>"The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"
>
> There have been a significant number of newsposts from individuals who
>have equated the suggestion that to assert the existence of the Aether is a
>form of charlatanism.>
And rightly so.
> These assertions apparently come from the same
>individuals who assert that the Special Theory of Relativity has proven that
>the Aether does not exist. If they have such a proof, they should present it
>since it does not appear to be present in available texts and writings.
No, what that really proves is that you have not searched the "available texts
and writings" correctly.
What
>special Relativity does show is that, when observations are limited to those
>made with information transfer processes which propagate at a velocity equal
>to or less than the speed of light, it is impossible to observe our absolute
>velocity through space (i.e.- velocity with respect to the classical Aether.
No, that is not what it shows: it shows rather that no matter which is currently
traveling slower than the speed of light, can ever travel at the speed of light
or faster; and that this speed is a constant of nature.
>Only a charlatan would assert that such constitutes a proof that the Aether
>does not exist.
Now why would we believe this? Why would we not believe instead that you simply
do not understand the argument? After all, you just gave enough evidence of
that.
> It should be noted that it is not the proponents of the
>Aether who make such a statement, it is the true charlatans, i.e.- the
>mathematically trained adherents of conventional physical thought. Dr.
>Einstein warned:-"remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether
>does not exist, we have merely proven that we do not need it (for
>computations)".
Where did he say this?
> The fact of the matter is that, if we accept the Lorentz
>Transformations for Length and Time provided by the Special Theory of
>Relativity two things become immediately apparent:-
Predictably, what you hail as "immediately apparent" is not even true.
>A:- Since the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity, which is length divided
>by time, is not unity but rather 1/(1-V^2/C^2) the assertion made by
>adherents of Relativity Theory that the velocity of light is the same in all
>reference frames can only be true if one uses "rubber" instruments for the
>observations,
False. That was the PRE-relativistic interpretation of the Michelson-Morley
experiment.
> a process which is contrary to all basic principles.
False again. Sometimes, 'rubber' is the best you can do, and you have to take
into account the rubber's elasticity.
>The
>velocity of light is "a constant" when measured within a given reference
>frames.
Wrong again: it is a real constant for all inertial reference frames.
> It is not constant for all reference frames when the results of
>observations which are corrected by the appropriate Lorentz Transformations
>are and transmitted to a common agreed upon "base reference frame".
You are stringing together words you do not yourself understand. Your statement
here makes no sense -- if you know what the phrase "reference frame" means.
> In other
>words the velocity of light is "a constant" but it is not necessarily
>"constant". Conventional physicists who fail to recognize this distinction
>are the true charlatans, not those individuals who are sufficiently astute
>to recognize the meaning of the distinction and insist that sound reasoning
>be applied to the process.
No, rather, by your misuse of the term "reference frame" you expose yourself as
the charlatan.
[snip]
hhc314@yahoo.com - 30 Jul 2008 18:32 GMT
On Jul 30, 11:09 am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org>
wrote:
> In article <18807$489075ec$4fa4868$8...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, Fos says...
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> No, what that really proves is that you have not searched the "available texts
> and writings" correctly.
So far, I would agree with you. The key available text here is
Maxwells "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field", upon which
all of the introductory unserstanding of science is today based. It
takes some searching to locate, but it can be done. I should add that
it is a bit difficult for a layman to digest, without having a
considerable background in physics and mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Here is a very brief summary of Maxwell's "Dynamical Theory...",
please note that in this summarization Maxwell's originaly
mathematical symbology has been condensed in todays more common
ordinary differential equation symbology, which most 2nd year physics
and math students will immediately grasp.
Take special not of the last 6 equations, where the velocity of light
is computer based entirely on the permittivity and permeability of the
transmission media, which in this particular case is taken as 'free
space". Quite obviously if you were to plug in the values of
permittive and permeability of any transmission medium, you could
compute the velocity of electromagnetic wave transmission in that
medium (say flint glass, crown glass, quartz crystals, lucite or
whatever.)
So obviously, no Aether can provide these experimentally verifiable
predictions, nor is it needed or useful in any way, and this suggest
that anyone in 2008 promoting a belief in the long dead Aether Theory
is today either a Charlatan or someone so totally ignorant of the
relevant science and mathematical support that their views are
worthless -- Like cavemen trying to explain the nature of fire!
Not to sound mean spirited, but that is simply the way that it is.
Harry C.
> "The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"
[snip crap]
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com.
[snip rest of crap]
Idiot. f.cking imbecile.

Signature
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
> "The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"
No aether.
Bob Kolker
hhc314@yahoo.com - 31 Jul 2008 04:23 GMT
> > "The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Amen to that. Can we now close this stupid thread.
Harry C.