My posts on physics and relevant extracts
I must apologize for having accused Brillet and Hall of misrepresenting Jaseja et al.'s ether drift experiment.
Brillet and Hall's experiment is actually a great improvement on the measurement of Jaseja, and Brillet and Hall's "persistent spurious signal" is not identical to Jaseja's spurious signal (attributed to the earth's magnetic field) as I have claimed unfortunately several times. (See)
There are lots of experiments disagreeing with the prediction of relativity which simply don't get published for several reasons (e.g. because the experimenters themselves do not believe in their own results). The simplest of all is the experiment of Hertz which clearly shows that electrostatic effects do not propagate at speed of light but are rather instantaneous effects.
The most precise ether drift experiment ever performed (A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549-552, 1979) has shown the existence of two ether drift components.
The first component of around 16 m/s was declared to be smaller than the error estimation (around 20 m/s) despite the fact that it had the expected sinusoidal signature of an ether drift resulting from the earth's movement around the sun.
The second component was even much larger (around 190 m/s) and had the signature of an ether drift resulting from the earth's rotation.
Brillet and Hall wrote (p.550-551):
"To discriminate between this persistent spurious signal (17-Hz amplitude af 2f) and any genuine 'ether' effect, we made measurements for 12 or 24 sideral hours. ... The lack of any significant signal or day dependence allows us to perform an overall average. This final result of our experiment is a null 'ether' drift of 0.13+-0.22 Hz, which represents a fractional frequency shift of (1.5+-2.5) x 10^-15."
For someone who like me has been looking for empirical evidence of two ether drift components the results of Brillet and Hall cannot be an accident but must be considered as a complete refutation of special relativity.
My theory predicts in the case of the Brillet-Hall-experiment an ether drift of 205 m/s (59% of the sideric rotation speed of 356 m/s at Boulder, Colorado) and a second component of 13 m/s resulting from the movement relative to the sun. The idea at basis is very simple: the effect on ether and ether drift is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (like gravity).
The last letters of Einstein show very clearly that he had come to the conclusion that relativity must be as wrong as QM.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=518352976
I make a clear distinction between electromagnetic radiation (photons) and electromagnetic effects based on actions at a distance.
It was Maxwell himself who committed the most fundamental error: he claimed that his equations prove that all e.m. effects propagate at speed of light, despite the fact that these equations are based on actions at a distance.
Maxwell believed to have proven a dogma which was created or only perpetuated (against Kepler) by Descartes and Newton: there are no instantaneous actions in nature (apart from absurd nonlocality effects in QM, which had to be admitted by Bohr after the EPR-paper).
Maxwell's equations also lead to a violation of momentum conservation. These problems are described in 'Physic for Scientists and Engineers', third edition, extended version by Paul A. Tipler, in '25.1. The magnetic field of a point charge'. (I have a german translation.)
For example the following example of two parallelly moving charged particles (same speed v) leads to a momentum torque.
o ---->
o ---->
They explain it away by assuming that there are also fields with momentum which exactly compensate the momentum change, but I don't think that the corresponding calculations actually have been done (in a transparent way).
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=518483744
It is easy to test my claim experimentally. Interference effects between waves in a wire orginating from the center of a brass disc and the electrostatic effects of the disc can be measured. If oscillations of 100 Megahertz are used and the speed of the wire waves is 200 000 km/s, we get a wave length of 2 meters. If electrostatic effects propagate instantaneously, after 2m, 4m, 6m, ... the wire must be in phase with the electrostatic effect of the disc. At least the data found by Hertz clearly suggest actions at a distance. (Heinrich Hertz, Gesammelte Werke, Band 2, Leibzig, 1894, p 8, 118, 127-130. An English translation exists.)
It is Hertz who distinguishes between electrostatic and electrodynamic effects. He found 'electrodynamic forces' (e.m. waves) decreasing inversely proportionally to the distance from the source, and 'electrostatic forces' decreasing inversely proportionally to the distance square.
It is generally admitted that the situation nearby an emitting dipole antenna does not agree with the normal explanation and the drawings of waves peeling off, which can be found in any textbook. So if we take seriously logic we must conclude that this explanation is in principle wrong, or don't you think so?
The generalization from the experimentally confirmed photons to photons mediating electrostatic forces is not justified.
Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in this way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only drift apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of photons has been experimentally confirmed!
The derivation of e.m. waves is based on the divergence theorem (the first Maxwell equation) and it cannot be denied that this theorem is based on instantaneous effects. Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity does not touch this problem.
Don't you know the application of the Gauss divergence or flux or integral theorem to incompressible liquids, which leads to instantaneous effects at a distance?
If the effects are not instantaneous, then the Gauss integral theorem and therefore the first Maxwell equation is invalidated!
There are physical theories with no predictive value at all. The explanation of the simple Coulomb law by obscure mathematical formulas in QED is a good example. Photons as postulated by Einstein are concrete, measurable things with frequency, energy and momentum. Can you tell me how much photons of what kind are active in a concrete situation of electrostatic attraction?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=518541452
It must not be irrelevent that Hertz found interference effects in agreement with instantaneous propagation of electrostatic attraction and repulsion. It would be irrelevant if better experiments had been carried out refuting Hertz's results, but as far as I know that's not the case.
Bodies radiating electromagnetic waves lose energy, and oscillations of certain frequencies are involved.
The case of electrostatic (or magnetic) attraction and repulsion is completely different. Charged bodies maintain attraction and repulsion without radiating photons and losing energy.
> Virtual, not real photons are exchanged in generating the Coulomb force in quantum mechanics.
Why are these virtual particles called photons, if they have almost nothing to do with real photons? Maybe one reason is that in this way it was possible to evade the necessity of experimental confirmation. Another reason may be that evidence of original photons can be declared evidence of these virtual particles and the theories based on them.
One can work out theories as complex as you want which apparently explain simple relations.
Using the Gauss integral, the charge inside a closed surface is calculated in the same way from the electrostatic effects on the surface as the output of sources inside a volume filled with an incompressible fluid is calculated from the flow through the surface.
If either the fluids are compressible or the electrostatic effects propagate at a finite speed then the Gauss integral theorem is no longer (exactly) valid.
There are many different forms of waves and all of them are the result of effects which propagate much faster than the waves themselves.
Think about water or rope waves. Assume that the physical effects responsible for the propagation of the waves would propagate themselves at the speed of the waves. Do you think that such an assumption can reasonably be made?
You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about 15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995) are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic units of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes ART an unfalsifiable theory.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=519016123
Hertz clearly found by interference effects that electrostatic effects propagate at infinite speed. But he was so convinced about the inexistence of actions at a distance that he did not believe in these effects. Hertz also found in experiments, which he carried out several times very carefully, that the speed of electric waves in wires is about 200000 km/s (which is correct). This result was against the theory. So, when other researchers claimed to have confirmed that this speed was exactly the speed of light, Hertz explained his own results by unexplainable systematic errors!!!
I believe neither in angels, devils and ghosts, nor in virtual particles.
In any case such theories are highly speculative inventions of humans and should not be confused with nature.
Do you deny the involvement of physical effects in rope waves which propagate faster than the waves themselves? In order to understand surface waves of water the water can be considered as an incompressible fluid. And an incompressible fluid entails instantaneous effects at a distance. The case of surface waves shows very elegantly that physical effects propagating much faster than the waves themselves must be involved.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=519371271
The simplest Lorentz-invariant equation I know of is:
[1] x^2 - [ct]^2 = 0 --> x^2 - [ct']^2 = 0
The two cases, however, which are summarized by the above
equation are not FULLY Lorentz-invariant:
[2a] x - ct = 0 ---> [x' - ct'] / sqrt(1 + v/c) = 0 [2b] x + ct = 0 ---> [x' + ct'] / sqrt(1 - v/c) = 0
So we must conclude that some information is lost when uniting [2a] and [2b] into [1].
I never have denied that Maxwell's equations do correctly describe many aspects of electrodynamics. But history has shown many times that it is possible to work without major problems within scientific frameworks containing fundamental errors.
It is my opinion that virtual particles defy not only physical laws (such as energy and momentum conservation) but also common sense. Physicists have developed a lot of immunization stategies for their beloved dogmas. The most important principle for immunizing theories against logical refution are Heisenberg's uncertainty relations.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=519783449
If we assume actions at a distance, then all reasonings which have led Einstein and others in direction to relativity theory become unnecessary and magnetic effects depend only on relative motions between charged particles.
And in the example of the two parallelly moving charged particles, no strange momentum changes arise which have to be explained away by assuming inverse momentum changes of surrounding fields.
The experiment [of Brillet and Hall] is based on the fact that an ether drift of v leads to a change in the wave lenght of a laser (depending on direction):
DL/L = 0.5 v^2 / c^2 --> v = sqrt(2 c^2 * DL/L)
The official result (with the signature of a sun induced ether drift) was:
DL/L = 1.5 +- 2.5 * 10^-15 --> v = 16.4 m/s +- 21.2 m/s
The "persistent spurious signal" (with the signature of an earth rotation induced drift) was:
DL/L = 2 * 10^-13 --> v = 189.7 m/s
Do you think that Brillet and Hall would have presented their results in the same way if the had attempted to find experimental evidence of a theory predicting this result:
And that's exactly what my theory predicts. I would say that an experimental confirmation which goes against the beliefs of the experimenters is much more valuable than one which agrees with their beliefs.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=519914413
That's exactly what I have: a very simple and elegant dragged ether theory based on actions at a distance. I know that historically aberration was the most important argument against any dragged ether theory. If the speed of light changes, light cannot travel in a straight line in all inertial frames.
My solution is that BOTH the reference frame where c is constant in all directions AND propagation directions of e.m. waves and inertial movements DEPEND on the presence of matter in a way which can [each] be calculated by weighted averages.
Weighted averages are well explained by Bruce Harvey in: http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Stsis.html
Bruce Harvey's theory is essentially a one component ether theory. He calls the ether 'stasis' and writes:
"Taking a broader view we find that stasis is a vector field existing throughout all space and varying from point to point as we move around the solar system, between the stars and from galaxy to galaxy.
Stasis is dependent on an inverse square law just as gravity also depends on the inverse square law."
In my theory there is also the second ether component which is dependent on the inverse distant law just as gravitational potential. This ether component can be called INERSIS.
That's a very elegant solution insofar as at the basis only one single function is needed: proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the distance square. The function itself is relevant to stasis and gravity field, its integral (inversely proportional to distance) relevant to inersis and gravitational potential.
For the Brillet-Hall-experiment only stasis is relevant. The sun induced ether drift of 13m/s can be explained in this way: gravitational attraction of the earth is 30m/s, attraction of the sun only 1/1660 of this value. With a relative velocity of 30km/s that gives 30km/s / 1661 = 18m/s as an approximation. This result would be exactly valid on the surface of the earth only if the earth's whole mass would be concentrated in its center.
Simple numerical integration over the whole earth taking into account its density distribution (the sun can be considered a point mass because of its distance) results in a sun induced stasis drift of 13 m/s for the surface of the earth.
The earth rotation induced stasis drift at Boulder, where the Brillet-Hall-experiment took place:
The 59% is the numerical result of weighted averages if one uses the currently accepted density distribution of the earth.
If correctness of SR is assumed, then this residual signal (corresponding to an ether drift of around 200 m/s) must be a 'persistent spurious signal' and must be explained away somehow. But the explanation by an earth rotation induced acceleration of mirrors seems not very reasonable to me.
So let's repeat the experiment on the equator where this explanation does not work and where my theory predicts an even stronger 'persistent spurious signal' (corresponding to an ether drift of 59% of 464 m/s = 270 m/s).
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=521376856
In my 'relationality' theory there are two (non-material) ether components: stasis and inersis. Stasis on earth, like gravity, is influenced primarily by the mass of the earth whereas inersis, like gravitational potential, is influenced much more by our and other galaxies.
In order to explain correctly the 'relativistic' Mercury perihelion shift, one must assume that on the earth's surface the total lost gravitational potential is around 450'000 km2/s2. Only 63 km2/s2 are caused by the earth.
So the earth's effect on inersis on its surface is only around 63 / 450000 = 0.014%.
Inersis is relevant to all inertial motions in empty space, including the motion (direction) of photons. The assumption that stasis is relevant to the speed of photons and inersis to the direction leads to the conclusion that wave fronts break apart. Without the quantum hypothesis this conclusion would have completely refuted such a two component ether.
As already mentioned, inersis can explain the 'relativistic' perihelion shift of planets. It is a result of the rotation of the sun. The same effect is also responsible for the fact that galaxies rotate faster than they should according to classical mechanics or GR (without the ad-hoc-hypothesis of unobservable matter).
I called my theory 'relationality' because a physical theory where only spacial distances and their temporal derivatives matter can reasonably be called a relational theory. I also want to stress that there is a lot of continuity between relativity and relationality.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=521476542
On a motorclycle the sound of a plane seems to come from a displaced direction, whereas in a bus (dragged air) there seems to be no such displacement. But in fact the propagation direction changes when the sound enters the bus.
Relative to an observer on the motorcycle the propagation velocity of the sound is different from normal speed of sound. In the bus however, the propagation velocity of the sound is exactly the speed of sound. The observer on the motorcycle has both aberration and ether drift, whereas an observer in the bus has neither of them.
On earth however, we have aberration but we have no (major) ether drift. Is it possible to imagine such a result? Yes, it is. If sound propagation is prevented from changing its direction when entering the bus, the result is aberration with no ether drift.
In my theory the speed of photons is constant relative to stasis, whereas the propagation direction depends on inersis. Inersis on earth depends only at 0.014% on the velocity of earth, therefore stellar aberration results in almost (around 99.986% of) the classical value.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=521810887
99/09/02 Re: What "Gravity" Really Is
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=520266094
99/09/07 Re: singularities and infinite universes
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=522160425
99/09/09 Re: Ether drift of 200m/s detected by Brillet & Hall
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=522726594
99/09/09 Re: Ether drift of 200m/s detected by Brillet & Hall
523097659
99/09/11 Re: 'To Tom Roberts - Entrainment??'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=523819710
99/09/12 Re: Ether drift of 200m/s detected by Brillet & Hall
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=524152873
99/09/13 Re: DeWitte's Experiments Cannot See the Ether
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=524477248
99/09/13 Re: Which contraction factor?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=524574057
99/09/14 Re: An Experiment Confirming the Intrinsic Nature of Clock Time
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525045436
99/09/15 Re: objective reality
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525493503
99/09/15 Re: Which contraction factor?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525591598
99/09/16 Re: objective reality
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525861159
99/09/16 Re: 'To Tom Roberts - Entrainment??'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=525913703
99/09/17 Re: 'To Tom Roberts - Entrainment??'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=526082799
99/09/18 Re: Which contraction factor?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=526767079
99/09/18 Re: Which contraction factor?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=526797336
99/09/19 Re: Ether drift of 200m/s detected by Brillet & Hall
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=527095025
99/09/20 GR blue shift of GPS satellites
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=527474328
99/09/20 LET inconsistent with SR and and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=527555750
99/09/21 Re: GR blue shift of GPS satellites
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=527883125
99/09/23 Re: Which contraction factor
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=528426487
99/09/25 Re: 'To Tom Roberts - Entrainment??'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=529414267
99/09/25 Re: Which contraction factor
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=529436913
99/09/27 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=529929410
99/09/28 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=530328052
99/09/29 Re: SR Bible-Thumping
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=530719931
99/09/30 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=531175486
99/09/30 Re: SR Bible-Thumping
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=531225851
99/09/30 Re: Speed of Light in a Gravitational Field
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=531242874
99/10/01 Re: SR Bible-Thumping
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=531614175
99/10/01 Re: SR Bible-Thumping
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=531506436
99/10/02 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532021977
99/10/03 Re: On Relativity and Light Speed Isotropy in Moving Reference Frames
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532403914
99/10/03 Re: Speed of Light in a Gravitational Field
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532301397
99/10/03 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532263367
99/10/04 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532665217
99/10/04 Re: parallel universe
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532612275
99/10/05 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=533126325
99/10/05 Re: EPR Paradox - explanation requested
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=533077912
99/10/06 Neutrinos questioned
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=533624184
99/10/07 Re: 'To Tom Roberts - Entrainment??'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534024783
99/10/09 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534705489
99/10/09 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=534775734
99/10/10 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
535019440
99/10/10 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535050497
99/10/11 Re: challengings of SR make me sad
535182208
99/10/11 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535547938 ***
99/10/12 Re: Instantaneous propagation of the 'electrostatic force'?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=535963467
99/10/14 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=536807864
99/10/15 Re: LET inconsistent with SR and refuted by GPS system
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=537119275
99/10/16 Re: challengings of SR make sad
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538369869
99/10/17 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538808163
99/10/19 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=537935140
99/10/20 Re: Neutrinos questioned
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538063964 ***
99/10/20 Re: Space-time is curved. How?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538206792
99/10/20 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=538420475
99/10/21 Re: Proposals to measure speed of gravity?
538880440 ***
99/10/21 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539009460
99/10/22 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539237731
99/10/22 Re: uncertainty principle
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539325598
99/10/23 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=539648556
99/10/25 Re: EPR Paradox - explanation requested
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=540134787
99/10/25 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=540467234
99/10/26 Re: SR refuted by Bell's Spaceship Paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=540788755
99/10/27 Question concerning 'distance'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=541243360
99/10/28 Re: Question concerning 'distance'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=541655230
99/10/28 Re: EPR Paradox - explanation requested
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=541823846
99/10/30 Re: Question concerning 'distance'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=542455345
99/10/31 Debating tactics
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=542581410
99/10/31 Re: Who Says Light Behaves as a Particle?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=542724029
99/10/31 Re: Mass-energy-equivalence (was: uncertainty principle)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=542817201
99/10/31 Re: Does materialism exclude instantaneous effects? (Was: Who Says Light ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=542858770
99/11/01 Re: How was Dark Matter calculated?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=543168824
99/11/01 Re: Question concerning 'distance'
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=543207365
99/11/04 Comments on FAQ - Does light have mass?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=544192703
99/11/04 Re: A simple analysis falsifies SR and LET
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=544507850
99/11/05 Re: Experiments on light speed isotropy (was: A Review ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=544618104
99/11/07 Re: Experiments on light speed isotropy (was: A Review ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=545621575
99/11/08 Re: Einstein VS Dirac (was: Rest mass of photon)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=545897385
99/11/08 Re: Comments on FAQ - Does light have mass?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=546039265
99/11/10 Re: Aether/SR question
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=546896978
99/11/10 Re: Aether/SR question
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=547070939
99/11/11 Was QED intended as a joke?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=547437435 ***
99/11/13 Re: E=mc^2 NOT Einstein's
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548108389
99/11/14 Re: Aether/SR question
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548492172
99/11/15 Slow Clock Transport (Was: Aether/SR question)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548977376
99/11/16 Re: Comments on FAQ - Does light have mass?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=549354659
99/11/17 Re: Slow Clock Transport (Was: Aether/SR question)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=549807123
99/11/18 Re: Aether/SR question
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=550248591
99/11/19 The fundamental difference between SR and LET (was: Aether/SR question)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=550721103
99/11/22 Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551674131
99/11/22 Re: The fundamental difference between SR and LET (was: Aether/SR question)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551801940
99/11/23 Re: Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552227386
99/11/24 Longitudinal electromagnetic waves
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552484432 ***
99/11/24 Re: Longitudinal electromagnetic waves
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552520343
99/11/25 Re: Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=552943669
99/11/26 Re: Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=553107984
99/11/26 Re: Longitudinal electromagnetic waves
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=553342011
99/11/28 Electron magnetic moment anomaly
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=554131317
99/11/30 Re: Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=554917665
99/12/02 Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation simplified
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=555581264
99/12/06 Re: Momentum of waves in general
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=557394462
99/12/09 Can reductionistic physical laws explain life, evolution and consciousness?
558365862
99/12/10 Re: Can reductionistic physical laws explain life, evolution and consciousness?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=558803597
99/12/13 Re: Trouble for the conservation of angular momentum?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=560135431 ***
99/12/14 Re: relative position and time
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=560576844
99/12/15 Stellar aberration and radioastronomy (Was: Photon spin trouble)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=561141721 ***
99/12/17 Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=561986386
99/12/19 Re: Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=562477376
99/12/19 Re: Trouble for the conservation of angular momentum?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=562719359
99/12/20 Re: Stellar aberration and radioastronomy (Was: Photon spin trouble)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=563114105
99/12/22 Re: The photon spin paradox
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=563945687
99/12/30 Re: Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
566671023
99/12/31 Re: Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=566889165
00/01/01 Re: Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=567242853
00/01/02 Re: Einstein, Poincaré and the Lorentz Transformation
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=567487762
00/01/04 Black holes - relative or absolute?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=568163832
00/01/06 Re: Johannes Kepler
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569040233 ***
00/01/07 The language of physics (was: Refractive Index of the Quantum Vacuum)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569315416
00/01/07 Re: Black holes - relative or absolute?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569572319
00/01/08 Re: Black holes - relative or absolute?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=569998701
00/01/09 Re: Demographic saturation refutes Malthusianism (was: Essay on Malthus)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=570485213
00/01/10 Re: Black holes - relative or absolute?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=570732454
00/01/11
Re: Black holes - relative or absolute?00/01/29 Re: One-way-light-speed anisotropy of SR
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=579212365
00/02/02 Re: Why the ether would be observable
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=580842416
00/02/05 Re: Simulation of Special Relativity by LET
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582025137 ***
00/02/07 Re: B=E
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582450140
00/02/07 Re: what the hell is spin?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=582781102
00/02/09 Re: Maxwell's theory untenable (was: E=B)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=583845550
00/02/11 Re: Maxwell's theory untenable (was: E=B)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=584326906
00/02/17 Re: Simulation of Special Relativity by LET
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=586730997
00/02/19 Re: Super Heated Water?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587421192
00/02/20 Pre-magnetic dipoles
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587566869
00/02/22 Re: Pre-magnetic dipoles
588491353 ***
00/02/23 Re: Pre-magnetic dipoles
588983046
00/02/26 GR vs Relationality (was: I throw up a photon)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=590334767
00/02/29 Re: How does water really reach the tops of trees?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=591466928
00/03/04
Re: How does water really reach the tops of trees?00/03/27 Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
603067179
00/03/29 Relative and absolute in Relationality
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=603992526
00/03/30 Re: Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
604488596
00/03/31 Re: Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=604840243
00/04/01 Re: Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605296775
00/04/02 Apology to Brillet and Hall
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605723038
00/04/04 Re: Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=606285522
00/04/07 Re: An atom emits light. How long is the wavetrain?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=608044028 ***
00/04/10 Re: Champeney's ether drift experiment (was: Sagnac & relativity)
609214829
00/04/13 Re: Rejection of gr-qc/0001096
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=610735931
00/04/15 Gamma ray bursts - a transmission effect (photon cohesion)?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=611533182
00/04/18 Re: Gamma ray bursts - a transmission effect (photon cohesion)?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=612748636
00/04/19 Re: Gamma ray bursts - a transmission effect (photon cohesion)?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=613303497
00/04/23 Simple propagation speed (thought)experiment
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=614676790 ***
00/04/24 There is no wave-particle transition (was: Re: paradoxes ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=614946644
00/04/25 Re: There is no wave-particle transition (was: Re: paradoxes ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=615627030
00/04/26 Re: Simple propagation speed (thought)experiment
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=616067444 ***
00/04/29 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=617250979
00/05/01 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=617635057
00/05/05 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=619351590
00/05/06 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=620026884
00/05/14 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=623203938
00/05/16 Re: How fast is gravity?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=624113784 ***
00/05/21 Modern science comparable with medieval theology
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629574710
00/05/22 Re: Modern science comparable with medieval theology
625886119
00/05/25 Re: Modern science comparable with medieval theology
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=627146806
00/05/28 Re: Modern science comparable with medieval theology
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=628287529