Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 08:10 On Jul 25, 1:54 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrotenews:NAH2o.328027$m87..95458(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > >news:4c4b1c1c$0$2603$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > > | > > | > | > ============================= > > | > | > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. > > | > | > > | > | Aether is the fact. > > | > > > | > In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact. > > | > > | You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf > > | > > | In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes is > > right. > > | > > | Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun and > > plasma > > | rotate (one revolution per 25 days). > > | It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate together. > > | Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 > > Michelson > > | detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. > > | You do not know it? > > | S* > > " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not be > > posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. > > You do not know it? > > "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both > > true > > and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton > > You do not know it? > > What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore there > > is no point in presuming its existence. > > We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as > opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". > > But we can analyse the rare plasma and dust in the space. > Can they rotate with the Sun? æther := [far-]field
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 08:12 On Jul 26, 10:23 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > Jelly can creep but not flow. For this reason the jelly do not rotate with > the Earth. The rotation with the Sun is very stabile. The ring laser > gyroscopies are very accurate. > > Before Michelson-Gale experiment many scientists were sure that aether > rotate with the Earth. But such theories becomes erroneous. > But Stokes is O.K. > S* Learn how to conjug verbs, cretin.
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 08:16 On Jul 27, 1:03 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > And what makes you or anybody else think that earth is so unique that any > > real or (most likely) imagined ether would be at rest with regards to its > > surface? The idea of such an ether sounds ridiculous. > > It isn't rediculous if you compare it with the Earth's atmosphere. > While not being at complete rest with the surface, certainly, the air > in the room you are sitting with is at rest. You don't think that is > rediculous do you? Rediculous isn't a word.
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 08:41 On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> > Szczepan is making an arugment that the aether is made out of > interstellar dust. Now, getting to the point of what we want an aether > to do for us, I think it is of utmost importance that the aether be > the medium for transmitting light. I would doubt that the interstellar > medium would be sufficient to account for transmission of light. The > density of that interstellar medium is extremely low. Given the speed > of light and how higher density materials transmit waves faster, I > would expect the aether to be extremely dense. Neither could waves > propagate well in medium with so few particles to transmit the wave > by. This is cretinose. The wavespeed for woom (sound) is swifter for thicker media but not the wavespeed for liht. See Snell and Maxwell's equations. > If you created a perfect vacuum without any interstellar medium and > you could show that it results in light being unable to pass, then I > think you might have a point, but I would think we have pretty much > shown that light and electromagnetic waves in general can pass through > a perfect vacuum, neither is the ability to transmit EM affected by > vaccum. The medium is the mote and goes out as far as ct, where t is the mote's lifetime. > I prefer a model of the aether which consists of positron/electron > pairs which I call poselectrons. This forms an extremely dense "gas" > which fills all of avaliable space and acts as the transmission medium > for electromagnetic waves. This aether also defines the smallest > amount of space and time which is expressed as plank length and time. http://google.com/groups?q=%22length+is+time%22&sitesearch=groups.google.com > This gives rise to all of the observed "quantum" effects such as the > specific spectra emitted by atoms. The aether also creates "mass" by > the mechanism which is currently assigned to the Higgs Boson. The > aether is also useful in explaining how "inertia" works by storing > energy in the aether fields. It also serves as the medium for magnetic > forces. It also explains why positron/electrons can be ejected from > "empty" space. It also allows the mechanical explanation of attractive not moot space? > electric charges. So these are the things I think we need an aether > for and my preferred embodiment. > > See:http://franklinhu.com/aether.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 1 Aug 2010 08:45
On Jul 31, 11:47 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:28 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > > > led to the standard view that "QM is the final form of micro physical > > > theory". I, for one, don't think so. > > > You are forgetting the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Chemistry made > > perfect sense after that. > > In my considerable experience, FreddiFizzle, Chemistry never makes > "perfect sense". Where is Uncle Al when you need him? why not? |