Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen
If I can judge by Jones's rather strong denial of the validity of
these classic experiments....
Whoa. I am not denying their validity for the limited scope which
they encompass- but why extend that further ? They do have historical
meaning and purpose, but it can be easily exaggerated.
<g> OK, sorry, I tend to come on a little strong sometimes.
The comments about the Wiki article still stand, tho; it can be helpful
in obtaining a clear historical perspective on the MMX.
This is more of a case of semantics and broadened perspectives, or
maybe semantics plus a personal agenda. That goes both ways of course
<g> but the definition of 'aether' has moved clearly away (possibly
due to these experiments) from a medium which photons 'must have' in
order to propagate - to something more akin to the epo field of
Dirac/Wheeler etc. as best explained by Don Hotson. There may never
be a firm definition which can be agreed-to by everyone.
IOW - photons may require some sort of a 'medium' - true, but that
may end up being simply gravity, or gravity in conjunction with an
epo field. Similarly, if we go back to Maxwell's paper 'On Physical
Lines of Force' - magnetic lines of force can be reinterpreted in an
analogous way - with rotating electron-positron dipoles as the
"hidden" structure. These dipoles will comprise of an electron and a
positron in mutual orbit - and in an underlying dimension which may
correspond to Dirac's reciprocal space, and from which 'quantum foam'
was imagined - which is what Wheeler thought that space-time would
reduce-to on the Planck scale.
Jones
So, DePalma "spin" experimental results; Bedini results; any other
results (like Explorer series "spinning" satellites get no attention.
Ok. Got it.
