Hello:

If you are interested in my model of the aether, I have recently added
to its web a new article called Dynamics (Section 12) saying that:

- The main experimental features of the dynamics of highly
relativistic particles (and in particular those of elastic collisions)
can also be predicted in a natural way by an aether of aetherinos
within Galilean relativity. The quantitative predictions are however
not exactly the same as those of special relativity although according
to my knowledge the differences are small enough to suspect that they
have passed undetected in experiments.
- The basic point of view is that the acceleration given to a body by
a force F depends on the "absolute speed" of the body (i.e. on its
speed relative to the aether) according to:

a = F/m (1-u/c)

where
m = mass of the body
u = absolute speed of the body relative to the aether
c = speed of light in vacuum

(the expression of the acceleration proposed is only one within a
group of similar expressions that are natural predictions of the
model. It is also the simplest but at its present stage the model is
still open to other expressions with a qualitatively similar
dependence on the absolute speed of the body).

- In analogy to the description of mainstream Physics, two magnitudes
can be defined and assigned to a particle, "absolute momentum" and
"absolute kinetic energy", such that their respective sums are
conserved in elastic interactions within closed systems. Those
magnitudes are defined in relation to the (absolute) reference frame
in which the aether can be considered at rest. Plausible expressions
for these magnitudes a

p = - m c Log[1-u/c] (modulus of the absolute momentum)

K = - m c (u + c Log[1-u/c]) (absolute kinetic energy)

where
m = mass of the particle
u = absolute speed of the particle relative to the aether
c = speed of light in vacuum

See more details at:

http://personales.ya.com/carlosla/mo...2/Dynamics.htm

Everyone familiar with fundamental Physics is of course encouraged to
develop, test and correct this model of the aether within its basic
paradigms (galilean relativity and aether of aetherinos).

Best regards
Carlos L.

(remove the nonsense from the address)

Carlos L wrote:

Hello:

If you are interested in my model of the aether, I have recently added
to its web a new article called Dynamics (Section 12) saying that:



Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.

Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether

Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
"aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
"gtr is an aether theory".

Luminiferous Ether
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=aethe...aip.org+update

Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...elativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html


Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ae...Awww.crank.net
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22et...Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher

Carlos L wrote:

Hello:

If you are interested in my model of the aether, I have recently added
to its web a new article called Dynamics (Section 12) saying that:
[snip]

http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)

plus Hipparcos star positions vs. ground data equal "no aether" to 12
decimal places.

aetherinos within Galilean relativity
a force F depends on the "absolute speed" of the body


Ha ha ha. What a maroon.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
| Carlos L wrote:
|
| Hello:
|
| If you are interested in my model of the aether, I have recently added
| to its web a new article called Dynamics (Section 12) saying that:
|
|
|
| Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished.
|
| Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
|
| Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some
| injudicious comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said
| to ascribe physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense,
| to involve a kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of
| "aether" which had been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the
| nineteenth century, but his remarks have been seized upon ever since,
| by various cranks and other ill-informed persons, as evidence that
| "gtr is an aether theory".

You need to read the link carefully that you posted. GR and SR do not rule
out a medium which would have an undefined 'absolute rest frame'. All that
is ruled out is classical notions of an ether that have a "defined" absolute
rest frame. This is the 21st century. It is not the 19th or early 20th
century. The uncertainty principle will rule out a "defined" absolute rest
frame automatically. Plus the uncertainty principle also rules in a medium
called the quantum vacuum. If you think that photons have intrinsic
electromagnetic properties, you are just fooling yourself. Photons have
momentum and a spin of one and that is all the intrinsic properties they
have. Old Man has said this many times and I believe him. Free space EM
properties come from the quantum vacuum, "the medium".

Vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in cgs units.

Easy to see why the medium can be tossed out for most things, isn't it?
However, it is much easier to explain how photons can "conspire" to make EM
waves if the quantum vacuum is the source of free space EM. Do you think
the uncertainty principle would let an electron and positron in slow
annihilation completely disappear? Impossible.

FrediFizzx

Uncle Al

equal "no aether" to 12
decimal places.

You're the "maroon", Al. The "aether" is simply an old name for the quantum
foam. Get with it. PS: Quantum Foam is real, and can be tapped.

"erincss" wrote in message
...
| Uncle Al
|
| equal "no aether" to 12
| decimal places.
|
| You're the "maroon", Al. The "aether" is simply an old name for the
quantum
| foam. Get with it. PS: Quantum Foam is real, and can be tapped.

Tapped for what? Maple syrup? Beer? Must be beer because of the foam.
Quantum foamy beer. Yummy! Put a quantum head on that beer please.

FrediFizzx

In article ,
Sam Wormley wrote:
erincss wrote:

Uncle Al

equal "no aether" to 12
decimal places.

You're the "maroon", Al. The "aether" is simply an old name for the
quantum
foam. Get with it. PS: Quantum Foam is real, and can be tapped.

tapped?

Or taped, as in duct taped?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

erincss wrote:

Uncle Al

equal "no aether" to 12
decimal places.

You're the "maroon", Al. The "aether" is simply an old name for the quantum
foam. Get with it. PS: Quantum Foam is real, and can be tapped.

tapped?

In message , writes
In article ,
Sam Wormley wrote:
erincss wrote:

Uncle Al

equal "no aether" to 12
decimal places.

You're the "maroon", Al. The "aether" is simply an old name for the
quantum
foam. Get with it. PS: Quantum Foam is real, and can be tapped.

tapped?

Or taped, as in duct taped?

Or duck taped. Or gaffer taped...

http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html

But whatever else you do, never tap a gaffer.

--
Richard Herring