"Harry" wrote in message ...
With more SNIPPING and editing:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

Harry wrote in message
...

Does this imply that the ("solid") ether of Lorentz is in fact
that of Maxwell?

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used a 'solid' aether.
SNIP

For Maxwell's model, see "On Physical Lines of Force",
Philosophical Magazine, Vol XXI, XXIII; 1862, Maxwell.
(You'll probably need to get a copy from a large University
Library, as it's not a popular item.)
The University of California at Berkeley Library can make
a copy for you and mail it.

For Lorentz' work, I'd suggest the easiest source is Lorentz'
1904 work "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving
with Any Velocity less than that of Light." Found in "The
Principle of Relativity", Dover, first published 1952. This
book also includes several other original works, and is well
worth the money.

That last paper I have, but I can't find anything in it about
his ether ideas...
Which paragraph?


Sorry, I wasn't clear. Lorentz didn't use *any* aether in that paper.
(That counts not using a solid aether.) Lorentz used the EM equations
of an electron. Maxwell used a (super)fluid aether.

Then you don't agree with the analysis of Paul Stowe, or can "(super)fluid"
be the same as "pseudo solid"?

Try "superfluous"

Main Entry: su·per·flu·ous
Pronunciation: su-'p&r-flü-&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin superfluus, literally,
running over, from superfluere to overflow, from super- + fluere
to flow -- more at FLUID
Date: 15th century
1 a : exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : EXTRA
b : not needed : UNNECESSARY
2 obsolete : marked by wastefulness : EXTRAVAGANT
- su·per·flu·ous·ly adverb
- su·per·flu·ous·ness noun

Dirk Vdm