Prev: Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity
Next: Inertia still lying for Einstein
From: spudnik on 23 Jun 2010 21:35
surely it could not be so hard,
to find some of the rather definitive un-null results
of Michelson, Morely et al; is it?... well, even
as Albert the Witnit wobbled on the idea of aether,
it is really a matter of interpretation. so,
why cannot the electromagnetic properties
of atoms in "space" be an aether; to wit,
permitivity & permeability?

til your "theory" can be taken seriously by yourself,
you'd have to be able to explain such; would you not?

oh, and there never was a twin paradox;
it is just a "term of art" and pop-science. I mean,
shouldn't the few properties of energy, of light,
be of the ultimate importance for matter,
per the experiments of Young, Fresnel et al,
in utterly burying Newton's "theory" of corpuscles
-- til it was rescued by the word, "photon;
hereinat to be interpreted to mean a massless rock
o'light?"

> Aether may/not exist.

> Using Larmor’s transform, there is no twin’s paradox.  The nonsense of
> that paradox only exists in the Lorentz transform.  So far, all
> experimental results are interpreted as the applications of Larmor’s
> transform and not the Lorentz transform.  This includes the GPS,
> Hafele-Keating experiment, etc.  Thus, it is rather stupid to pay lip
> service to the Lorentz transform but using Larmor’ transform as the
> model of applications.  The concept is simple, but it eludes the minds
> of these self-styled physicists.

--BP loves Waxman-Obama cap&trade (at least circa Kyoto, or
Waxman's '91 cap&trade on NOX and SO2) --
how about a tiny tax, instead of the Last Bailout
of Wall Street and the "City of London?"
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100621pne_nordyke.html

--le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity
Next: Inertia still lying for Einstein