http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

"mountain man" wrote in message
...
| http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm


"We can now see that we may very well have an aether,
subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
relativity, provided we are willing to consider a
perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not
attainable in practice. "

Phuckwit.

Androcles.

mountain man wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

Empirical idiot.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether to 1.7x10^(-15) relative

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:31:43 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

mountain man wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

Empirical idiot.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether to 1.7x10^(-15) relative

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

Uncle Al is the 'self-imposed' ignorant!
(but certainly not stupid)

There is a clear difference between not necessary
for inclusion in an evaluation and non-existence.

The above references are, as always, the formaer
and have NOTHING! whatsoever to do with the latter.

Paul Stowe

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
mountain man wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

Empirical idiot.


"Just because the results happen to be in agreement
with observation does not prove that one's
theory is correct" (Dirac 1987, p. 196).



Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether to 1.7x10^(-15) relative

The above results are for two specific types of devices:
vacuum based and solid-state based interferometers. What
are the results for gas mode interferometers, and why do
they differ from the vacuum and solid state configurations?

Absence of evidence is not equivalent to
evidence of absence. (logic is supposed to
be one of the cornerstones of physics).




http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation


Contemplate Lorentz's
Aether Theory.





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:31:43 -0700, Uncle Al
wrote:

mountain man wrote:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

Empirical idiot.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether to 1.7x10^(-15) relative

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation

Uncle Al is the 'self-imposed' ignorant!
(but certainly not stupid)

There is a clear difference between not necessary
for inclusion in an evaluation and non-existence.


When Einstein considered special relativity, and the
simplistic relationship between intertial frames of reference
he did not need to consider the aether postulate.

Ten years down the track, when he then expanded
his consideration to the more general concept of non
inertial frames and gravitation, he realised that the
aether postulate was still viable.



The above references are, as always, the formaer
and have NOTHING! whatsoever to do with the latter.

Paul Stowe

I am an Aether man and I'll tell you why.

Dynamic dimensions.
If the time-aether moves at the speed of light you
can catch up to it causing it to go slower and space
to shrink. Sound familiar?
It should its the results of relativity.

How can then emptiness of space-time curve?

You gotta give it substance.
The Aether is the very substance of the universe.
How's that for you?

In article ,
"mountain man" wrote:
There is the story about seven blind men trying to
agree on the proper description of an elephant by
the sense of touch alone.

Physics is like this elephant and its observers.
It has distinct regions or parts, each of which
is not the same as the unified whole.

The unification of the whole of physics will not
come about except by way of (ie: based upon)
its set of admissable postulates.

Thus my insistence upon the reconsideration
of the aether hypothesis. That's all.

The hypothesis was falsified by experiment. Try insisting on something
that works.

Your insistence is similar to insisting that the kitchen
light isn't working because the bulb is burnt out when,
in reality, the power grid is down. You can keep insisting
that your analysis is correct and keep changing light bulbs,
but your kitchen won't be lit until the grid powers back up.

/BAH

There is the story about seven blind men trying to
agree on the proper description of an elephant by
the sense of touch alone.

Physics is like this elephant and its observers.
It has distinct regions or parts, each of which
is not the same as the unified whole.

The unification of the whole of physics will not
come about except by way of (ie: based upon)
its set of admissable postulates.

Thus my insistence upon the reconsideration
of the aether hypothesis. That's all.





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"mountain man" wrote:
There is the story about seven blind men trying to
agree on the proper description of an elephant by
the sense of touch alone.

Physics is like this elephant and its observers.
It has distinct regions or parts, each of which
is not the same as the unified whole.

The unification of the whole of physics will not
come about except by way of (ie: based upon)
its set of admissable postulates.

Thus my insistence upon the reconsideration
of the aether hypothesis. That's all.

The hypothesis was falsified by experiment.


This is a common misconception. Absence
of evidence is not equivalent to evidence
of absence.

Both Dirac (1951) and Einstein (1920) understood
that the aether hypothesis was not falsified
by experiment.


Dirac:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_8.htm

Einstein:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html






--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm