loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Almost all energy is in visible light.

Actually, most EM energy is above and below the very limited visible
spectrum and EM energy is only one of many types of energy. You would not
be able to survive close proximity to the gamma rays from a pulsar long
enough to see where they were coming from.

In Jeff greenhouse no rays from a pulsar.
S*

In Szczepan Bialek head no functioning neurons.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:38:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light (and radio waves) are made up of electrons, according to Faraday,
L.
Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac.

Please find a time machine and go back to the time when physicists were so
ignorant that they believed such nonsense.

EM waves are older than Tesla and Dirac:
"In the year 1884 Oliver Heaviside selected these four equations, and in
conjunction with Willard Gibbs, he put them into modern vector notation.
This gives rise to the claim by some scientists that Maxwell's equations are
in actual fact Heaviside's equations.
The matter is further confused by the fact that the term 'Maxwell's
Equations' is also used to describe a set of eight equations labelled (A) to
(H) in Maxwell's 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.
It therefore helps when referring to 'Maxwell's Equations' to specify
whether we are talking about the original eight equations or the modified
'Heaviside Four'.

Gauss's Law is the only equation that appears in both sets, however the
Maxwell/Ampère equation in the 'Heaviside Four' is an amalgamation of two
equations in the original eight." From:
http://users.aims.ac.za/~franckm/Maxwell's_equations.html

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.

The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

Faraday, L. Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac were ignorant?

S*.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field" and
"oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.


Kindest regards, Ian.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On Friday, June 29, 2012 11:58:27 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Faraday, L. Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac were ignorant?

Yes, indeed, they were ignorant of the standard model of quantum physics but they had a good excuse for their ignorance. What is your excuse?:)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

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"

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."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

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

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the

No one care; it is 2012.

vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

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."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

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

Just a big pile of babbling, word salad, gibberish.

You are an idiot.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

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"

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

On p. 301 he wrote:


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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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?

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

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

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:06:01 -0500, 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):

Oops. The 1905 date should be 1887.

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

Yeah, I know. Absense of proof is not proof of absensce. At the
time, it was much like dark matter. There's plenty of evidence to
suggest that it might exist, but no experimental proof.

Many scientists have produced results both postive and "lack of
evidence" for the aether drift along the way. 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.

(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
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?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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?

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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*

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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*

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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*

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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*

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"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*
Hello Szczepan.
Your style of physics is so funny. I'll let you work out the obvious mistake
you made.

ttfn, Ian.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 15:16:48 +0100, "Ian"
wrote:
"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.

The technical discussion on this group has dropped down in the past
year. It is nice to see a renewal of activity, even if some of the
posts are controversial.

However, I personally lose interest when the discussions are
nonsensical.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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.

Insane, babbling, nonsense.

You really are an idiot.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...

snip

"Szczepan Bialek" ... keeps his feet firmly anchored in ...

snip


I cast my vote for


XXX A block of cement


"Sal"

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"Ian" wrote in message
...


Hello Szczepan.
Your style of physics is so funny. I'll let you work out the obvious
mistake you made.


His diet is lacking an essential nutrient: brainium.

"Sal"

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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.

Insane, babbling, nonsense.

You really are an idiot.



Bejamin Franklin is quoted (or misquoted) as saying, "Beer is proof that God
loves us and wants us to be happy." I wonder what Franklin would say about
Bialek.

"Sal"

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

Sal M. O'Nella wrote:

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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.

Insane, babbling, nonsense.

You really are an idiot.



Bejamin Franklin is quoted (or misquoted) as saying, "Beer is proof that God
loves us and wants us to be happy." I wonder what Franklin would say about
Bialek.

"Sal"

Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self?

Comes to mind.

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

Well, considering that Franklin stood out in a storm and attempted
to attract lightning, perhaps they have something in common!

Irv VE6BP

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


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.

Insane, babbling, nonsense.

You really are an idiot.



Bejamin Franklin is quoted (or misquoted) as saying, "Beer is proof that
God loves us and wants us to be happy." I wonder what Franklin would say
about Bialek.

"Sal"

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

wrote in message
...
Sal M. O'Nella wrote:


snip


Bejamin Franklin is quoted (or misquoted) as saying, "Beer is proof that
God
loves us and wants us to be happy." I wonder what Franklin would say
about
Bialek.

"Sal"

Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self?

Comes to mind.


Very good!

"Sal"

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On Friday, June 29, 2012 9:01:25 PM UTC-5, W5DXP wrote:
Yes, indeed, they were ignorant of the standard model of quantum physics but they had a good excuse for their ignorance. What is your excuse?:)

Speaking of the standard model:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-02-09-27-46
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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.

tom
K0TAR

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

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*

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


Proven thousands of times, and more, since then.

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

What you think is always wrong.
It's what you think.
It is wrong. QED

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On 7/3/2012 2:38 AM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

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*



No. We, as a group, have given you proof again and again and again and
again and you just ignore it and spout more nonsense.

You love google. just look it up yourself.

tom
K0TAR

loop antennas and noise suppresion
 

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 2:38:07 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Could you give us the one prove (for example).

Looks like they have finally detected the real aether and its not electrons.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/07/...or-first-time/