"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. 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. 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.
Only a charlatan would assert that such constitutes a proof that the Aether
does not exist. 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)".

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:-

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, a process which is contrary to all basic principles. The
velocity of light is "a constant" when measured within a given 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". 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.

B:- So far, the only explanation posed for the fact that the velocity of
light is independent of the velocity of its source is that light is a
wavelike disturbance propagating through a medium (e.g.- the classical
Aether) If conventionally trained physicists can provide an alternate
explanation which does not require magic, they should provide it.

C:- The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity shows clearly to an intelligent
mind that it must be possible for an absolute velocity reference frame for
space (e.g.- the classical Aether) to exist.

C:- Once the existence of a single velocity reference frame is shown to be
possible within the confines of Special Relativity, it is possible to devise
a physically realizable experiment which shows that only ONE such reference
frame (e.g.:- the Aether) can exist even if we cannot observe our velocity
with respect to it. (See Section 4.5 of http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ).

Unfortunately it is the mainstream physicists who are the charlatans
and not those who recognize that the thinking of these allegedly mainstream
individuals is screwed up even if where the screwup is not apparent. Those
who would claim the Aether exists are not charlatans, they are individuals
who recognize that mainstream physics is faulty and are looking for a better
set of conclusions.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

Orex wrote:
"The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"



Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net

Why do you post under a different alias every day? Why is that?

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

NO aether, not now, not ever. Aetherialists are charlatans.
NO SR, not now, not ever. Relativists are charlatans.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy.
Androcles.

"Orex" wrote in message
.. .
"The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"

There have been a significant number of newsposts from individuals

Suggestion of following this newsgroup... not so!

SNIP

A:- Since the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity, which is length divided
by time, is not unity but rather 1/(1-V^2/C^2

Hey, that rubbish was posted here very recently under another name...

SNIP

E-mail:-

Oh right - as expected.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it.

Perhaps that was true 5 years ago; now it's a LIE.

Harald

Wittke is a master of self-delusion. He is *such* a credulous audience
for his own misdirection and deceptions.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Orex wrote:

"The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"
[snip ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.****inggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507083
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619
No more Dark Matter
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
[snip crap]

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

What's your explanation, "ACK! THBBFT!"?

Sorry, my error. Make that "piano wire." I've got a busy week here
through next Monday and don't have be contemplative and languid. Crap
in the fan and all that.

Androcles.