Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson has asked for the math of LET

In , on 04/30/2012
at 08:46 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.

There isn't any aether at all, tonto. There are cumbersome theories
that assume an aether, and adding more makes them even more
cumbersome. More important, you alleged plagiarism, without a shred of
evidence, and refuse to provide justification for it. You're a stupid
cross-posting liar with delusions of adequacy.

*PLONK*

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:19:29 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
wrote:

In , on 04/30/2012
at 08:46 AM, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) said:

Of course. There isn't any 'single aether', you dope.

There isn't any aether at all, tonto. There are cumbersome theories
that assume an aether, and adding more makes them even more
cumbersome. More important, you alleged plagiarism, without a shred of
evidence, and refuse to provide justification for it. You're a stupid
cross-posting liar with delusions of adequacy.

Einstein's SR is no different from LET....He clearly plagiarized Lorentz's
work

*PLONK*

I don't cross post.
The OP did.

plonk

there is no aether, but the refractive index
of the imperfect vacuum;
Pascal thought that it was perfect, but, then
he also discovered it, experimentally.

please recall that ordinary air has a RI
that is several decimal places close to One; like,
1.00000004, or so.

I'm pretey sure that he didn't plagiarize Lorentz,
although there is some indication that
his wife was better at teh math.

Einstein's SR is no different from LET....He clearly plagiarized Lorentz's
work

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...

Einstein's SR is no different from LET....He clearly plagiarized Lorentz's
work

True that both are magic. False in that SR divides where LET multiplies.
If you can't see that then you are as poor at maths as Einstein was.

special relativity, implicitly if not explicity,
relies upon the relativistic effect of trying
to impose the "velocity" of light upon quanta
which are themselves relativisic internally,
viz angular momentum,
as developed by Dirac.

not that I comprehend his math;
it isn't really necessary to do that, since
the "twin paradox" and so on are merely quadratic exercises.

True that both are magic.

thus:
there's an old paper in *Nature*,
"Rapid collapse of the Eemian interglacial, *sensu strictu*,"
G. Woillard's study of a peatbog in France;
that was the interglacial before "this one,"
the Holocene, if it isn't already over.

of course, a lot of folks just use the term,
Pleistocene, and forget about it.

thus:
you don't get it (and neither do most Einsteinmaniacs)
that there is no absolute vacuum or "void,"
through which light is unable to refract, although
even such a putative void would conform to Snell's law,
its index of refraction being 1.0000.... like, wow,
that space is really flat; and, guess, What?
air's is, like, 1.00000004, because of the "curvature
of spacetime," y'think?

Blaise Pascal thought, y'know, and
he verified this by experiment.

there is tons of mainstream crappola about "zero point energy"
and the vacuum, because of this silly pretense
about an absolute void, which has no substance to it;
no-one has ever found or created one, and
it is strictly impossible.