Prev: Easy as pi was Re: To Mars for fun was Re: Beam me slider wasRe:The AI Librarian was AI Programation
Next: folks really believe that oilcos hate cap&trade on fossilized fuels TM?
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 Larmors transform, there is no twins paradox. The nonsense of > that paradox only exists in the Lorentz transform. So far, all > experimental results are interpreted as the applications of Larmors > 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 |