studiot

You originally asserted that your ether is a fluid and when I tried to find what sort of fluid you thought it to be a gas. Do you know any fluids that are not matter?

You are the one that asserted your ether to be a form of matter. I quote from your post#49 When you make technical assertions, you must be prepared for other technical people to test the consistency of these statements.

Light is not a form of matter. Next question?

My height is 1.80000 metres Does this determine my potential energy?

You are the one who asserted that your ether is a fluid. There are versions that propose a solid ether, especially the early ones, and even other more esoteric varieties. Why should it be any form of matter? That would be at variance with the real world observation that light traverses a vacuum, where there is no matter.

In your post#180, you asked about detail for a formula I posted. In my post#181 I politely enquired what sort of detail. I fail to see the connection between your apparent reply, post#182 and my formula (actually it is Einstein's formula but still). Post#182 seems specifically to be asking about rotations in an article on several alternative derivations of the Lorenz transformation. My formula is not the Lorentz transformation, but is the result of applying it. Obviously those with lorentzian issues will not apply it at all. Rotations only work if the two system have a common origin, since rotation must have a centre. I would also note that hyperbolic functions involve the complex domain where k2 may indeed be negative. So do you want to argue with Lorenz or my formula? I only posted because I thought you wanted to have some things explained.

Are you looking for a derivation or some worked applications of the velocity transformations? And are you familiar with resolving velocities along the coordinate axes?

Hard evidence, like hard cash, is all that counts in the real world. We can use thought experiments to explain something, never to prove / disprove it. Validation (we don'r prove things in sciences outside maths) requires real world experiments with real world results. I note you use the word Aether. I have consistently used ether or ethers because there have been many different propositions as to what an ether might be. The lumeniferous aether was one particular version only and the term really belongs to the gentleman who invented it. So here is your big opportunity Why would your ether be a gas, not a liquid? Note the propensity of a gas to expand precludes S type waves of the type you pictured.

Which is why it takes the shape of its container. Is your ether a gas or a liquid (both are fluids) ? A gas expands to fill its container, a liquid does not. A liquid takes the shape of its container wherever it touches but retains most of its free surface. You haven't found any discrepancies in SR, nor has any human ever reported any in any experiment to date. I thought perhaps you might be interested in learning something and I was offering you a chance to present something of your own, rather than just attacking what others think.

Hey, I said weeding, not growing weed.

A fluid takes the shape of its container. I see no evidence that this happens to the Earth during an earthquake, especially not from your inaccurate pictures. Incidentally all development of ether theories were tied to classical mechanics. SR was developed to explain the discrepancies observed in actual experiments. Quantum theory did not exist at all at that stage and even the electron had not been discovered, nor the structure of the atom. So QM is entirely off topic.

Whilst in the garden this afternoon I had a revalation. There is one thing in this universe that is truly infinite (that is it never ends) Weeding. The d_mn things grow faster than I can remove them.

Official photograph of light. I like that. Body waves spread throughout the region of passage. Surface waves exist only on the surface of the region. Ocean waves are surface waves. A few metres below the surface there are no waves and all is calm. Light passes through water, glass, even empty space and does not affect only the surface but occupies all of it. Obviously something that is not transparent will absorb light but that is another story for another time. Your 'photograph' will show this passing through a region of space. Wave motion is a form of motion when something(s) vibrate regularly and pass on the vibration along the line. The vibration can be in the same direction as the direction travel. Such waves are known as longitudinal waves. Sound is a typical example. The air particles move in and out along the direction the sound is travelling, creating pressure vartions that are passed on along the line. The alternative is for the vibration to occur transversally (at right angles) to the direction of motion. If you create waves along a rope by flicking it up and down, these are transverse waves. Now there is only one 'direction of travel', but you can flick that rope up and down or side to side or diagonally, or vary the flicking direction. So transverse waves have many possible directions of vibration available. If they are composed so that only one direction is used (say up and down with the rope) the wave is said to be polarised in that direction. Obviously with only one direction available to a longitudinal wave there is no point distinguishing a polarisation. Light can be polarised so it is a transverse wave.

Before you can show whether your fluid ether is stationary or not you need to put some detail in place. Light waves are only transverse and are body waves. I do not understand the relevance of discussion transmission lines. This is a big difficulty for fluid ether theories as fluid cannot directly support S or transverse body waves. The waves in a tub you are referring to are surface waves, which are different again, and not body waves. [aside] This is why we think the Earth has a liquid core. Seismologists can generate two types of body waves in the Earth. S waves and P waves. However we observe that only the P waves travel through the core, thus leading to the hypothesis that the Earth has a liquid core. [/aside] If you understand isotropy you will immediately this this follows from the fact that whilst solids can support anisotropic action and S waves (light light), fluids cannot. Pressure is the same in all directions at a point in a fluid so a fluid can only support P waves. We have direct confirmation that light is transverse because it can be plane polarised. Only transverse waves can be polarised. Many have looked for some longitudinal effect. All have so far failed. As you would expect because a longitudinal effect would imply 'something' arriving before a light wave. So I ask again. How does your ether support transverse waves?

Difficult or easy the link you provided stated an explicit mathematical derivation of the exact value measured from Lorenz . I was hoping for the same from your hypothesis. Also please explain why your ether has to be a fluid, and what property of this fluid restricts the vibrations of lightwaves to the transverse mode?

All this begets the basic question why is change in any guise needed? Surely it is a valid (experimental) result to report 'no change for 75 years' ? Matter and other observables endure or not as the case may be.

Well done you found that in record time. However you did not read it quite thoroughly enough. It clearly states the connection to the Lorenz-Fizgerald length contraction was deduced by Max Von Laue, not Einstein. Special Relativity was not involved or invoked. Of course SR has the same formula by a different route, so will yield the same end result. So far we have at least three routes to the result; I look forward to you posting your calculations, commensurate with your mathematical ether description, to arrive at this result.

Like Michelson, Fizeau performed many experiments. Which one are you referring to? Can you precis the experiment for us please, stating how the important conclusion is arrived at? And which theorist(s) claimed this as false?

First a small correction to Strange's post. Maxwell was a firm believer in an ether. In fact his ether theory was the first to offer mathematical analysis. The following table of who knew what, when is quite useful.

I am going to assume this question is more than just political soundbytes. I say that because there are many different ethers, each one addressing particular observable characteristics in the universe and the laboratory. However each one (to date) also has an Achilles heel in some experiment or other. Equally Michelson, later aided by Morley, conducted many experiments. You surely did not think that a good scientist would be satisfied by only one experiment do you? Heaviside, Lodge and most famously Trouton and Noble conducted alternative experiments. I believe swansont mentioned Bradley's observations. These were confirmed by more accurate repetition by Airy and by Hoek. Incidentally their method also confirmed Fizeau's experimental confirmation of Fresnel's idea about ether drag. This is important because these experiments proved that the measurable drag effect (yes there is one) on the velocity of light is far too small to be accounted for by a co-moving ether wind. This was important because it bears directly on another issue with ether properties - that of homogeny and isotropy. This experiment is important as a direct verification of the velocity addition theorem derived naturally with special relativity. It also shows that it is not possible to explain the null result of the MM experiment by saying the ether is completely convected with the apparatus. A convection coefficient of unity would be required for this explanation whereas the medium being air, the coefficient is nearly zero. Now that I have answered something for you, please confirm that you understand the difference between velocity and acceleration?

I am a little unsure from this reply where you want to go from her or even if you want to carry on the discussion? Can you not find out what the units of E and D and the k you mention in your version of Coulomb's law?

+1 John for showing more patience than I have to spare.

Since you were rude enough not to bother to read my last post, I am not well inclined to answer your question. However your analysis in incorrect, there are more than 2 options. I suggest your understanding and/or description of the scenario you present is incomplete as the reason. Provide a proper and complete description of the situation vis-a-vis object D and you will have your answer.

Thanks I will try that for a bit and see what happens. I had it set to ask rather than block all.

When I load Chrome I am getting popup messages which say "you have 12 (other number) of messages waiting" hanu.facebook.com I don't do f/b so I have no idea where this came from or if it is legit. Can anyone help? Particularly to get rid of it.