On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:58:34 -0800 Gibson Elliot Gibson Elliot wrote..
Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my
book!
I agree with Tesla's observation but it is incomplete..you can't just eat
ether endlessly -you must also expell it.
Puthoff's atomic
On 01/28/2010 08:20 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called
Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least
I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I
can
On 01/28/2010 09:03 PM, Chris Zell wrote:
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket
rejection of 'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact.
In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about
328 ohms. Clearly, something out there
On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out.
Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts,
Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has
replicated his results.
A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicates
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out.
Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts,
Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has
replicated his results.
Miller replicated M M results, with more precision.
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but
you won't.
End of
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 6:24 PM
Gibson Elliot wrote:
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
equations work?
I know
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but
you won't.
I don't have
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment
indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by reality is not relative, but I'll not do
that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
I have a problem with the MM experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma
Matter. I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And
hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so
why do I bother? just frustration I guess.
Let time be the final judge...
Gibson
From: Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2
Stephen,
Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz
ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least
I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can
just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of
'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact.
In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328
ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In
Gibson Elliot wrote:
Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
equations work?
I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your
explanation.
That's unlikely to occur, why throw out
17 matches
Mail list logo
