Following discussions with TomGee, Androcles, O'Barr, KenSeto, Nick aka
Mitch aka ?, and others, I've been provoked to do some research in
Encarta and Wikipedia about the luminiferous ether, and I've come to
the conclusion there is definitely no ether.

It is much more likely a luminiferous ester, or possibly a luminiferous
anhydride. Ethers are far too unreactive. Moreover, big bang
nucleosynthesis models contain insufficient acidic catalysts for the
formation of the ether in sufficient quantities to account for the
uninterrupted passage of light from quasars. At least, I think so, but
that depends on what I discover "quasar" means. Research is ongoing.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was definitely not designed to detect
the Earth's motion through an anhydride, and so there is absolutely no
experimental evidence that would rule this model out.

Some calculations I did on a Kleenex while sitting on the pot are now
illegible, but if I recall correctly, an ester model would correctly
predict Newton's 3rd law, three quark generations, the cosmological
constant, and why Britney Spears has survived and actually borne a
child despite having no brain. An anhydride model would predict all
those things, plus the exact value of the charge of the electron, and a
Higgs boson mass of more than 6.

I've submitted my article to the same journal that published Seto's
paper, and considering that they just sent me an official membership
card and coupons for exciting special offers, I'm confident this one
will be published, too. Look for it soon.

PD

In article .com, "PD" writes:
Following discussions with TomGee, Androcles, O'Barr, KenSeto, Nick aka
Mitch aka ?, and others, I've been provoked to do some research in
Encarta and Wikipedia about the luminiferous ether, and I've come to
the conclusion there is definitely no ether.

It is much more likely a luminiferous ester, or possibly a luminiferous
anhydride. Ethers are far too unreactive. Moreover, big bang
nucleosynthesis models contain insufficient acidic catalysts for the
formation of the ether in sufficient quantities to account for the
uninterrupted passage of light from quasars. At least, I think so, but
that depends on what I discover "quasar" means. Research is ongoing.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was definitely not designed to detect
the Earth's motion through an anhydride, and so there is absolutely no
experimental evidence that would rule this model out.

Good point.

Some calculations I did on a Kleenex while sitting on the pot are now
illegible, but if I recall correctly, an ester model would correctly
predict Newton's 3rd law, three quark generations, the cosmological
constant, and why Britney Spears has survived and actually borne a
child despite having no brain. An anhydride model would predict all
those things, plus the exact value of the charge of the electron, and a
Higgs boson mass of more than 6.

You sure it was Kleenex, not toilet paper?

I've submitted my article to the same journal that published Seto's
paper, and considering that they just sent me an official membership
card and coupons for exciting special offers, I'm confident this one
will be published, too. Look for it soon.

Just be careful with the special offers:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

PD wrote:
Following discussions with TomGee, Androcles, O'Barr, KenSeto, Nick aka
Mitch aka ?, and others, I've been provoked to do some research in
Encarta and Wikipedia about the luminiferous ether, and I've come to
the conclusion there is definitely no ether.

It is much more likely a luminiferous ester, or possibly a luminiferous
anhydride. Ethers are far too unreactive. Moreover, big bang
nucleosynthesis models contain insufficient acidic catalysts for the
formation of the ether in sufficient quantities to account for the
uninterrupted passage of light from quasars. At least, I think so, but
that depends on what I discover "quasar" means. Research is ongoing.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was definitely not designed to detect
the Earth's motion through an anhydride, and so there is absolutely no
experimental evidence that would rule this model out.

Some calculations I did on a Kleenex while sitting on the pot are now
illegible, but if I recall correctly, an ester model would correctly
predict Newton's 3rd law, three quark generations, the cosmological
constant, and why Britney Spears has survived and actually borne a
child despite having no brain. An anhydride model would predict all
those things, plus the exact value of the charge of the electron, and a
Higgs boson mass of more than 6.

I've submitted my article to the same journal that published Seto's
paper, and considering that they just sent me an official membership
card and coupons for exciting special offers, I'm confident this one
will be published, too. Look for it soon.

PD

I would nominate you for Immortal Gemhood, except that you have
two of the last three entries already...

Jerry

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
Following discussions with TomGee, Androcles, O'Barr, KenSeto, Nick aka
Mitch aka ?, and others, I've been provoked to do some research in
Encarta and Wikipedia about the luminiferous ether, and I've come to
the conclusion there is definitely no ether.

It is much more likely a luminiferous ester, or possibly a luminiferous
anhydride. Ethers are far too unreactive. Moreover, big bang
nucleosynthesis models contain insufficient acidic catalysts for the
formation of the ether in sufficient quantities to account for the
uninterrupted passage of light from quasars. At least, I think so, but
that depends on what I discover "quasar" means. Research is ongoing.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was definitely not designed to detect
the Earth's motion through an anhydride, and so there is absolutely no
experimental evidence that would rule this model out.

Some calculations I did on a Kleenex while sitting on the pot are now
illegible, but if I recall correctly, an ester model would correctly
predict Newton's 3rd law, three quark generations, the cosmological
constant, and why Britney Spears has survived and actually borne a
child despite having no brain. An anhydride model would predict all
those things, plus the exact value of the charge of the electron, and a
Higgs boson mass of more than 6.

I've submitted my article to the same journal that published Seto's
paper, and considering that they just sent me an official membership
card and coupons for exciting special offers, I'm confident this one
will be published, too. Look for it soon.

PD

Seto's paper wasn't actually published, right?

Harald

Wrong.....several of my papers have been published by Galilean
Electrodynamics. The latest one entitled "Unification of Physics" is in
the Nov/Dec issue.

Ken Seto

Typical reaction of a runt of the SR experts when encountering mounting
evidences against SR. Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. An asshole who will attack
anybody who disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

wrote:
Wrong.....several of my papers have been published by Galilean
Electrodynamics. The latest one entitled "Unification of Physics" is in
the Nov/Dec issue.

Ken Seto


But they (Galilean Electrodynamics) "publish" a lot of crackpot ****
that is contradicted by empirical data.

wrote:
Typical reaction of a runt of the SR experts when encountering mounting
evidences against SR. Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. An asshole who will attack
anybody who disagrees with SR.

Such is Seto's gratitude for my tribute via emulation.

PD

On 1 Dec 2005 07:15:51 -0800, " wrote:

Typical reaction of a runt of the SR experts when encountering mounting
evidences against SR. Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
An idiot who think that SR is a religion. An asshole who will attack
anybody who disagrees with SR.

Perhaps a motion is in order to rename this newsgroup to
"The sci.physics.ether.lovin.gutter.mouth.kukunuts.chat .room" newsgroup.

Joe Fischer

In article .com,
PD wrote:
Following discussions with TomGee, Androcles, O'Barr, KenSeto, Nick aka
Mitch aka ?, and others, I've been provoked to do some research in
Encarta and Wikipedia about the luminiferous ether, and I've come to
the conclusion there is definitely no ether.

It is much more likely a luminiferous ester, or possibly a luminiferous
anhydride. Ethers are far too unreactive. Moreover, big bang

Ahahahaha! Clear Usenet burnout, but I love it!

nucleosynthesis models contain insufficient acidic catalysts for the
formation of the ether in sufficient quantities to account for the
uninterrupted passage of light from quasars. At least, I think so, but
that depends on what I discover "quasar" means. Research is ongoing.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was definitely not designed to detect
the Earth's motion through an anhydride, and so there is absolutely no
experimental evidence that would rule this model out.

Some calculations I did on a Kleenex while sitting on the pot are now
illegible, but if I recall correctly, an ester model would correctly
predict Newton's 3rd law, three quark generations, the cosmological
constant, and why Britney Spears has survived and actually borne a
child despite having no brain. An anhydride model would predict all
those things, plus the exact value of the charge of the electron, and a
Higgs boson mass of more than 6.

I've submitted my article to the same journal that published Seto's
paper, and considering that they just sent me an official membership
card and coupons for exciting special offers, I'm confident this one
will be published, too. Look for it soon.

You've submitted the Kleenex?



--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894