"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4663527d$0$7898$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results
in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the
universe we are studying.

Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has
confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation
of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please
provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates
it.

No, Greg, it doesn't look:

"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.sz> wrote in message
news:slrnf637b6.3qi.dubious@iris.lebesque-al.net...

On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote:

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

MMX was null so is irrelevant.

All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.

Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.

You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.

You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).

woh!

Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain
to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to
the physical univese without using words like "frames" please!

Please provide an example of what you mean

I, moving away from you, see you moving away from me.

(newtonian mechanics
will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a
galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges
on the galilean definition of a frame.

Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations,
reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal
time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no
matter what answer to the problem I constantly review!

Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something
which would contradict your opinion of the result.

this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one
can somewhat do away with the reciprocity!

So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which
makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories
which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory
based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two
measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that
still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was
hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny
ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection?
Gee, sign me up...

Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results
in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the
universe we are studying.


from: Spirit Of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.

"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1180634509.457250.262660@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

MMX was null so is irrelevant.

All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the
aether.

Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of
the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious.
You can start by listing the mechanical properties of
the aether as needed to match the observed data such
as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX
results, relativistic velocity addition for light,
etc., etc.

You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving
object.

You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun
without significant change in its momentum through a
medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation
of light).

On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:1180610651.131227.187260@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:

"Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...@aon.at> wrote in message

news:1180603656.779549.10620@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as
a FOR.
EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate.

No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations.
If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant
speed of light for all observers.

EM requires a medium.

No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a
medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a
preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a
medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley.

Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes
a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing.
It is an important distinction from acoustic waves.

MMX was null so is irrelevant. "Newbie" grasp this just
fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'.
If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri.

If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers
we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper.

Now you're confusing waveguides with space.

What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms?
If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all
the time.

Sue...

[snip further nonsense]

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -