, totally transparent,
>> incompressible and continuous. Then Lorentz came along and also gave it
>> the
>> properties that it must compress all matter moving within it, and all
>> fields, and the it must slow all processes.
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
>
> You know what the really sad part about your diatribe is?
>
> !. You really believe it

Because it is correct

> 2. Your parroting long term telephone stories

Nope

> 3. It truly is pure BS

Nope .. you just don't understand enough physics to know better

> You should REALLY READ

I have

[snip more bullshit from ignorant Paul - who's physics knowledge is over a
century old]



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: eric gisse on
Paul Stowe wrote:

> On May 31, 6:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Stowe wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Yes Eric, I expected nothing less, or more...
>>
>> Like I've said, you flee technical arguments that don't go your way.
>>
>> Thus you completely ignore the dissection of the reference that
>> supposedly supports you, and shift gears to argue that tensor analysis
>> used in two different theories somehow proves your point.
>>
>> You've been doing it for years, no surprises.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution

You don't need to link to these topics on Wikipedia, as I actually studied
them in school as well.

>
> FYI, Maxwell's original physical model WAS! an inviscid (Perfect)
> fluid model.

So? Its' wrong. This is settled.

> That 'fluid' was the aether. Mathematical form comes
> directly from physical properties & substance. IOW the 'fabric of
> spacetime' IS the aether.

Not at all, Paul. Learn the difference between a manifold and a stress
tensor.