Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 7/1/2012 4:14 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
"Jeff napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:03:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward
and
forward motions of particles of aether."

The aether drift theory was disproven in 1905 (as published by
Michelson and Morley):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Please try to keep up to date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

Michelson disproved the H.Lorentz aether;
"It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be
any
relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be
small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of
aberration. Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the
ether
at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only
requires in addition that the relative velocity have a potential; but
Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz then
proposes
a modification which combines some ideas of Stokes and Fresnel, and
assumes
the existence of a potential, together with Fresnel's coefficient. If now
it
were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at
rest
with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not
be
a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails."
From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the... ferous_Ether

The Michelson proved that Stokes aether rotate with the Sun (1887) but
not
rotate with the Earth (1925).
S*



Too bad Michelson was wrong. And so are you.

Proven thousands of times, and more, since then.

Could you give us the one prove (for example).
S*