What Empirical Evidence Supports the Ballistic Emission of Light(I.e. C*=C+or-v)

On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. shrug All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. shrug

My understanding is that the null result of the MIchelson Morley
experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result consistently advanced as a proof of the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. shrug

On Nov 27, 9:59 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

No, it doesn't, and this was the motivation for Einstein developing the
theory of relativity. Hence the title of his paper, "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies". It was already known that "classical electromagnetism"
does *not* transform according to Galilean transform (it uses Lorentz), so
something strange is going on.

Wow,such virulent, vile, and personal remarks against Him. You are
merely playing with pieces of His divine remarks and viciously
attempting to twist them into your evil agenda. shrug

Your statement that classical electromagnetism satisfies the Galilean
transform is simply false. This was known to be false well before Einstein
solved the problem. Not only have you not read Einstein's seminal 1905 paper
on SR, you apparently are not even aware that is was largely about solving
this issue in "classical electromagnetism", as the title suggests.

He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
Galilean transform. Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged. The
other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
classical particle as described by Newton and Michell. shrug

My recommendations:

Before posting any more on the subject of SR, you learn the basics of SR.
Before posting on the subject of "classical electromagnetism", you learn the
basics of "classical electromagnetism".

At the moment, it is almost embarassing to see what a fool you make of
yourself almost every day.

More cheap shots to boot the ego of the very fvcking stupid and
incompetent Peter Webb. Any more cheap shots, punk? shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Nov 27, 9:59 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** [c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** [c’] = observed velocity of light
** [c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** [v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction and interference
patterns and also Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

No, it doesn't, and this was the motivation for Einstein developing the
theory of relativity. Hence the title of his paper, "On the
Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies". It was already known that "classical electromagnetism"
does *not* transform according to Galilean transform (it uses Lorentz), so
something strange is going on.

Wow,such virulent, vile, and personal remarks against Him. You are
merely playing with pieces of His divine remarks and viciously
attempting to twist them into your evil agenda. shrug

______________________________________
Not against "Him". Against *you*. You pretend to know something about
physics, but in fact you are ignorant of the most basic facts. You do this
so you can deride Einstein. You do this so you can then launch into some
anti-semitic tirade. I am in no position to do anything about your
anti-semitism, distasteful though it is, but I can point out the many basic
errors you make in the physics, and this is fact a physcis newsgroup.

Your statement that classical electromagnetism satisfies the Galilean
transform is simply false. This was known to be false well before Einstein
solved the problem. Not only have you not read Einstein's seminal 1905
paper
on SR, you apparently are not even aware that is was largely about solving
this issue in "classical electromagnetism", as the title suggests.

He has always maintained that classical electromagnetism functions
with most aspects able to satisfy any experimental results with the
Galilean transform.
___________________________________
If by "he" you mean Einstein, to the extent that this sentence of yours has
any meaning, it is completely wrong. It was known well before Einstein that
the Maxwell equations transform according to the Lorentz transform, not the
Galilean, and this fact is used throughout the second half of Einstein's
paper. This is nothing to do with the MMX; it is a mathemetical fact derived
directly from Maxwell's equations. I expect that you don't know the
difference between the "Galilean transform" and "Galielean Principe of
Relativity", if you substitute the latter phrase for where you have used teh
former your sentence almost makes sense. As it stands, it is 100% wrong.



Of course, the null results of the MMX require a
modification to the Galilean transform that best not to satisfy the
principle of relativity as well, just like the classical
electromagnetism, that is if electromagnetism is to be salvaged.
_______________________________________
The MMX is just one of thousands of experiments that confirm Relativity. It
was not a major motivator for the development of SR, Einstein was not
setting out to explain it, and its not clear he even knew of it.



The
other approach is to accept the Galilean transform, ignore all
experimental data describing light as waves, and model light as
classical particle as described by Newton and Michell. shrug
_______________________________________
This is just more pompous **** from you. You are in no position to propose
alternative approaches; you don't even understand the standard approach
(SR). If you can model light as a classical particle as described by Newton
shrug, and this provides an alternate theory which equally well explains
experimental results, please do so. If you cannot, don't try and pretend
this is an alternative explanation and you are in some position to pass
judgement.




My recommendations:

Before posting any more on the subject of SR, you learn the basics of SR.
Before posting on the subject of "classical electromagnetism", you learn
the
basics of "classical electromagnetism".

At the moment, it is almost embarassing to see what a fool you make of
yourself almost every day.

More cheap shots to boot the ego of the very fvcking stupid and
incompetent Peter Webb. Any more cheap shots, punk? shrug

_____________________________________________
The only cheap thing was the target. Doesn't take much knowledge of physics
to shoot it down.

On Nov 27, 11:33*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** *[c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** *[c’] = observed velocity of light
** *[c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** *[v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction *and interference
patterns and also *Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V *from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. *shrug *All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. *shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. *In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. *However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. *shrug

My understanding is that the null *result of the MIchelson Morley
*experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on *speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result *consistently *advanced as a proof of *the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. *shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
*water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. *shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted *that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. *shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. *shrug

Most of what you write repeats what I wrote in my post. Cf the MMX.
Try thinking instead of shrugging.

On Nov 28, 12:33*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** *[c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** *[c’] = observed velocity of light
** *[c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** *[v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction *and interference
patterns and also *Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V *from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. *shrug *All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. *shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. *In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. *However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. *shrug

My understanding is that the null *result of the MIchelson Morley
*experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on *speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result *consistently *advanced as a proof of *the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. *shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
*water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. *shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted *that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. *shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. *shrug

What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? Do not
relate these waves with water waves. TreBert

On Nov 28, 6:36*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:33*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** *[c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** *[c’] = observed velocity of light
** *[c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** *[v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction *and interference
patterns and also *Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V *from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. *shrug *All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. *shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. *In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. *However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. *shrug

My understanding is that the null *result of the MIchelson Morley
*experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on *speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result *consistently *advanced as a proof of *the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. *shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
*water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. *shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted *that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. *shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. *shrug

What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? * Do not
relate these waves with water waves. *TreBert

Why not? Do you reject all analogy? Would you care to discuss why
electromagnetism disturbances are not an all pervading
electromagnetic background waving at us. How could undisturbed
electromagnetism bedetected? Just a thought!

On Nov 28, 4:36*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Nov 28, 12:33*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:









On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** *[c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** *[c’] = observed velocity of light
** *[c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** *[v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction *and interference
patterns and also *Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V *from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. *shrug *All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. *shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. *In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. *However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. *shrug

My understanding is that the null *result of the MIchelson Morley
*experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on *speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result *consistently *advanced as a proof of *the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. *shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
*water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. *shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted *that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. *shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. *shrug

What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? * Do not
relate these waves with water waves. *TreBert

Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
wen disturbed. It's also polarized, and multiple EMFs can harmonize
in order to produce secondary photons. Go figure.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 11/28/11 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
wen disturbed.

Physics and astronomy get along just fine with any aether, Brad.
Try some self-education.

On Nov 28, 10:03*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 28, 4:36*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:









On Nov 28, 12:33*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Nov 26, 3:34 pm, Zinnic wrote:

The speed of a sound air wave is independent of the speed of the sound
source (demonstrated by supersonic aircraft), the speed of a water
ripple/wave is independent of the speed of the ripple source
(demonstrated in a ripple tank). What is the evidence that, in
contrast, the speed (C*) of an electromagnetic wave (e.g. light) is
dependent on the
speed of the light source (v) and must be expressed as (C + or - v)?

In the classic Aether model, the speed light is always c relative to
the stationary background of the Aether, and the observed speed of
light can trivially be modeled through the Galilean transform as
described below.

** *[c’] = [c] – [v]

Where

** *[c’] = observed velocity of light
** *[c] = velocity of light in the Aether
** *[v] = observer’s absolute velocity

Electromagnetic waves show reflection, refraction *and interference
patterns and also *Doppler effects similar to those exhibited in the
propagation of sound and water waves. Despite this, some individuals
(apparently knowledgable in physics) insist that light (photons) must
behave ballistically (V + or - v) like massive projectiles fired at a
muzzle speed of V *from a gun moving at a speed of v.

Classical electromagnetism still satisfies the simple equation above.
shrug

As are the mundane examples of the speeds of sound and water ripples,
the independence of light speed from it's source speed is entirely
compatible with Newton's laws of motion.
IMO it has no bearing on the validity of Einstein's theories of
relativity or
Ot the validity of his E = mC^2 equation.

The null results of the MMX (Michelson-Morley experiment) can easily
be explained through the ballistic theory of light. *shrug *All the
Voigt type transforms (which includes SR) attempt to explain these
null results by avoiding the ballistic theory of light. *shrug

What motivates anti-Einsteinians to insist on a ballistic
light emission? They are strangely silent on this subject.

No, they are not silent at all. *In fact, they are cashing in on the
exact null results of the MMX. *However, in doing so, they must disown
electromagnetism, and He has not seen any of this crowd attempts to
reconcile with electromagnetism. *shrug

My understanding is that the null *result of the MIchelson Morley
*experiment proves neither dependence nor independence of light speed
(C) on *speed of it's source (v). Why is this null
result *consistently *advanced as a proof of *the ballistic emission
of light (C*=C+or-v) and as a disproof of alternative propagation
theories?

You are so misinformed. *shrug

Given that all waves are disturbances of an equilibrium be it of air,
*water or an EM field, why is there controversy over the propagation
medium for light?

100 years ago, the Einstein Dingleberries with a new religion of SR
went in bed with the ballistic theory of light guys (pagans with
Michell as their founding father of this school of gospel), and ever
since they have disregarded the most important and monumental
discovery of electromagnetism that is light always travels at the
speed of light relative to the stationary background of this medium
that light propagates through. *shrug

Given that air must 'wave' to generate sound and
water must 'wave' to generate ripples, why cannot it be
accepted *that electromagnetism also 'waves' to generate EM
radiation?

The Einstein Dingleberries and the Pagan Michell followers (such as
Andro, Porat, etc.) are just so fvcking stupid. *shrug

Surely we detect them only because "they are waving at us"

Yes, indeed. *shrug

What is doing the waving? What is the structure of this wave? * Do not
relate these waves with water waves. *TreBert

Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
wen disturbed.

Exactly. Another way to say disturbed is to say displaced. Quantum
electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does when displaced.

This is what Einstein was referring to in the following.

"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbo...4454_chap1.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The above more correctly stated as the following.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

On Nov 28, 10:16*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/28/11 9:03 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

Perhaps quantum electromagnetic waving is simply what the aether does
wen disturbed.

* *Physics and astronomy get along just fine with any aether, Brad.
* *Try some self-education.

Physics and astronomy get along most correctly with the aether of
relativity, Sam. Try some self-education.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.