"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used a 'solid' aether.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


You always come with interesting comments!
Do you have a reference for me?
Thanks in advance!


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?

Harald

Harry wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used a 'solid' aether.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


You always come with interesting comments!
Do you have a reference for me?
Thanks in advance!


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.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

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"?

But Lorentz based his theories on an ether as most people of his days did,
and, as everyone knows. See for example his paper of 1892 on the relative
movement of the earth and the aether (that one is in Dutch, sorry). He based
that paper on the ether theory of Fresnel, and claimed there to have derived
the Fresnel drag coefficient from electromagnetic theory -which, as you
know, is based on the ether theory of Maxwell.

Harald

"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

David Evens wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:41:34 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:
Harry wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used a 'solid' aether.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


You always come with interesting comments!
Do you have a reference for me?
Thanks in advance!


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.

Make up your pretended mind about which of those contradictory claims
you want to make.

The standad David Evans kindergarten reply. Bye-bye Davey....

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:38:01 +0200, "Harry"
wrote:

[Snip...]

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"?

Pseudo, adjective: (often used in combination) not genuine but
having the appearance of (Example: "A pseudo esthete") a.k.a., false

A vortex sponge as illustrated herein has some properties associated
with solids. It has restoring forces (due to gyroscopic spin
stabilization and ring coupling) and a lattice structure. It however
lacks others. Namely any meaningful shear resistance or viscosity.
Vortex coupled Superfluidity shared these same characteristics.

But Lorentz based his theories on an ether as most people of his days did,
and, as everyone knows. See for example his paper of 1892 on the relative
movement of the earth and the aether (that one is in Dutch, sorry). He based
that paper on the ether theory of Fresnel, and claimed there to have derived
the Fresnel drag coefficient from electromagnetic theory -which, as you
know, is based on the ether theory of Maxwell.

How much do you know of the 'theory of Maxwell' as it pertains to
aether dynamics?

Paul Stowe

:

A vortex sponge as illustrated herein has some properties associated
with solids. It has restoring forces (due to gyroscopic spin
stabilization and ring coupling) and a lattice structure. It however
lacks others. Namely any meaningful shear resistance or viscosity.
Vortex coupled Superfluidity shared these same characteristics.

No shear viscosity, no vortex. The vortices in a superfluid are due
to the normal component of the superfluid.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:04:39 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:
David Evens wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 08:41:34 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:
Harry wrote in message
...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Neither Lorentz nor Maxwell used a 'solid' aether.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


You always come with interesting comments!
Do you have a reference for me?
Thanks in advance!


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.

Make up your pretended mind about which of those contradictory claims
you want to make.

The standad David Evans kindergarten reply. Bye-bye Davey....

Now that you have dealt with our halucination, would you like to make
up your pretended mind about which of those contradictory claims you
would like to make?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:19:59 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:

[Snip...]


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

Very well, do meaningful physics without any equations of either
fluid mechanics and vortex dynamics... If you can succeed in
accomplishing this, I'll publicly agree that it is superfluous. If
you cannot, you admit that you're wrong. (I'll not hold my breath)

Er, are you the one that will be defining "meaningful"?

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 12:07:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:19:59 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


[Snip...]

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

Very well, do meaningful physics without any equations of either
fluid mechanics and vortex dynamics... If you can succeed in
accomplishing this, I'll publicly agree that it is superfluous. If
you cannot, you admit that you're wrong. (I'll not hold my breath)

Er, are you the one that will be defining "meaningful"?

What's your point? Fundamental processes like EM or GR are ALL based
on fluid dynamical mathematical expressions. But, I'm open to what
you think...

Paul Stowe