On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

October 19th, 2017, 8:57 am #31










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























The aether is NOT at absolute rest.

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm
Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 21st, 2017, 3:00 am #32










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21

































"The aether is NOT at absolute rest.".
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm








That is right; Bill Geist.









The immobile three-dimensional space is the only reference frame,
in the entire universe, entitled to be at absolute rest.


However, in Maxwell's theory, the aether is the frame of reference,
relative to which electromagnetic waves are, always,
traveling at the speed, c.


And so, the reference frame of the aether, within the framework of that theory,
is very important in three respects:


A. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
it's possible to obtain the correct numerical value of c, theoretically,
and without doing any actual measurements at all.


B. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
Maxwell's Equations can make perfect sense.


C. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
can electromagnetic waves have speeds, such as (c + v) & (c – v) relative to
the moving light source. And of course, without the relative speeds,
(c + v) & (c – v), very important optical formulas like those
of Doppler effect and stellar aberration and Fresnel's coefficient,
& so on . . . & so on, cannot be derived, in any conceivable way,
within the framework of any wave theory of light.










Last edited by AAF24 on October 21st, 2017, 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

October 22nd, 2017, 12:03 pm #33










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... of+science
Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 25th, 2017, 3:00 am #34










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21

































"The biggest brain fart in the history of science":
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... of+science





I agree with Bill Geist.


Einstein's special theory is
a 'brain fart',
indeed.


But it is NOT the BIGGEST
one in the history of science!









<font size="4">.</font> Surely, Einstein's general relativity is much bigger:

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/generalRT



<font size="4">.</font> N. Bohr's wave-particle duality is, also, bigger:

http://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/P202/qu ... sld008.htm



<font size="4">.</font> Georges Lemaître's big bang theory, too, is bigger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ang_theory


<font size="4">.</font> However, the BIGGEST of all is, certainly,
Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory:

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningS ... 2_sub1.htm


Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory is a record holder;
not only because it is as faraway from the truth as it can get;
but, also, because it had remained on the very top of mainstream
science for more than two millennia.


And so, if Einstein's general relativity, for example, stays
on the very top of mainstream science for about 2000
or more years, it will, probably, dethrone Claudius Ptolemy's
geocentric theory, knock it down,
and smash its impressive record.


But, most likely, it won't stay on the top that long.


I presume!






















Quote
Share

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

October 25th, 2017, 5:28 pm #35










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























Get it before its gone.

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/AetherBooks.htm
Quote
Share

Bill Geist
Bill Geist

October 25th, 2017, 9:23 pm #36










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























Planetary Motions and the Einstein Theories
by Charles Lane Poor
https://od.lk/s/OV8xMjg1OTgzMTZf/SciamJune1921-Poor.pdf
Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 27th, 2017, 3:00 am #37










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21

































Thank you, Bill Geist,
for that great link.


I hope, everybody can read, someday, the BOOK
of the Doppler Ensemble Theory, for free:

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/vi ... f=3&t=7105











...................................................................................................






Certainly, the amount of time, T_2, is less than the amount of time,T_0,
because the speed of light relative to the moving detector,
(c + v) is greater than c.


But, now, if the moving detector is replaced with a moving observer, will,
in this case, the moving observer measure (c + v), as the speed of light
relative to him/her; OR will he/she find out the relative speed of light
is equal to c?


In accordance with the Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation, the moving observer,
in this case, must always find out that the speed of light relative to him/her
is always equal to (c + v).


Does that contradict, directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption that,
the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source?


No. absolutely not.


The speed of light, (c + v), relative to the approaching observer does not contradict,
directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source.


And not only that, but also, the relative speed of light, (c + v) is a necessary
consequence of the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source.


In other words, if the approaching observer does not obtain a numerical value, for the speed
of light relative to him/her equal to (c + v), THEN the basic assumption of Maxwell's
theory, which states that, the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the light source, must be false.













Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 29th, 2017, 3:00 am #38










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































So it's true that the speed of light, (c + v), relative to the approaching
observer is, perfectly consistent with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation,
according to which the speed of light is assumed to be, totally independent
of the speed of the light source.


And consequently, whenever an approaching observer measures the speed of light,
he/she must always obtains a speed value equal to (c + v).


Is the relative speed of light, (c + v), as measured by approaching observers,
equivalent, in all respects, to light speed, in vacuum, equal to (c + v)?


Certainly . . .


As far as approaching observers are concerned, a relative speed of light equal
to (c + v) is equivalent, in every respect, to a speed of light,
in vacuum, equal to (c + v).


Does the above equivalence contradict, in any conceivable way, the Maxwellian
assumption that, the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the light source?


No. Not all.


As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true.


The equivalence between a relative speed of light equal to (c + v)
and a speed of light, in vacuum, equal to (c + v) is, quite simply,
a consequence of the Maxwellian assumption, which states that
the speed of light is independent of the speed
of the light source.

















Quote
Share

SADOVNIK SOCRATUS
SADOVNIK SOCRATUS

October 29th, 2017, 11:12 am #39










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























One postulate of SRT says:
the speed of quantum of light in vacuum is constant (c=1)

Another postulate of SRT says:
all movements (including the constant speed of quantum of light)
are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether medium T=0K.

It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and
quantum of light can have speed faster than minimal (c>1).
(tachyon solution).

Third postulate says:
the speed of quantum of light is independent of its source.

It is possible only if the source of its speed is self-quantum action (h or h/2pi).

==========================================

Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 31st, 2017, 3:00 am #40










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































"One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum of light in vacuum is
constant (c=1). Another postulate of SRT says: all movements (including the constant speed of
quantum of light) are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether medium T=0K.
It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and quantum of light can
have speed faster than minimal (c>1). (tachyon solution). Third postulate says: the speed
of quantum of light is independent of its source. It is possible only if the source
of its speed is self-quantum action (h or h/2pi).”






Thank you, SADOVNIK SOCRATUS,
very much for your comment.



Why do atoms, ions, electrons, . . . etc., emit their photons
at the same speed, c?


I would assume that no satisfactory answer to the above question
can be found in any physics textbook.


But I could be wrong!








It's true that, according to one postulate of special relativity, the speed of photons,
in vacuum, is constant.


However, the above relativistic assumption of constant speed of light is way more
sweeping & generalized than the assumption of constant speed of light, as defined
within the framework of the classical wave theory:


I. According to special relativity, the speed of light,
as measured by moving observers, is, always, equal to c, in vacuum.


II. According to the classical wave theory, the speed of
light, as measured by moving observers, is, equal to the magnitude of the velocity resultant
of the velocity of light and the velocity of the observer.


III. According to special relativity, the speed of light,
in vacuum, c, is the upper limit for all kinds of speeds.


IV. According to the classical wave theory, there is,
absolutely, no upper speed limit, whatsoever.


But, of course, Einstein's special relativity & Maxwell's wave theory agree that the speed
of light, relative to its source, is, always, equal to c, in vacuum.


















Quote
Share