Den 01.06.2025 12:03, skrev bertitaylor:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Following antenna theory, of asymmetry in the electron orbit from
external excitation causing vibration to aether. A change in electric
field causes a change in the magnetic field, which again causes a
electric field, which creates a magnetic field, and so on and on,
infinitely infinitely.
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
On 6/1/2025 3:03 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
Think of a laser. Emitting photons, or radiation. All with the same spin?
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 12:47:56 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Le 01/06/2025 à 12:03, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit : >>>>
causing vibration to aether.
Bertietaylor
--
to aether?
After all the trouble we've gone to to refute and get rid of it, you want >>>>to reintroduce it?
R.H.
Have not posted to this group for a long time.
Fysicks has gone 'astray' after them jews forced everybody to parrot
Albert Onestone
Only because he recommended to Johnson I think it was? to develop nukes. >>> That Albert E. was a clueless idiot, his way of thinking was already
proven wrong by the Alain Aspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
Now as to those solutions, reality.
Imagine a space full of (very small) particles
Now imagine those moving.
Not true?
Read this paper by somebody from CERN (you must have heard of CERN?):
http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf
Now we can have gravity, Le Sage theory of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
Light is a wave in that sea of particles.
Wrong. aether is the medium for light wave and that is infinitely fine
and elastic solid. So fine that electrons ho through with no loss of >>momentum.
Call it aether or whatever, 'solid' is a bit limiting term, and
'infinitely' does not exist.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof Woof
Dear doggy
Try reading the links I gave, do some web searches perhaps,
it is all very simple.
As is life: just a chemical reaction.
Bertietaylor
Like sound in water, its speed is depending on the density of the
medium, the particles in this case.
(water pressure).
Also, like sound in the wind, its speed depends on the direction of the
medium (particles) too.
Clocks run slower in a 'gravity well' (near earth).
Close to earth more Le Sage particles are intercepted, medium is less
dense, light is slower.
In 'free' space (outside earth) particle density is higher and clocks
run faster,
like a pendulum of a clock gets more compressed and shorter make the
clock run faster.
Einstein with 'curved space' was a idiot.
Mathematicians like to do divide by zero and create black holes and
infinities.
There are no 'infinities' in nature, even kids know that something will
eventually break down if you stress it hard enough.
Einstein was a fake, he got e=m.c^2 from somebody else,
Bose-Einstein condensate was stolen from Bose, Einstein put his name on
it.
His e=m.c^2 likely likely came from his wife who was a mama-tician IIRC. >>>
Boycott all US products as long as they support genocide and land
stealing by jews
Not that US makes any useful products anyways,...
That was many years ago before idiots like Trump and Musk (drug
addicted) took over.
So.. simple explanation, simple solutions
Unlike in medieval times when the church hammered in the heads that the
sun orbited the earth and mathematicians from those days
even made nice calculation showing it to be true.
Bit like the electric car climate change terrorists groups try to
destroy power infrastructure worldwide.
We need diversity in power generation and to bring every power source we >>> can online to protect this species against the real changes.
http://old.world-mysteries.com/alignments/mpl_al3b.htm
Milankovich cycles
And bomb - and fallout shelters, as US is working very hard on starting
a WW3 (going to nuke Iran??) and UK and Europe militarizing.
OTOH without Hitler and Von Braun no man would have landed on the moon.
One can wonder if, when space is full of particles, like water molecules >>> in a sea,
a propeller sort of would give thrust if rotated, maybe a chiral
superconductor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
And what happened to Ning Lee?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)
Did she know too much?
What is hidden from the masses?
Viking Mars experiment was already positive for life:
http://www.gillevin.com/
Dont' be:
google.com/search?q=youtube+another+brick+in+the+wall+pink+floyd&sca_esv=f6bc877b3d7fa12d
Revolt!!!
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.06.2025 12:03, skrev bertitaylor:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >>>> in the medium of aether.
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the Universe. >>> And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light.
The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do NOT go
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
No answer, Bertietaylor?
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
"How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub circuit
in the neural net it is not truth related.
Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 19:22:52 +0000, x wrote:
On 6/4/25 08:45, rhertz wrote:A 'photon' is an increment
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
of energy or momentum transfer.
Certainly NOT as energy is a scalar. The energy obtained from a single >>>photon follows the inversae square law. Which has to happen as the
photon is an atomic-scale brief electromagnetic wave.
The interesting thing, at least to me, is that I notice 'scientists'
scream 'PHOTON DETECTED" when their equipment says so.
Strange. All of you nutters here seem to think
that scientists are screaming all the time.
I can assure all of you from direct experience
that they rarely do, if at all.
They would be quite hoarse if they had to scream
for every photon detected,
Jan
On 6/5/2025 4:51 AM, bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...]
How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a >>>>>> wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether.
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said clearly
that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in
MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists have
either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement
would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the
moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the
Universe.
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light.
The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have
heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do NOT go >>>> around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly
light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal
spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in
space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light
speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen otherwise.
The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or
less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question
if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a
greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is
ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So nothing
true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the
universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or
aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment
like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect,
like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at speed v
to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of
other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question:
"How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we
may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also, Maxwell's
equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values.
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the
emitter, in this case.
Actually it does, as redshift and blueshift shows, and the Doppler radar
effect.
However we cannot find the speed of the moving Earth (or aether drift as
they called it) as it is just not possible. The light speed variance
nicely cuts out the extra plus or minus distances travelled.
This is rather subtle, so requires some deep thinking. Also, it is not
easy to give up on programming and brainwashing done by the
establishment for well over a century now.
[...]
Think of a photon riding a field line at light speed, however the path
is bent and twisted.
through that area in space? A straight field line, vs a twisted one.
Think if the field lines are infinitely dense. These lines are there to visually allow us to "see" the bent twisted nature of the field, say
around a dense cluster of galaxies...
Fair enough, or kook ville?
Many experiments have confirmed the invariance of the speed of light,
and no experiment have shown otherwise.
It would be interesting to see the math that shows that
Doppler shift of EM-radiation implies that the speed of light
is different in different inertial frames.
Am Mittwoch000011, 11.06.2025 um 11:35 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000009, 09.06.2025 um 07:33 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 4:46:57 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000005, 05.06.2025 um 13:51 schrieb bertitaylor:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:32:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 04.06.2025 10:39, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:22:38 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 02.06.2025 05:16, skrev Bertietaylor:
On 01/06/2025 12:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Experiments show that the speed of light is invariant: [...] >>>>>>>>>>> How is that possible if light is waves in an aether ?
Speed of light has to be variant in the Copernican model. Light is a
wave. All waves need media to propagate. Light's medium is aether. >>>>>>
A bit confused, Bertietaylor?
Not at all.
You use the Copernican model to defend your claim
that the speed of light isn't invariant, and are
not confused? :-D
Why should we be? Are you thick? We have following Arindam said clearly >>>>> that as the Earth moves, light speed has to be variant as the nulls in >>>>> MMX could not happen otherwise. The foolish or sinister physicists have >>>>> either not thought of or ignored the fact that the Earth's movement >>>>> would cause light to move more or less between any two points on the >>>>> moving Earth.
The Copernican model is wrong, the Sun isn't the centre of the >>>>>>>> Universe.The Sun is at the centre of the solar system, of which you may have >>>>>>> heard. The Earth goes around the Sun. The Sun and the planets do >>>>>>> NOT go
And in 1543 Copernicus knew nothing about the speed of light. >>>>>>
around the Earth in crystal spheres. Where the stars are supposedly >>>>>>> light from Heaven casting their light through pricks on the crystal >>>>>>> spheres.
And that means that the speed of light isn't invariant? :-D
Light speed would be invariant as per MMX if the Earth did not move in >>>>> space as the Aristotle model has it.
We have following Arindam said clearly that as the Earth moves, light >>>>> speed has to be variant as the nulls in MMX could not happen otherwise. >>>>> The foolish or sinister physicists have either not thought of or ignored
the fact that the Earth's movement would cause light to move more or >>>>> less between any two points on the moving Earth.
But forget quantum theories, it is irrelevant to the question >>>>>>>> if the speed of light is invariant.
Many experiments are performed to answer the question.
A few of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
The result is that it is thoroughly confirmed that
the speed of light is invariant.
However the big daddy of them all, the MMX, clearly shows that the light
speed is variant as the Earth moves. If the fact that light moves a >>>>> greater or lesser distance between two points on the moving Earth is >>>>> ignored, the experiments will start off with a false basis. So nothing >>>>> true will come from such an horrendous bungle.
So I ask you again:
How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?
It is never invariant. It is always variant for all objects in the >>>>> universe move with respect to the common static medium, that is aum or >>>>> aether.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is stationary?
The speed of light will always APPEAR to be invariant in an experiment >>>>> like MMX whereas it is variant. Making APPEARANCE reality, on the
unscientific subjective basis, is the constitution of Einsteinian
pseudo-physics.
That light speed is variant is clearly shown from the Doppler effect, >>>>> like radar or redshift and blueshift in the stars as the go away or come
near.
What is the speed of light measured in a frame of reference
where the aether is moving with the speed v?
Aether does not move. The speed of light from a plane flying at speed v >>>>> to a radar on the ground is c+v.
No answer, Bertietaylor?
Well, we cannot answer to all as promptly as we might wish. Lots of >>>>> other things to do, what.
I am beginning to suspect that you are unable to answer the question: >>>>>> "How can the speed of a wave in an aether be invariant?"
It cannot be invariant, it will always be variant. However on Earth we >>>>> may measure the speed as c following the usual methods. Also, Maxwell's >>>>> equations provide a value for c, which match experimental values. >>>>>>
Maybe you don't know what invariant means?
Invariant means that the speed does not depend upon the speed of the >>>>> emitter, in this case.
Actually 'invarinat speed of light' means, that light travels always >>>> with the same speed through vacuum.
As measured from the moving Earth, yes. It also matches the value found >>> from Maxwell's equations and the values of permittivity and
permeability, triumphantly showing the wave nature of light. However
with respect to static solid aether filling the universe it's speed
depends upon the velocity of its emitter.
ALL velocities are 'observer dependent', if you attatch the frame of
reference to the observer.
Except for the speed of light.
There is no 'except'!
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
Den 12.06.2025 06:12, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity IS frame-dependent!
This is inevitable and also the case for light.
No.
It is experimentally confirmed
is invariant
frames of reference.
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
This is what all the cranks in this forum fail to understand.
Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
On 06/06/2025 02:37 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 06/06/2025 11:31, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
On 06/06/2025 07:33, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I am but a neural net, and as to mama-ticians: math is just a sub
circuit
in the neural net it is not truth related.
You are simply a clueless + moron.
If physics means anything, it means that physical reality
is mathematical. OTOH, thinking that is logical...
HTH,
Eh, that too, but I meant to say "it's thinking that is logical".
(Logic is *not* mathematics and neither is a subbranch of the
other, contrary to widespread brainwashing to the contrary, up
to logicism on a side and the lying with numbers on the other.)
-Julio
Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
Throwing out Helmholtz, Einstein, Feynman etc. and following Arindam is
the way for science.
Am Samstag000014, 14.06.2025 um 11:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 13.06.2025 09:55, skrev Thomas Heger:
Velocity is meant as change of distance per unit of time.
Since 'distance' is meant as a length of a vector between two points,
we need a point 'at rest' in the first place, if we like to measure
velocity.
Since we cannot use empty space itself as reference, we need to
define, what we mean by 'at rest'.
This is actually a little difficult, because 'the universe' or 'the
background stars' do not provide any 'natural' anchor for position
vectors.
So, we need to take what we have and that is actually the observer
himself, because observers do not move in respect to themselves.
But: all inertial observers are of equal rights!
That's why we could use any observer, even hypothetical observers.
Now this would include, that we measure velocity of something from
one point, which rests in respect to the object in question and from
another point, which moves with velocity v.
This would mean: that object is at rest and moving with velocity c at
the same time!
When I drive in my car the speed of the car in front of me
relative to me is v(t) = dl(t)/dt where l(t) is the distance
between our cars. Right?
Does that mean that I am at rest and moving with velocity c
at the same time?
When driving your car you usually don't use other cars as reference, but (most likely) the surface of planet Earth.
But that surface does in fact move (actually very fast) and you simply
ignore that movement.
You could, however, consider also that movement, which is caused by
rotation of Earth around its own axis.
But that axis moves, too, but around the sun. And also the sun moves
around the center of our home galaxy.
And even that moves.
Therefore your odometer needs to show a simplified version of your
velocity and ignores cosmology entirely.
Relative velocities in respect to other cars is mostly not very useful,
These bunglers had no clue that the Earth was actually moving. And so
the equipment on the Earth was moving. This light always travels in
aether greater or lesser distances than marked out. This is a universal phenomenon. No one can know what the speed is wrt the static solid fine aether filling the infinite and eternal universe.
The MMX is the big daddy of such velocity experiments. The light speed
varies with emitter to take care of the extra distances travelled
between any two points of the moving platform. > Which is Earth in our
case. Thus the nulls formed are due to light speed variance and not
light speed invariance.
Arindam found this huge bungle back in 2005. Some 20 years ago. As the physicists are a shameless criminal lot they have ignored Arindam's discovery.
Den 15.06.2025 00:33, skrev Bertitaylor:
These bunglers had no clue that the Earth was actually moving. And so
the equipment on the Earth was moving. This light always travels in
aether greater or lesser distances than marked out. This is a universal
phenomenon. No one can know what the speed is wrt the static solid fine
aether filling the infinite and eternal universe.
If EM-radiation were a wave in an aether, it would be as easy
to measure the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
The MMX is the big daddy of such velocity experiments. The light speed
varies with emitter to take care of the extra distances travelled
between any two points of the moving platform. > Which is Earth in our
case. Thus the nulls formed are due to light speed variance and not
light speed invariance.
The MMX shows that the speed of light is isotropic in all
inertial frames.
Waves in a medium are anisotropic in all inertial
frames but the one that is stationary relative to the medium.
So MMX shows that light is not a wave in the aether.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed
in the medium of aether.
For the kiddies: this is wrong.
No, it is consistent with reality.
A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that.
For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass
times velocity.
And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of
kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the
pullulating gullible.
Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science!
So what is happening?
What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to
and from all the infinite charges in the universe.
They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding
rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions
to the electronic structure.
Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design theory which is a bit difficult for kids.
Den 16.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 12:36:51 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
A photon is a brief electromagnetic wave pulse travelling a light speed >>>> in the medium of aether.
For the kiddies: this is wrong.
No, it is consistent with reality.
A photon is (by definition) a momentum eigenstate of the EM field,
Nice bullshit but no kid will swallow that.
For one thing a field has no mass so no momentum for momentum is mass
times velocity.
And eigenstate is a complex math term which is well beyond the scope of
kids. In this context it makes no sense except to bamboozle the
pullulating gullible.
Typical Einsteinian garbage designed to confuse. Anti Science!
So what is happening?
What is happening is aetheric vibrations travelling at speed of light to
and from all the infinite charges in the universe.
They are caused and created by impacts upon and corresponding
rectifications the atomic structures that cause or rectify distortions
to the electronic structure.
Looks like this will be well within the scope of kiddies, like most of
Arindam's physics. That is, all not dealing with his new rail gun design
theory which is a bit difficult for kids.
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, is extremely naive, and is, like other fairy tales,
well suited for kiddies who know no physics.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:14:44 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, has discovered much new physics.
Wrong as always! Arindam never worked in medical research. Wonder where
you got that from and how low you racist and bigoted creeps will stoop
to demean and diminish the divine Arindam.
Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
"The cause of gravity":
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G
is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons
in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional >>> to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference >>> that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the
gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a
manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference
between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
Ridiculous question seeing that there is gravitational attraction which
is really electrostatic.
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
also zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Yes da oui si haaN hyaN bilkul zaroor ja with wohls on...
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:14:44 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The physics of Arindam Banerjee, employee of a medical research
laboratory, has discovered much new physics.
Wrong as always! Arindam never worked in medical research. Wonder where
you got that from and how low you racist and bigoted creeps will stoop
to demean and diminish the divine Arindam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc
At the very beginning of the video you can read:
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd.
6 September 2022
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
Quote:
" Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee,
HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne"
HTN stands for hypertension. Go figure.
BTW, why do you think working in a medical research lab
would "diminish the divine Arindam" ?
So to his "physics":
Complete works in physics by Arindam Banerjee:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.bengali/c/mbbPlpsbbxk
"The cause of gravity":
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G
is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons
in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional >>>> to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference >>>> that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the >>>> gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a
manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference
between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
The gravitational force between Earth and the Sun is 3.6e22 N.
Ridiculous question seeing that there is gravitational attraction which
is really electrostatic.
Maybe you should read it again?
The Newtonian formula is F=GmM/r² (1)
Arindam's formula is: F=BnN/r² (2)
Where:
B = G
n = number of protons and electrons in the mass m
N = number of protons and electrons in the mass M
That means:
m = n⋅mₑ + n⋅mₚ (3)
M = N⋅mₑ + N⋅mₚ (4)
where mₑ is the mass of an electron and mₚ is the mass of a proton.
Inserting (3) and (4) in (2) yields:
F=BnN/r² ≡ BnN/r²
So the two equations are identical!
Since the number of protons and electrons in is the same,
there is no net electric charge in m. Same with M.
Do you really not understand that there is no electrostatic
force between the two neutral masses m and M ?
Do you still claim:
"there is gravitational attraction which is really electrostatic"?
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure >>>> is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is >>>> also zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Yes da oui si haaN hyaN bilkul zaroor ja with wohls on...
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 Gpa
3.5 millions atm.
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The cause of gravity":
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ >>>>>
Quote of the first few statements:
"The formula for universal gravitation is well known to be,
as the force F acting between two masses m and M, parted by
a distance r from their centres of mass, as F=GmM/r^2, where G
is the gravitational constant found by experiment. Recently
the author has updated this formula to F=BnN/r^2 where B is
a constant, and n and N are the number of protons or electrons
in the masses m and M. It is obvious that as n and N are proportional
to m and M, this is essentially the same formula with the difference >>>>> that instead of masses, the new formula involves charges. Thus the >>>>> gravitational force is expressed electrostatically, as a manifestation
of electrostatic force. In other words, there is no difference between
electrostatic force and gravitational force."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the Sun is exerting
the electrostatic force 3.6e22 N on the Earth?
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
Ridiculous question seeing that there is gravitational attraction which
is really electrostatic.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Maybe you should read it again?
The Newtonian formula is F=GmM/r² (1)
Arindam's formula is: F=BnN/r² (2)
Where:
B = G
n = number of protons and electrons in the mass m
N = number of protons and electrons in the mass M
That means:
m = n⋅mₑ + n⋅mₚ (3)
M = N⋅mₑ + N⋅mₚ (4)
where mₑ is the mass of an electron and mₚ is the mass of a proton. >>
Inserting (3) and (4) in (2) yields:
F=BnN/r² ≡ BnN/r²
So the two equations are identical!
Since the number of protons and electrons in is the same,
there is no net electric charge in m. Same with M.
Do you really not understand that there is no electrostatic
force between the two neutral masses m and M ?
Do you still claim:
"there is gravitational attraction which is really electrostatic"?
No, one assumes masses attract naturally being masses as per Newton.
Arindam shows they attract because of the atomic configuration causing
mild electrostatic attraction.
Arindam thus shows that gravity is a consequence of electrostatic
attraction being slightly larger than electrostatic repulsion between
two atoms.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>>>
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case >>>>> when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure >>>>> is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is >>>>> also zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at the centre
of the Earth is zero and the temperature is near 0 K.?
Yes.
Woof woof woof woof-woof woof in dog lingo as well.
WOOF woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies":
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure
is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is
also zero."
Do you, Bertitaylor, like Arindam, claim that the pressure at
the centre of the Earth is zero?
Den 17.06.2025 01:35, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Thanks for a clear answer.
You, like Arindam believe that the pressure within the Earth
is highest right below the surface and is diminishing with depth.
The equation F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 is the gravitational force
on a mass m when it is a distance R from the centre of the Earth.
Den 18.06.2025 03:29, skrev Bertitaylor:
Wrong. See if you can find where you are wrong.
As your knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that of any Indian
kid in middle school in the 1960s no point in continuing.
You are making a fool of yourself again.
This equation is taken from Arindam's paper quoted above.
Arindam:
" F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0."
This is correct!
F is the gravitational force on a body with mass m a distance
R from the centre of the Earth.
A more common variant of the equation is:
g = dF/dm = G*D*pi*4*R/3
The force on a mass m is F = g*m
Arindam's knowledge of basic physics is far lower than that
of any Indian kid in middle school in the 1960s so he believes
that when the gravitational force on a small mass is zero, then
the pressure must be zero, which is absolutely ridiculous!
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 20:41:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
The gravitational force on the mass m at the surface is:
F = m⋅9.91953 N (we ignore the rotation of the Earth)
Let's consider the following scenario:
We have a 1000 m deep cylindrical hole in the surface of the Earth.
The gravitational force on you standing at the bottom of the hole is:
F = m⋅9.91790 N
If your mass is 80 kg, your weight will be 0.1244 N less at
the bottom of the hole than on the surface.
So the gravitational force diminish with depth.
Now we fill the hole with water.
The pressure at the surface is 1 atm = 1013.25 hPa
The pressure on you is now 10020 kPa or ca 100 atm.
The pressure increases with depth, as any scuba diver would tell you.
How can you, like Arindam, fail to know this?
If we fill the hole with stone with density 5563 kg/m³
(the average density of the Earth),
the pressure at the bottom of the hole becomes:
55275 kPa or 556 atm
Consider this scenario:
There is a cylindrical tunnel right through the Earth.
The cross area of the tunnel is 10 m².
You jump into the tunnel, and end up weightless at
the centre of the Earth. No gravitational forces are
acting on you, as correctly claimed by Arindam.
Now we fill the tunnel with 710e9 kg (710 Tg) of stone.
So on each side of you there is a 335 Tg pile of rock,
and every gram of the rock is gravitationally pulled towards you.
Sure, you are still weightless, but the piles of rock on ether side
of you are not.
The pressure at the centre of the Earth is 360 GPa = 3.5 million atm.
Do you still not understand how idiotic Arindam is when he
claim that the pressure at the centre of the Earth is zero?
Similarly we are not crushed by air pressure when it acts equally in all directions.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN Research Pty Ltd. Melbourne
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ >>>>>
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case >>>>> when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure >>>>> is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is >>>>> also zero."
Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
pressure.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:33:24 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
"The Structure of Heavenly Bodies": Arindam Banerjee, HTN
Research Pty
Ltd. Melbourne
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Quote about the pressure within the Earth:
"F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3
Now when R or the radius of the Earth is zero, which is the case
when the m is at the centre of the Earth, then F = 0. Now pressure >>>> is force per unit area, so pressure at the centre of the Earth is >>>> also zero."
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Taken literally, this is of course nonsense.
Arindam says:
"When the radius of the Earth is zero, the pressure at the centre of
the Earth is zero." No Earth, no pressure! :-D
However, the equation is correct, because:
The gravitational force F on a mass m at the position R from the centre
of the Earth is:
F = G*m*D*pi*4*R/3 (1)
Where:
G is the gravitational constant
D is the average density of the Earth
Den 21.06.2025 00:38, skrev Bertitaylor:
Yes, the net force is zero as the mass at the centre of Earth, Sun etc.
is pulled equally in all directions. Opposites cancel leaving no
pressure.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Let us take it from the start:
Equation (1) can be written:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N] (1)
where
G = 6.6743e-11 N⋅m²/kg²
D = 5563 kg/m³ average density of the Earth, mass/volume
We are considering the density to be constant, which make
the calculation simpler.
This is however a gross simplification, the density
varies very much with depth. Near the surface it can be as
low as 1000 kg/m³ (ocean), and in the inner core as high as
~8000 kg/m³ (Nickel/iron).
This means that our calculations below can not be expected
to be very precise, but they will give a good indication
of the order of magnitude of the pressure at the centre of
the Earth.
Consider a cylindrical hole with cross area A = 1 m²
from the surface and down to the centre of the Earth.
Let R₀ = 6.378e6 m be the radius of the Earth.
Let your mass be m = 80 kg.
Standing on the ground, the gravitational force acting on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R₀ = 793.5 N
Standing at the bottom of the hole,the gravitational force on you is:
F = m⋅(4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅0 = 0 N, you are weightless!
Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.
Point is, that the stones just above me will be weightless as me so
will not cause any pressure upon me.
And the stones that are higher up will press sideways as any arch does.
Not down. Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
when you go under them?
Bit of lateral thinking helps, what?
Let us calculate what it will be.
Equation (1) above is for a (small) mass at a specific depth.
But the mass of the pile of stone is distributed all the way
from the surface to the centre, so we can't use equation (1)
as it is, so we write it like this:
dF/dm = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D⋅R [N/kg] (2)
We have: dm = D⋅A⋅dR [kg] (the mass in the hole)
dF = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅A⋅R⋅dR [N]
The pressure P is F/A
dP = dF/A = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R⋅dR [N/m²]
P = (4π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅∫(from 0 to R₀)R⋅dR = (2π/3)⋅G⋅D²⋅R₀² [N/m²]
P = 176e9 N/m² = 176 GN/m² = 176 GPa
If you look up on the net, you will see that the pressure
at the centre is thought to be ~360 GPa.
Our number is about half by reasons explained above.
------------------
Bertitaylor, if you have elementary knowledge of physics and math,
you will have no problem with understanding my calculations above,
and why the pressure at the centre of the Earth is formidable.
Right?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:50:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
If EM-radiation is a wave in an aether, it would be as easy
to measure the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
No. it is impossible, for reasons explained many a time, and once again below. For note, aether is solid not gaseous like air. For another, the speed of the aeroplane is based upon the rate of movement with respect
to the ground below it.
So if I toss a ball in a plane any way, its speed is always the same. I cannot find the speed of the ball one way with respect to the ground.
That is because ball speed varies with the speed of the thrower. With
respect to ground, the throw in the direction of flight will be v + V
and in the other distance v - V. With respect to the ground the distance
of ball travel will be greater one way, and lower the other way. So the
time involved in the travel anyway will be the same, and nothing to do
with the speed of the ball wrt ground. But wrtg the ball in the plane
does move faster or slower depending upon direction of throw.
Similarly for light, with respect to the steady solid aether.
With light speed variant, the distances travelled by light between any
two points is never the marked out distance - it is something more or
less. However as the light speed is variant, the value will be the same
as that comes out from the equations of Maxwell relating to electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.
Den 23.06.2025 07:53, skrev bertietaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:50:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
If EM-radiation is a wave in an aether, it would be as easy
to measure the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
No. it is impossible, for reasons explained many a time, and once again below. For note, aether is solid not gaseous like air. For another, the speed of the aeroplane is based upon the rate of movement with respect
to the ground below it.
The "Airspeed Indicator" found in all planes measures the speed
of the air relative to the plane.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:46:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 23.06.2025 00:56, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 19:14:15 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Now we fill the hole with stone with density D = 5563 kg/m³.
Every gram of that pile of stone is gravitationally pulled
towards the centre of the Earth, so you has to be as ignorant
of basic physics as Arindam to fail to understand that the pressure
at the centre of the Earth must be formidable.
Point is, that the stones just above me will be weightless as me so
will not cause any pressure upon me.
And the stones that are higher up will press sideways as any arch does.
Not down. Surely you don't expect bridges and domes to fall upon you
when you go under them?
Consider this scenario:
We have a swimming pool which is h = 10 m deep.
We also have a 10 m long tube with cross area A = 1 m².
The walls of the tube are very thin and flexible.
We place the tube vertically in the pool.
Given the constants:
The air pressure is P₀ = 1 atm = 101,325 N/m²
The density of water is D = 1000 kg/m²
The gravitationally acceleration is g = 9.8 m/s²,
and we can consider it constant over 10 meter.
The weight of the water in the tube is:
W₁₀ = g⋅D⋅A⋅h = 98,000 N
The pressure at the bottom of the pool is:
P₁₀ = P₀ + W₁₀/A = 199,525 N/m² = 1.97 atm.
At any point in the pool the pressure is isotropic,
the same in all direction. So the water in the pool
will indeed press sideways on the tube.
Will you therefore say:
"The water that is higher up will press sideways on
the tube, as any arc does. Not down.
No, at the top the water surface is pressed down.
It presses against the sides.
Within it is pressed in all directions.
Because of gravity, it is
pulled down and without disturbance stays nicely in layers, pressed from above so the water pressure varies with depth, increasing till it meets
the bottom.
So the pressure on the bottom of the tube will be zero?
No, it will increase to a maximum depending upon the depth.
However this scenario does not apply as a model for the Earth.
Under the Earth's rust, the pressure from above crushed against the huge
mass below will create high temperature, melting the rocks.
The molten rocks are lava, and come out with volcanic eruption.
However this scenario does not last for ever. At some depth below the
surface the pressure which peaks decreases for the g value decreases.
Less mass below, thus, to for the rocks and lava to crush against each
other. (This is not the same as what happens to the oceans, where
pressure is very high at the bottom. For there is say 13000-5 Km of
Earth radius left for pushback. On Earth the lava layers may go down
some 4000 Km, say, leaving 9000 Km of rock that will insulate the core keeping it cold, while most of the heat from the magma layers will be radiated into outer space.)
Also, the moving fluid unlike the solid masses above that have melted by
the solid masses above. cannot exert that much force against the rock
below that thus remain not melted.
Bit of a problem for you, water is liquid and not solid.
So we do not build bridges made of water.
Well, an ice bridge in Antarctica or similar, would work but ice is
solid.
Below the magma layers (now, it is not all magma, there could be many
rocks not melted in the magma layers that cause lateral support), there
is solid rock which press against each other like domes and bridges.
Why are you pretending to be as ignorant and stupid as Arindam?
I don't think you are.
I think you don't allow yourself to think because you have
a religious belief in your Messiah Arindam, and think his Gospel
is a divine revelation.
So please, allow yourself to think, and read the rest.
If you find an error in it, please point out exactly
where and what the error is.
You are an ass, Paul.
Now, fuck off.
Because of gravity, it [the water] is
pulled down and without disturbance stays nicely in layers, pressed from above so the water pressure varies with depth, increasing till it meets
the bottom.
Congratulations, you have now demonstrated that you are
able to think for yourself and understand that Arindam is wrong.
Den 23.06.2025 07:53, skrev bertietaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:50:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
If EM-radiation is a wave in an aether, it would be as easy
to measure the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
No. it is impossible, for reasons explained many a time, and once again
below. For note, aether is solid not gaseous like air. For another, the
speed of the aeroplane is based upon the rate of movement with respect
to the ground below it.
The "Airspeed Indicator" found in all planes measures the speed
of the air relative to the plane.
So if I toss a ball in a plane any way, its speed is always the same. I
cannot find the speed of the ball one way with respect to the ground.
This is obvious, and need no "explanation".
Am Montag000023, 23.06.2025 um 22:40 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 23.06.2025 07:53, skrev bertietaylor:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:50:07 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
If EM-radiation is a wave in an aether, it would be as easy
to measure the speed of Earth relative to the aether,
as it is to measure the speed of an aeroplane relative to the air.
No. it is impossible, for reasons explained many a time, and once again
below. For note, aether is solid not gaseous like air. For another, the >>> speed of the aeroplane is based upon the rate of movement with respect
to the ground below it.
The "Airspeed Indicator" found in all planes measures the speed
of the air relative to the plane.
So if I toss a ball in a plane any way, its speed is always the same. I
cannot find the speed of the ball one way with respect to the ground.
This is obvious, and need no "explanation".
Actually the surface of planet Earth moves, too.
This movement is also quite fast, but usually ignored.
We could, however, use this as a principle and ignore the velocity of reference systems in all cases, where we cannot decide, whether
something moves or not.
Therefore all inertial frames of reference do not move by definition, if
they rest in respect to the observer, whether they actually move or not.
This makes everything 'relative' (to the observer), which includes
actually matter, too.
This would include also 'the aether', too, hence aether would be
something, which rests in respect to the observer in question, while not
in respect to other observers.
Other observers therefore need their own 'aether' (and also their own matter!).
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer.
....
TH
Actually the surface of planet Earth moves, too.
This movement is also quite fast, but usually ignored.
We could, however, use this as a principle and ignore the velocity of reference systems in all cases, where we cannot decide, whether
something moves or not.
Therefore all inertial frames of reference do not move by definition, if
they rest in respect to the observer, whether they actually move or not.
This makes everything 'relative' (to the observer), which includes
actually matter, too.
This would include also 'the aether', too, hence aether would be
something, which rests in respect to the observer in question, while not
in respect to other observers.
Other observers therefore need their own 'aether' (and also their own matter!).
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer.
Den 27.06.2025 07:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
Actually the surface of planet Earth moves, too.
This movement is also quite fast, but usually ignored.
We could, however, use this as a principle and ignore the velocity of
reference systems in all cases, where we cannot decide, whether
something moves or not.
Therefore all inertial frames of reference do not move by definition,
if they rest in respect to the observer, whether they actually move or
not.
This makes everything 'relative' (to the observer), which includes
actually matter, too.
This would include also 'the aether', too, hence aether would be
something, which rests in respect to the observer in question, while
not in respect to other observers.
Other observers therefore need their own 'aether' (and also their own
matter!).
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether,
because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer.
Quite, well said!
The 'aether' has to be at rest in respect to all observers,
even when the observers are moving relative each other.
Den 27.06.2025 07:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
Actually the surface of planet Earth moves, too.
This movement is also quite fast, but usually ignored.
We could, however, use this as a principle and ignore the velocity of
reference systems in all cases, where we cannot decide, whether
something moves or not.
Therefore all inertial frames of reference do not move by definition,
if they rest in respect to the observer, whether they actually move or
not.
This makes everything 'relative' (to the observer), which includes
actually matter, too.
This would include also 'the aether', too, hence aether would be
something, which rests in respect to the observer in question, while
not in respect to other observers.
Other observers therefore need their own 'aether' (and also their own
matter!).
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether,
because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer.
Quite, well said!
The 'aether' has to be at rest in respect to all observers,
even when the observers are moving relative each other.
Since this is impossible, the conclusion is inevitable:
It is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because
the 'aether' doesn't exist
On 6/28/2025 12:55 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.06.2025 07:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether,
because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer. >>>
Quite, well said!
The 'aether' has to be at rest in respect to all observers,
even when the observers are moving relative each other.
Since this is impossible, the conclusion is inevitable:
It is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because
the 'aether' doesn't exist
Lorentz's
"aether" theory is "experimentally indistinguishable"
from your SR.
Den 28.06.2025 16:25, skrev Maciej Woźniak:because 'aether' is defined as being at rest in respect to the observer.
On 6/28/2025 12:55 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 27.06.2025 07:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
This is why it is impossible to measure the speed of the aether,
Quite, well said!
The 'aether' has to be at rest in respect to all observers,
even when the observers are moving relative each other.
Since this is impossible, the conclusion is inevitable:
It is impossible to measure the speed of the aether, because
the 'aether' doesn't exist
Lorentz's
"aether" theory is "experimentally indistinguishable"
from your SR.
Quite right.
This is the first time you have written something with actual meaning!
But the problem is, Lorentz's ether is impossible to detect.
You can assign any arbitrary velocity of the ether relative to
the observer, and LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) will predict the same.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 153:42:58 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,840 |