John S wrote:
On 6/30/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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):

Actually, Jeff, I don't think it was disproven. In what world do you
maintain that lack of evidence is proof of non-existance?

It is not a lack of evidence.

It is that the abudant evidence does not support the existance of an aether.

Trying to debate or explain anything to Bialek is like explaining the
development of the Newton Quotient to a cow. It also makes
me wonder about those who are trying!!! :-)

Irv VE6BP


P.S. Sorry Jeff -- my previous email was meant for
the group -- not you personally.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


snip

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"


"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."


Yes, all this is true, but you did not address the central question, which
was, "Is it warmer in the summertime or in the city?"

Are you posting in the correct thread?

"Jeff Liebermann" 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*

"Jeff Liebermann" napisal w wiadomosci
...

Michelson Morley was
the first reproducable test that failed to show the existence of a
luminiferous aether wind, thus suggesting that it might be rubbish.

They did show that no aether wind in the orbital Earth movement.


(By the way, I'm on their side.)

Plenty of sides to choose from. Today, the consensus is that there is
no aether wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

Did not you read:
"1925 - the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment produces a positive result
while attempting to detect the effect of Earth's rotation on the velocity of
light. The significance of the experiment remains debated to this day, but
this planetary Sagnac effect is measured by ring laser gyros and taken into
account by the GPS system."

In 1925 Michelson and Gale did show that there is the aether wind caused by
the Earth rotation.

However, if it did exist, it might help explain why I can hear a DX
station, but they never seem to hear me. Asymmetrical skip perhaps?
My signal goes easier or farther downwind?

Your ground is enough only for receiving.
S*

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not
simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Hello Szczepan .
I see you aren't able to explain "oscillatory flow of electrons" in your
own words.
With " backward and forward motions of particles" I would have asked
"backwards and forwards relative to what" but I suspect that you can't
explain this in your own words.

"More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between
theaverage Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the
averageEulerian flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This
nonlinearphenomenon is named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived
expressions for this drift in his 1847 study of water waves."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift
S*

"Irv Finkleman" wrote in message
...
Trying to debate or explain anything to Bialek is like explaining the
development of the Newton Quotient to a cow. It also makes
me wonder about those who are trying!!! :-)

Irv VE6BP

Hi Irv.

It's fun.It leads to some good discussions between the amateurs on this
group.

It's akin to trying to explain amateur radio to a friend. The difference is
that friends usually listen and understand whereas S* is a "copy-and-paste
practitioner" and can't understand.

73, Ian.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not
simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Hello Szczepan .
I see you aren't able to explain "oscillatory flow of electrons" in your
own words.
With " backward and forward motions of particles" I would have asked
"backwards and forwards relative to what" but I suspect that you can't
explain this in your own words.

"More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between
theaverage Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the
averageEulerian flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This
nonlinearphenomenon is named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived
expressions for this drift in his 1847 study of water waves."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift
S*

Hello Szczepan .
Thank you for proving my point and showing that you do not understand
things.

Regards, Ian.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
However, if it did exist, it might help explain why I can hear a DX
station, but they never seem to hear me. Asymmetrical skip perhaps?
My signal goes easier or farther downwind?

Your ground is enough only for receiving.
S*

Ah! The humour of it all. I'm now trying to work out if Szczepan floats
above the ground or keeps his feet firmly anchored in it.
Let's remember that, to him, a transmitter is a black box and that he really
doesn't understand that of which he writes. I do like the way he's moaned
about aerials having to be grounded and now has decided that the ground can
be different for Tx and Rx.

I have to acknowledge that this group has made me smile more than some of
the comedy shows on BBC Radio 4 Extra.

73 to all, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

Your ground is enough only for receiving.
S*

Ah! The humour of it all. I'm now trying to work out if Szczepan floats
above the ground or keeps his feet firmly anchored in it.
Let's remember that, to him, a transmitter is a black box and that he
really doesn't understand that of which he writes. I do like the way he's
moaned about aerials having to be grounded and now has decided that the
ground can be different for Tx and Rx.

In Tx the huge amount of electrons must jump off the antenna. They flow from
the big ground.
In Rx only a few electrons enters in antenna and flow to a little ground.

I have to acknowledge that this group has made me smile more than some of
the comedy shows on BBC Radio 4 Extra.

Me too.
S*