Waves for Einstein Dingleberries

On Aug 4, 2:33*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics:
On Aug 3, 1:33*pm, "hanson" wrote:

This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
before fading back into the motionless flat surface.

The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.

We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
ordinary 2 & 3 space.

The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
all scales in nature.

Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, *the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...

So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
in the MKS and SI unit systrems....

Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson

Very calmly and serenely, we use the strength of the gravitational
interaction and the measurable stiffness of the coupling strength of
the water to itself to check that the waves do in fact travel at the
speed that we expect them to. And quite objectively and
dispassionately, we notice that all waves in material media have a
wave speed that is related to both the bulk inertia of the medium and
the stiffness of the medium, via a well-known and apparently universal
relation. Moreover, the inertia and the stiffness of the medium can be
checked -- completely without emotion and bristling -- with other
predictable measures in other phenomena, thereby binding the whole kit
and kaboodle into a coherent story.

Then in similar fashion, we can use the very same universal relations
about waves in material media,

Is the relation between the speed of the the wave, w, and the speed of
the observer relative to the medium, v, among those fundamental
relations, Clever Draper? If it is, you obtain, for the speed of the
wave as measured by the observer, w'=w+v or, in the case of a light
wave (w=c), c'=c+v. But you do not wish to obtain c'=c+v, do you
Clever Draper?

Pentcho Valev


and the measured speed of light, to
deduce the inertia and the coupling stiffness of the supposed medium
-- all in a carefree and lighthearted but earnest manner. And we can
stare at those numbers and ponder casually but without the least bit
of brow-furrowing how it is that a medium so rigid would allow the
earth to orbit the sun. And furthermore, we can -- with complete ease
of mind -- check the connections of the inertia and coupling stiffness
to the predictable measures in other phenomena, just as we did with
water, and -- in an orderly and unpanicked fashion -- reasonably
notice that we don't have a kit anymore, let alone a kaboodle.

And so, without a care in the world, we can casually discard the
notion of a medium as being relevant for electromagnetic transmission,
no matter how much maniacal laughter is heard from the foamy-lipped
babbling neurotics who are cackling about how upset people must be
about the notion of an aether.

On Aug 4, 8:39*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 4, 2:33*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics:



On Aug 3, 1:33*pm, "hanson" wrote:

This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
before fading back into the motionless flat surface.

The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.

We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
ordinary 2 & 3 space.

The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
all scales in nature.

Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
because the obvious carrying matrix, *the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
masturbations...

So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
in the MKS and SI unit systrems....

Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson

Very calmly and serenely, we use the strength of the gravitational
interaction and the measurable stiffness of the coupling strength of
the water to itself to check that the waves do in fact travel at the
speed that we expect them to. And quite objectively and
dispassionately, we notice that all waves in material media have a
wave speed that is related to both the bulk inertia of the medium and
the stiffness of the medium, via a well-known and apparently universal
relation. Moreover, the inertia and the stiffness of the medium can be
checked -- completely without emotion and bristling -- with other
predictable measures in other phenomena, thereby binding the whole kit
and kaboodle into a coherent story.

Then in similar fashion, we can use the very same universal relations
about waves in material media,

Is the relation between the speed of the the wave, w, and the speed of
the observer relative to the medium, v, among those fundamental
relations, Clever Draper?

Nope. Do you know the fundamental relations, Pentcho?

Moreover, if you determine that, because of the problems mentioned
above, a *material-medium-based* wave is untenable, you still always
have the option of non-material-medium-based waves as another option
to consider.

I don't know why you would refuse to consider non-material-based waves
if
1. The deduced stiffness and inertia of the hypothesized material
medium turns out to be inconsistent with other observations, and
2. The measured speed of the wave is c and not c+v or c-v.

It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
based, come hell or high water and therefore
1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
(where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.

Of course, what you appear to be insisting is scientific lunacy, but
it is what it is.

PD

If it is, you obtain, for the speed of the
wave as measured by the observer, w'=w+v or, in the case of a light
wave (w=c), c'=c+v. But you do not wish to obtain c'=c+v, do you
Clever Draper?

Pentcho Valev


and the measured speed of light, to
deduce the inertia and the coupling stiffness of the supposed medium
-- all in a carefree and lighthearted but earnest manner. And we can
stare at those numbers and ponder casually but without the least bit
of brow-furrowing how it is that a medium so rigid would allow the
earth to orbit the sun. And furthermore, we can -- with complete ease
of mind -- check the connections of the inertia and coupling stiffness
to the predictable measures in other phenomena, just as we did with
water, and -- in an orderly and unpanicked fashion -- reasonably
notice that we don't have a kit anymore, let alone a kaboodle.

And so, without a care in the world, we can casually discard the
notion of a medium as being relevant for electromagnetic transmission,
no matter how much maniacal laughter is heard from the foamy-lipped
babbling neurotics who are cackling about how upset people must be
about the notion of an aether.

On Aug 4, 4:10*pm, PD wrote:
It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
based, come hell or high water and therefore
1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
(where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.

No Clever Draper I just insist on paying some more attention to Divine
Albert's 1909 insights:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

Pentcho Valev

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fef864d66723be