Quote from: markzpeiverson on May 08, 2008, 06:12:49 PM

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 08:11:55 AM

He makes a bold statement, right at the outset: that "Einstein's theory is of no practical use in technology". If he is so ignorant as to be unaware of the vast number of applications of relativity in actual daily use (already in 1998 of course) then one must certainly question his authority to declare that "there HAS to be an aether". Perhaps he also believes that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth?

@OUMan,
From what I know of Relativity theory, both Special (1905) and General (1915), it only diverges significantly from Newtonian mechanics at speeds approaching 'c' (speed of light for all you MBAs and vulture capitalists)!  This is due to the Lorentz transformation...

Can't think of any practical, daily applications which REQUIRE relativity theory to operate.  Oh wait, particle accelerators!!!  Just happen to have one on my kitchen counter, yeah. Always seems to burn the toast!  Had to stop using it cuz it blew out power transformers for a half-mile radius.     

BTW, if you want to expand your world, or universe, a bit, you might want to check into a peer-reviewed journal called Galilean Electrodynamics.  It's editorial policy focuses on papers that contradict Relativity theory (RT).  The journal prefers empirical papers as opposed to theoretical... but publishes both.  I remember a series of articles that used anomalous data from GPS satellites to support a thesis which contradicted RT... and there are numerous others.  Of the four 'pillars' (aka, assumptions) that form the foundation of RT, only 2 have any significant empirical evidence, and one is not likely to be put to the test, at least not in our lifetime. I wouldn't want to build my house on that kind of foundation...

-Mark

The magnetic field produced by a coil of wire is considered to be a relativistic pancaking of the moving electrons electric field. (despite the fact that electrons are accepted to move at a syrupy slow rate)
But there is no evidence for SR that contradicts an entrained aether (as both predict the same results in those cases) and there is a lot of evidence for an entrained aether that disproves SR.
It is worth noting that M-M did detect a drift and that they believed the experiment didn't disprove the aether, and that Einstein believed in an aether even if it as not necessarily the same dynamic aether that I and others have come to accept.

Quote from: markzpeiverson on May 08, 2008, 06:12:49 PM
Can't think of any practical, daily applications which REQUIRE relativity theory to operate.  Oh wait, particle accelerators!!!  Just happen to have one on my kitchen counter, yeah. Always seems to burn the toast!  Had to stop using it cuz it blew out power transformers for a half-mile radius.     

That was funny!  Snort.  However, I can think of at least one everyday application that needs relativity theory to operate: GPS

Quote from: markzpeiverson on May 08, 2008, 06:12:49 PM

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 08:11:55 AM

He makes a bold statement, right at the outset: that "Einstein's theory is of no practical use in technology". If he is so ignorant as to be unaware of the vast number of applications of relativity in actual daily use (already in 1998 of course) then one must certainly question his authority to declare that "there HAS to be an aether". Perhaps he also believes that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth?

Can't think of any practical, daily applications...

So you haven't come across nuclear power yet then?

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 08:11:55 AM

Quote from: RCH on May 08, 2008, 05:09:03 AM
Aether,
In case you haven't seen this--
Aspden's excellent 1998 "overview" re why "there HAS to be an aether."           
http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le24.htm
And, here's another ....
http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/le26.html
Enjoy.
RCH

He makes a bold statement, right at the outset: that "Einstein's theory is of no practical use in technology". If he is so ignorant as to be unaware of the vast number of applications of relativity in actual daily use (already in 1998 of course) then one must certainly question his authority to declare that "there HAS to be an aether". Perhaps he also believes that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth?

OUmon,

One should be careful citing the plagiarist Einstein...

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-white-people/albert-einstein-plagiarist-and-fraud_1295.html

I have studied much of Harold Aspden's work on the existence of the aether, it is a logical and reasonable conclusion backed by reproducible experiments, confirmed by many others.

"The 'Ether' as it is often called is the carrier of Radionic and PSI
energies. To demonstrate that the 'Ether' actually exists it is
necessary to demonstrate it scientifically. Here follows some very
simple experiments to prove the existance of etheric forces, or 'bio
plasmic energy' as it is called in Russia. "

http://www.keelynet.com/interact/Arc_1_98-7_98/00002377.htm

http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/letters.html

I take your pathetic posts as a cry for help. I hope I can help you open your eyes and come into
the light, you will be welcomed.

Ron

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 07:08:01 PM

Quote from: markzpeiverson on May 08, 2008, 06:12:49 PM

Quote from: OUman on May 08, 2008, 08:11:55 AM

He makes a bold statement, right at the outset: that "Einstein's theory is of no practical use in technology". If he is so ignorant as to be unaware of the vast number of applications of relativity in actual daily use (already in 1998 of course) then one must certainly question his authority to declare that "there HAS to be an aether". Perhaps he also believes that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth?

Can't think of any practical, daily applications...

So you haven't come across nuclear power yet then?

Of course, the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc^2)... like, DUH! 

Okay, that's ONE element of RT that has produced something of practical use, but its a FAR CRY from, to quote you, "...a vast number of applications...".  If you're a scientist, shame on you!  A true scientist is VERY careful about throwing around adjectives like that; as they are with the words, 'always', and 'never'.   Perhaps I can think of a few... Hmmmm, what about MIRVs, and nuclear cruise missiles, and it made possible the suitcase nuke!!!  Nope, can't count them since they are not, thankfully, in 'daily use'!  And certainly aren't practical... unless you're on the 'giving' side of that battle.  Has RT solved the problem of eliminating the long-lived nuclear waste that this use generates?  What's funny/sad is that it may have, but mainstream science thinks its bogus science!  If that isn't Kultural Karma, I don't know what is...

-Mark