--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles"
|
| Michelson proved there was no aether.
| In 1913 Sagnac proved it again and definitely proved the velocities of
| photons add to the velocity of the source even though it is obvious
| anyway.
|
| In optics no photons. There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
| calculate how long they are. About 200 wave lengths.
| S*

Hahaha!
In electrics no electrons.
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Apparatus_1593.html
http://www.macdiarmid.ac.nz/news/success/brown.php

There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
calculate how long they are. About 200000 wave lengths.
A*

On 11 апр, 19:34, Laurent wrote:
On Apr 11, wrote:



On 11 апр, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

U"vps137" napisal w ...
On 11 ��Ò, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the movement of
the Â*Earth?
Yes, I know.

But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that MMX
and MGX gives null result.

So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for the
equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that the
Solar System is a rotating disc?
S*

Yes, I saw different values of MMX, from 30 to 8.4 km/s. (f.e. Consoli
& Costanzo,
2003). While the most said it is far below the accuracy and set it to
zero.
About Solar System rotation I have been never Â*heard, but it is in
full correspondence
with my picture of the star and galaxy formation, published in
vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html.
The solid body rotation of Â*the our galaxy seems to fix already as
well. It extends up to 5 times more
then the radius of galaxy.
Valery S.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are two schools of thought; one says the Aether is immaterial,
the other sees it as a dynamic fluid, or particulate in nature... like
matter.

These days space is seen as grainy, but space and empty space are two
different things. Leading cosmologists picture the universe as a
bubble floating in empty space. This is where Alan Guth's 'false
vacuum' comes from. Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space,
space is an extension of matter. Space is not primary, nor
fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as
matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it fluctuates, it
tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty
space, on the other hand, is primary. See, there is empty space then
there is material space, a mix of ZPR and CMBR particles. Einstein's
spacetime is packed-full of photons, that is where Inflation, the Big
Bang, etc., all come from.

Aether and matter are two different things and if you were to stop the
motion within matter it would go back to being just flat empty
space... or Aether.

You can not call this vortex an Aether particle, as if the Aether had
turned into something else. The Aether is supposed to be immutable and
eternal, the vortex is simply an artifact, an apparition of sorts, it
does not matter how small a particle may be. It could be 10^-58 cm
(the so-called Kolmogorov particle), still, when you reduce yourself
to the size of that particle what do you get? More empty space. The
field is not the ultimate irreducible reality. Aether and fields are
two different things. The Aether was before there were photons... or
quanta... or information.

There are fields because of these qualities of the Aether, which are
administered or directed at the Aether level. Rules followed by
fields, not by the Aether. The Aether acts like a traffic light
directing energy flows as self-organization takes place. The Aether
tells fields how to behave. It holds and imparts the laws that matter
follows as it organizes itself through a process similar to the
process cell automata follow, where a system can reach great
complexity as it follows a small set of rules, these rules being the
four fundamental forces of Nature.

The Aether itself is not observable, you can not say - here, lets take
a look at this chunk of Aether! - because it is immaterial. Real but
not in spacetime, hence, not directly observable. This is why the MMX
(the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed so miserably. But you can
measure its effects; things like inertia, gravity, magnetism,
electricity... etc.

From the MMX results, we should conclude that the Aether is immaterial
and directly unobservable. Now, if there was an empty space,
independently from the universe, before there was matter, is it not
the classical vacuum immaterial and directly unobservable too? Can we
take a direct measurement of something which is not matter? The only
thing proven by the MMX was that they did not understand the Aether's
nature. You want to measure drag caused by the Aether? Just measure a
moving object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate
any object... that is Aether caused drag!

--
Laurent

I would agree with your estimation of the eather. The traditional
eather really doesn't need neither in classical physics, no in quantum
mechanics and astrophysics. But it had only three dimensions. It is
not sufficient to describe all phemonema in the nature and therefore
it failed. And the way to "save" eather is to endow it additional
dimension. It mustn't be the temporal dimension as in SR or as many as
in standart
models where they are compactified. The most simple model is 4D
euclidean space..
Then you will not be right when you say that the aether is immaterial
because the eather will be the single matter. Then all may to consider
as consists from the eather. But one hardly can imagine that such
eather, or better to say medium, fills all infinite space. Therefore
we are to accept that it is only in the closed regions, universes. The
light in this picture is the surface waves and all we see and feel is
the eather, more correctly the 3D surface of eather. Because of the
surface tension the universes must have spherical form. And they must
move in space and collide with eath other. In our Universe we see the
result of the collisions as stars and galaxies. And as all other
things too.

Valery S.

On Apr 12, 11:31 pm, vps137 wrote:

The
light in this picture is the surface waves and all we see and feel is
the eather, more correctly the 3D surface of eather. Because of the
surface tension the universes must have spherical form.

Actually no. (the following stated without proof)

Low frequency radio waves are longitudinal waves in 3D aether space
(like sound)

Light is transverse waves in aether (like transverse waves in Jello).

Waves on the 3D surface interface to the 4th (or great) dimensions
manifest as GRAVITY!

However, your basic idea is on the right track.

"Androcles" wrote
...

In optics no photons. There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
| calculate how long they are. About 200 wave lengths.
| S*

Hahaha!
In electrics no electrons.
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Apparatus_1593.html
http://www.macdiarmid.ac.nz/news/success/brown.php

There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
calculate how long they are. About 200000 wave lengths.
A*

Most evidences commonly known prove that electrons are particles. I do not
know even one that prove that photons exist.
S*

Benj wrote:


Low frequency radio waves are longitudinal waves in 3D aether space
(like sound)

All radio waves are transverse. They are electromagnetic waves.

The only difference between radio emissions and light emissions is
frequency.

Bob Kolker

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote
| ...
|
| In optics no photons. There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us
to
|| calculate how long they are. About 200 wave lengths.
|| S*
|
| Hahaha!
| In electrics no electrons.
| http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Apparatus_1593.html
| http://www.macdiarmid.ac.nz/news/success/brown.php
|
| There are the packets. The Newton rings allow us to
| calculate how long they are. About 200000 wave lengths.
| A*
|
| Most evidences commonly known prove that electrons are particles. I do not
| know even one that prove that photons exist.
| S*

What a shame.
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp...fect/photo.htm
Doesn't surprise me that you don't know, though.

Most evidences commonly known prove that photons are particles.
I do not know even one that prove that aethers exist.
A*

On 13 ÁÐÒ, 11:57, Benj wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:31 pm, vps137 wrote:

The
light in this picture is the surface waves and all we see and feel is
the eather, more correctly the 3D surface of eather. Because of the
surface tension the universes must have spherical form.

Actually no. (the following stated without proof)

Low frequency radio waves are longitudinal waves in 3D aether space
(like sound)

Light is transverse waves in aether (like transverse waves in Jello).

Waves on the 3D surface interface to the 4th (or great) dimensions
manifest as GRAVITY!

However, your basic idea is on the right track.

Yes, to be more precise the light is the part of the excited electron
in
my model. It was stated without proof in my papers still but it has
some
mathmatical evidences. As for gravity, I doubt that any waves may be
cause of attraction of the vorteces.V.V. Attraction, the movement of
the vorteces may produce some kind of the waves.

Valery S.

Dear Szczepan Bia3ek:

"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote in message
...
....
Most evidences commonly known prove that
electrons are particles. I do not know even
one that prove that photons exist.

"photoelectric effect".

Quite a lot of analysis has occurred over the years in the
mechanics of photographic exposure.

More if you look.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote
...
Dear Szczepan Bia3ek:

"Szczepan Bia3ek" wrote in message
...
...
Most evidences commonly known prove that
electrons are particles. I do not know even
one that prove that photons exist.

"photoelectric effect".

Earier I wrote:"In optics no photons. There are the packets. The Newton
rings allow us to
calculate how long they are. About 200 wave lengths.
S*

"photoelectric effect". you can explain with the packets.
Try the next.
S*

"Androcles"

What a shame.
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp...fect/photo.htm
Doesn't surprise me that you don't know, though.

Photoelectric effect you can explain with the packets.
S*