.
Regards,
Mauro
My point
is that etheric drift should be measured as time dilation not velocity and
that it remains negligible at our scale.
Fran
[Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
froarty572
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:06:51 -0800
I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume
aged at all while years have elapsed from its perspective. My point
is that etheric drift should be measured as time dilation not velocity and
that it remains negligible at our scale.
Fran
[Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
froarty572
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:06:51 -0800
I have a pro
>
>
> On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>>>
I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment
indeed)
to
clearly show what I mean by "reality is not relative", but I'll not do
that.
>>>
>>> Your cho
On 01/29/2010 12:35 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>>
>>> I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed)
>>> to
>>> clearly show what I mean by "reality is not relative", but I'll not do
>>> that.
>>
>> Your choice. You understan
>
>
> On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
>> I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed)
>> to
>> clearly show what I mean by "reality is not relative", but I'll not do
>> that.
>
> Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but
> you won't
[Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 6:24 PM
Gibson Elliot wrote:
> Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
> perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
> equations work?
>
I know tha
On 01/29/2010 12:07 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> I could present a gedanken experiment (a very simple experiment indeed) to
> clearly show what I mean by "reality is not relative", but I'll not do
> that.
Your choice. You understand what you mean, you could explain it, but
you won't.
End of conver
>
>
> On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
>>
>> That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out.
>> Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts,
>
> Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has
> replicated his results.
Miller replicated M & M results, with more
On 01/29/2010 10:19 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>
> That's simply not true. Read the papers I've pointed out.
> Miller consistently obtained fringe shifts,
Yes, Miller was the only one who got a drift result. Nobody has
replicated his results.
A careful modern analysis of Miller's results indicate
>
>
> On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
>> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that
moves with respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where th
On 01/28/2010 09:03 PM, Chris Zell wrote:
> Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket
> rejection of 'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact.
>
> In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about
> 328 ohms. Clearly, something out t
On 01/28/2010 08:20 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
> Stephen,
>
>Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called
> Lorentz ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least
>
> I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I
> c
On 01/28/2010 07:26 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>> On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that
>>> moves with respect to space yet SR
>>>
>>> uses a right triangle rule where the spatia
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:58:34 -0800 Gibson Elliot Gibson Elliot wrote..
"Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my
book!"
I agree with Tesla's observation but it is incomplete..you can't "just" eat
ether endlessly -you must also expell it.
Puthoff's atomi
Gibson Elliot wrote:
> Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
> perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
> equations work?
>
I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your
explanation.
>
> That's unlikely to occur, why thro
Perhaps y'all could enlighten me. I never understood the blanket rejection of
'ether' when radiation resistance is an engineering fact.
In the design of RF antennas, there is a radiation resistance of about 328
ohms. Clearly, something out there is 'resisting' the emission of RF. In
additio
Stephen,
Thank you for the explanation, I wasn't aware of anything called Lorentz
ether theory existed but will be investigating it shortly. At least
I am not crazy - someone with chops came to similar conclusion and now I can
just reference LET instead of trying to reinvent the wheel
at current flock
refers to as "Dark Matter". I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And
hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so
why do I bother? just frustration I guess.
Let time be the final judge...
Gibson
From: Mauro Lacy
Subject:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that
>> moves with respect to space yet SR
>>
>> uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
>> perpindicular to C. Why i
On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
> I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that
> moves with respect to space yet SR
>
> uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
> perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether
I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that moves with
respect to space yet SR
uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
perpindicular to C . Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether? My point is
that the ether may be moving at C perpindicul
21 matches
Mail list logo
