On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> Volney:
>> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>>>
>>>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>>>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>>>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>>>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>>>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>>
>> In the LET, the aether is undetectable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
>> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
>> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
>> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
>> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
>> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
>> Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
>> velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
>> be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
>> media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
>> idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
> Aether?", which is cited below too:
>
> The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
> that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.

Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?

Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no
special frames.

(In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
rest frame)
>
> Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
> ########################################
>
> In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
> was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
> electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
> 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
> the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
> It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
> with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
> was abandoned.

It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.
>
> Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
> arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
> one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
> finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
> reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.

Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
an aether.
>
> Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
> the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
> region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
> matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
> relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
> directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
> According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
> must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
> velocity of light.

Relative to what? All motion is relative.

> This velocity provides a preferred direction within
> the light-cone in space-time,

Making it incompatible with the PoR.

> which direction should show itself up in
> suitable experiments.

This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
itself.

> Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
> requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.

Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
motion. As Einstein said.
>
> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
> mechanics to the aether.

QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.

[snip bla bla bla]

Volney:
> On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> Volney:
>>> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>>>>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>>>>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>>>>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>>>>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of
>>>>> v/c.
>>>
>>> In the LET, the aether is undetectable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>>> an aether?
>>>
>>> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
>>> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
>>> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
>>> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
>>> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
>>> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
>>> Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
>>> velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
>>> be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
>>> media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
>>> idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>>
>> @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
>> Aether?", which is cited below too:
>>
>> The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
>> that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.
>
> Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
> while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
> and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?
>
> Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
> frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no
> special frames.
>
> (In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
> rest frame)
>>
>> Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
>> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>> ########################################
>>
>> In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
>> was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
>> electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
>> 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
>> the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
>> It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
>> with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
>> was abandoned.
>
> It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
> any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
> aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.
>>
>> Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
>> arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
>> one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
>> finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
>> reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
>
> Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
> an aether.
>>
>> Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
>> the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
>> region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
>> matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
>> relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
>> directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
>> According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
>> must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
>> velocity of light.
>
> Relative to what? All motion is relative.
>
>> This velocity provides a preferred direction within
>> the light-cone in space-time,
>
> Making it incompatible with the PoR.
>
>> which direction should show itself up in
>> suitable experiments.
>
> This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
> itself.
>
>> Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
>> requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.
>
> Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
> motion. As Einstein said.
>>
>> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
>> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
>> mechanics to the aether.
>
> QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.
>
> [snip bla bla bla]

[snip bla bla bla]!!!

I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
Go check out who that is on wikipedia.

Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:

"Is there an Aether?"

https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0

and here is Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf

I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.

Le 27/03/2024 à 22:34, Aether Regained a écrit :
> Volney:
>> On 3/25/2024 11:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder:> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, both historicaly and factualy.
>>>>
>>>>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Einstein (and Lorentz with him)
>>>> saw that the aether has no observable properties.
>>>> Lorentz had already seen that to order (v/c)^2,
>>>> and after Einstein 1905 he saw
>>>> that there are no observable effects of an aether to all orders of v/c.
>>
>> In the LET, the aether is undetectable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> Free space can propagate certain fields such as electromagnetism, with
>> associated constants such as ε₀ and μ₀. The old fashioned luminiferous
>> aether had mechanical properties to propagate light as if it were like
>> sound. Free space properties are not mechanical, and if you want, you
>> could call the ability to propagate electromagnetic fields an aether,
>> but this leads to confusion with the obsolete aether of the 1800s.
>> Einstein explicitly stated that aether had no mechanical properties, so
>> velocity relative to the aether is meaningless. "But this ether may not
>> be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable
>> media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The
>> idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
> Aether?", which is cited below too:
>
> The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
> that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in motion.
>
> Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
> ########################################
>
> In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
> was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
> electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
> 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
> the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
> It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
> with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
> was abandoned.
>
> Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
> arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
> one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
> finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
> reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
>
> Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
> the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
> region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
> matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
> relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
> directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
> According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
> must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
> velocity of light. This velocity provides a preferred direction within
> the light-cone in space-time, which direction should show itself up in
> suitable experiments. Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
> requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.
>
> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
> mechanics to the aether. The velocity of the aether, like other physical
> variables, is subject to uncertainty relations. For a particular
> physical state the velocity of the aether at a certain point of
> space-time will not usually be a well-defined quantity, but will be
> distributed over various possible values according to a probability law
> obtained by taking the square of the modulus of a wave function. We may
> set up a wave function which makes all values for the velocity of the
> aether equally probable. Such a wave function may well represent the
> perfect vacuum state in accordance with the principle of relativity.
>
> One gets an analogous problem by considering the hydrogen atom with
> neglect of the spins of the electron and proton. From the classical
> picture it would seem to be impossible for this atom to be in a state of
> spherical symmetry. We know experimentally that the hydrogen atom can be
> in a state of spherical symmetry—any spectroscopic S-state is such a
> state —and the quantum theory provides an explanation by allowing
> spherically symmetrical wave functions, each of which makes all
> directions for the line joining electron to proton equally probable.
>
> We thus see that the passage from the classical theory to the quantum
> theory makes drastic alterations in our ideas of symmetry. A thing which
> cannot be symmetrical in the classical model may very well be
> symmetrical after quantization. This provides a means of reconciling the
> disturbance of Lorentz symmetry in space-time produced by the existence
> of an aether with the principle of relativity.
>
> There is one respect in which the analogy of the hydrogen atom is
> imperfect. A state of spherical symmetry of the hydrogen atom is quite a
> proper state—the wave function representing it can be normalized. This
> is not so for the state of Lorentz symmetry of the aether.
>
> Let us assume the four components v_μ of the velocity of the aether at
> any point of space-time commute with one another. Then we can set up a
> representation with the wave functions involving the v's. The four v's
> can be pictured as defining a point on a three-dimensional hyperboloid
> in a four-dimensional space, with the equation :
>
> v₀²-v₁²-v₂²-v₃² = 1, v₀ > 0 (1) [LaTeX: v_0^2 - v_1^2 - v_2^2
> -
> v_3^2 = 1, v_0 > 0]
>
> A wave-function which represents a state for which all aether velocities
> are equally probable must be independent of the v's, so it is a constant
> over the hyperboloid (1). If we form the square of the modulus of this
> wave function and integrate over the three-dimensional surface (1) in a
> Lorentz-invariant manner, which means attaching equal weights to
> elements of the surface which can be transformed into one another by a
> Lorentz transformation, the result will be infinite. Thus this wave
> function cannot be normalized.
>
> The states corresponding to wave functions that can be normalized are
> the only states that can be attained in practice. A state corresponding
> to a wave function which cannot be normalized should be looked upon as a
> theoretical idealization, which can never be actually realized, although
> one can approach indefinitely close to it. Such idealized states are
> very useful in quantum theory, and we could not do without them. For
> example, any state for which there is a particle with a specified
> momentum is of this kind—the wave function cannot be normalized because
> from the uncertainty principle the particle would have to be distributed
> over the whole universe — and such states are needed in collision problems.
>
> We can now see that we may very well have an aether, subject to quantum
> mechanics and conforming to relativity, provided we are willing to
> consider the perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not attainable in
> practice. From the experimental point of view, there does not seem to be
> any objection to this. We must make some profound alterations in our
> theoretical ideas of the vacuum. It is no longer a trivial state, but
> needs elaborate mathematics for its description.
>
> I have recently (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]) put forward a
> new theory of electrodynamics in which the potentials A_μ, are
> restricted by :
>
> A_μA_μ= k², [LaTeX: A_{\mu} A_{\mu} = k^2]
>
> where k is a universal constant. From the continuity of A₀ we see that
> it must always have the same sign and we may take it positive. We can
> then put
>
> k⁻¹A_μ = v_μ (2) [LaTeX: k^{-1} A_{\mu} = v_{\mu}]
>
> and get v's satisfying (1). These v's define a velocity. Its physical
> significance in the theory is that if there is any electric charge it
> must flow with this velocity, and in regions where there is no charge it
> is the velocity with which a small charge would have to flow if it were
> introduced.
>
> We have now the velocity (2) at all points of space-time, playing a
> fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the
> velocity of some real physical thing. THUS WITH THE NEW THEORY OF
> ELECTRODYNAMICS WE ARE RATHER FORCED TO HAVE AN AETHER.
>
> (Proc. Roy. Soc., [A, 209, 291 (1951)]): Dirac, P. A. M. (1951). A New
> Classical Theory of Electrons. Proceedings of the Royal Society A:
> Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 209(1098), 291–296.
>
> https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1951.0204
>
> ########################################

On 03/26/2024 09:38 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/26/2024 07:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>>
>> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
>> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
>> an aether.
>>
>> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
>> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
>> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>>
>
>
>
> That's pretty involved.
>
> It's like, "magnetic monopoles:
> nowhere magnetic monopoles, or
> everywhere magnetic micropoles". -?
>
> It's like if there's vacuum energy and asymptotic freedom,
> is it Dirac's positronic sea, and Einstein's white-hole sea,
> and a magnetic micropole sea, fleeting forever?
>
> It's like, "is it really that particles never actually
> collide, only slingshot, or else they just absorb".
>
> It's like light and absorption, and light and transmission,
> is the classical model really two super-classical models?
>
> Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and three
> explanations don't make sense, yet there's diffraction,
> and wave-particle duality and definitely it's exhibited
> the wave nature of light, and that the only way that
> the impact of a wave as a particle can be stochastic
> is as if it's super-classically as of an _infinite_ frequency.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
>
>
> I'm still trying to figure out even "higher orders of acceleration".
>
> It's kind of like I read from Feynman about 3/4 through
> that podcast, "force is a classical limit", while at the
> same time it's a real gradient in a theory of sum potentials
> according to the sum of histories.
>
> Then though before that for a few episodes is "logic
> and meta-theory" and "foundations of theory", ...,
> some weakest form of metaphysics that still suffices
> to be strong platonism and not just empirical.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyWpZQny5cY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=26
>
>
> Another thing that's really involved is high-frequency
> vis-a-vis rays, of radiation, "all electromagnetic radiation",
> this has that light does not interact with electrical nor
> magnetic fields at all, it's not electromagnetic.
>
>
> Yeah, I know, two wrongs, ..., yet at some point "keeping
> things simple" has gotten too simple, and linearisations
> three different ways do not add up to round.
>
>
> Mostly it seems that physics does need some infinities,
> but only some kind of least infinities, about the continuous
> domains, then otherwise how the inner is as super as the
> outer, and these kinds of concept are just right outside
> the usual grasp of finitude, yet they're still required,
> and, especially, in-teg-ral, to the multiple and various:
> law(s) of large numbers.
>
>

It's pretty interesting the notion of "triple" or
"quadruple" vacuum, the "low" energy state
vis-a-vis the natural tendency of nothing in
cold, dark, deep space.

Figuring out that force itself is a classical limit,
and, particularly, a function of time, gets into
the dimensional analysis, pretty much all about
the rotational and linear, and the oscillating,
with respect to the rotational and centrifugal,
and "fictitious" forces or "pseudo" forces,
what are sums-of-potentials the classical limit.

A field theory of course has forces attached everywhere,
while the metric and norm dictate the geometry which
is essentially the space and frame together.

The Hall effect is bad enough, yet the fractional Hall effect,
and with regards to phase and diffraction, again speaks
to that the usual sorts of classical models have usual
sorts of super-classical complements the models,
all the lobes and such.

The Zeeman effect, or another sort of low energy
phenomenom that has ridiculous outliers in terms
of a stochastic interpretation, or here that it has a
non-quantum interpretation in the low-energy,
at least speaks to that there's a lot going on.

Then, whether adding "another" "classical" "inertial"
"field", or whether to add a "field" or add a "particle
system", or just whether to add space-frame and
frame-space semantics about everything, here is
basically that SR governs the light-like and GR governs
the inertial, and space-contraction has space-frames
and frame-spaces representing about the same thing
as frames and geometries, and electricity is rather kinetic,
then, that the "aether" isn't a thing for light which
always propagates at c, but, charged or ionized particles
are massy and are not light-like, even if "electromagnetic
radiation".

So it's sort of like a "four forces, four quantities, or
four fields" sort of idea, then that about the low-energy
and high-energy, and micro and macro, get into that
the dimensional analysis in the very small, in the dynamics,
results that rotating frames are independent.

.... Which _does_ have a mathematical model and a model
in a dimensional analysis corresponding in quantities,
to forces and fields, or particles and waves.

Aether Regained:> Volney:
>> On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>>
>>> @Volney, see my reply to Gary Harnagel citing Dirac's 1951 "Is there and
>>> Aether?", which is cited below too:
>>>
>>> The gist is that one can safely let go of this notion due to Einstein
>>> that the aether may not be conceived as having parts which are in
motion.
>>
>> Any "motion" of the purported aether doesn't show up anywhere. Even LET
>> while calling for an aether can use any speed you want for the aether
>> and it still works. Does that mean aether has all speeds simultaneously?
>>
>> Also motion of the aether violates the Principle of Relativity. The rest
>> frame of the aether is a special frame while the PoR states there are no
>> special frames.
>>
>> (In LET since the aether can have any speed, there is no special aether
>> rest frame)
>>>
>>> Dirac 1951: "Is there and Aether?"
>>> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>>> ########################################
>>>
>>> In the last century, the idea of a universal and all-pervading aether
>>> was popular as a foundation on which to build the theory of
>>> electromagnetic phenomena. The situation was profoundly influenced in
>>> 1905 by Einstein's discovery of the principle of relativity, leading to
>>> the requirement of a four-dimensional formulation of all natural laws.
>>> It was soon found that the existence of an aether could not be fitted in
>>> with relativity, and since relativity was well established, the aether
>>> was abandoned.
>>
>> It was not "soon found". Einstein stated his SR works wouldn't involve
>> any aether at the beginning of the 1905 paper. He didn't claim the
>> aether was false, just that he wasn't using it.
>>>
>>> Physical knowledge has advanced very much since 1905, notably by the
>>> arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation has again changed. If
>>> one re-examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one
>>> finds that the aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good
>>> reasons can now be advanced for postulating an aether.
>>
>> Quantum theories have no need for an aether, and are incompatible with
>> an aether.
>>>
>>> Let us consider in its simplest form the old argument for showing that
>>> the existence of an aether is incompatible with relativity. Take a
>>> region of space-time which is a perfect vacuum, that is, there is no
>>> matter in it and also no fields. According to the principle of
>>> relativity, this region must be isotropic in the Lorentz sense—all
>>> directions within the light-cone must be equivalent to one another.
>>> According to the ather hypothesis, at each point in the region there
>>> must be an aether, moving with some velocity, presumably less than the
>>> velocity of light.
>>
>> Relative to what? All motion is relative.
>>
>>> This velocity provides a preferred direction within
>>> the light-cone in space-time,
>>
>> Making it incompatible with the PoR.
>>
>>> which direction should show itself up in
>>> suitable experiments.
>>
>> This has been looked for, without success. The best example is the MMX
>> itself.
>>
>>> Thus we get a contradiction with the relativistic
>>> requirement that all directions within the light-cone are equivalent.
>>
>> Which rules out an aether, or at least an aether with the property of
>> motion. As Einstein said.
>>>
>>> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
>>> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
>>> mechanics to the aether.
>>
>> QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.
>>
>> [snip bla bla bla]
>
> [snip bla bla bla]!!!
>
> I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
> Go check out who that is on wikipedia.
>
> Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
> Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:
>
> "Is there an Aether?"
>
> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>
> and here is Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
>
> I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.
>

Rereading this, I realize that I was unnecessarily rude. But, in my
defense, I was more than a little put off by your response to P. A. M.
Dirac's "Is there an Aether?", like he was some run-of-the-mill crank.

Dirac was a man of few words, and when he did talk, people listened
carefully.

On 3/27/24 2:10 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
> [...] you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.

As I have said before: quoting ancient texts is RELIGION, not science.
You need to do science.

Tom Roberts

On 3/27/2024 12:38 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/26/2024 07:21 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>>
>> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
>> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
>> an aether.
>>
>> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
>> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
>> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>>
>
>
>
> That's pretty involved.
>
> It's like, "magnetic monopoles:
> nowhere magnetic monopoles, or
> everywhere magnetic micropoles". -?
>
> It's like if there's vacuum energy and asymptotic freedom,
> is it Dirac's positronic sea, and Einstein's white-hole sea,
> and a magnetic micropole sea, fleeting forever?
>
> It's like, "is it really that particles never actually
> collide, only slingshot, or else they just absorb".
>
> It's like light and absorption, and light and transmission,
> is the classical model really two super-classical models?
>
> Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and three
> explanations don't make sense, yet there's diffraction,
> and wave-particle duality and definitely it's exhibited
> the wave nature of light, and that the only way that
> the impact of a wave as a particle can be stochastic
> is as if it's super-classically as of an _infinite_ frequency.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-c4UcaBcA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=32
>
> I'm still trying to figure out even "higher orders of acceleration".
>
> It's kind of like I read from Feynman about 3/4 through
> that podcast, "force is a classical limit", while at the
> same time it's a real gradient in a theory of sum potentials
> according to the sum of histories.
>
> Then though before that for a few episodes is "logic
> and meta-theory" and "foundations of theory", ...,
> some weakest form of metaphysics that still suffices
> to be strong platonism and not just empirical.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyWpZQny5cY&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY&index=26
>
> Another thing that's really involved is high-frequency
> vis-a-vis rays, of radiation, "all electromagnetic radiation",
> this has that light does not interact with electrical nor
> magnetic fields at all, it's not electromagnetic.
>
>
> Yeah, I know, two wrongs, ..., yet at some point "keeping
> things simple" has gotten too simple, and linearisations
> three different ways do not add up to round.
>
>
> Mostly it seems that physics does need some infinities,
> but only some kind of least infinities, about the continuous
> domains,

"then otherwise how the inner is as super as the outer"

Are you the last of the true magicians? I think so.

and these kinds of concept are just right outside
> the usual grasp of finitude, yet they're still required,
> and, especially, in-teg-ral, to the multiple and various:
> law(s) of large numbers.
>
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.

> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.

> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.

> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.

> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the science.

Larry... how long will it take you to realize that folks here are stealing your lunch money every time you show up and make a tiny wave?

You are cannon fodder now and will always be cannon fodder in the future. You need to read a dang textbook and study for a few thousand hours before you can get into the adult pool and swim with the Big Boys...

Sorry, but you do not know what you do not know!

W dniu 29.03.2024 o 06:28, palsing pisze:
> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> It is the most ridiculous scientific mistake in history.
>
>> Einstein took the null result of MMX to disprove the ether.
>
>> The Lorentz Transformation would make it possible to keep the ether.
>
>> Einstein kept the LT and discarded the ether.
>
>> This shows Einstein's(and Jan's) utter lack of comprehension of the
>> science.
>
> Larry... how long will it take you to realize that folks here are
> stealing your lunch money every time you show up and make a tiny wave?
>
> You are cannon fodder now and will always be cannon fodder in the
> future. You need to read a dang textbook and study for a few thousand
> hours before you can get into the adult pool and swim with the Big Boys...
>
> Sorry, but you do not know what you do not know!

Come on, Al, stop making wise faces,
the mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent and you've got a proof for that,

> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> > There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
> > electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects
> > of an aether?
>
> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.

We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
the Planck scale, or perhaps not. Don't you think that field theories
are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
the seeds of their own limitations?

> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
> an aether.

First one must define what one means by an "aether." AR seems to accept
that it must not have any measurable elements, so I guess he just wants
to have a warm feeling about "waves" :-)

> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>
> Tom Roberts

Sure, models aren't reality just like maps are not the territory. QFT is
an excellent model (in its domain of applicability) and will probably give
way to a more inclusive model some day.

Will our ideas of what constitutes "a law of nature" change, too? Do you
believe that E = mc^2 is a law of nature? How about \gamma mc^2? How
about the invariance of c? Or the invariance of m, for that matter?

Gary

On 2024-03-29 13:48:03 +0000, gharnagel said:

>>
>> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the
>>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects of
>>> an aether?
>>
>> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>
> We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
> delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
> the Planck scale, or perhaps not. Don't you think that field theories
> are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
> the seeds of their own limitations?
>
>> As I keep saying: you have no hope of "regaining" an aether until you
>> explain how the many quantum effects in electrodynamics are explained by
>> an aether.
>
> First one must define what one means by an "aether." AR seems to accept
> that it must not have any measurable elements, so I guess he just wants
> to have a warm feeling about "waves" :-)
>
>> Quoting ancient texts to support your position is RELIGION, not science.
>> (Writings by Maxwell and Einstein are now ancient texts, because science
>> evolves MUCH faster than religion).
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Sure, models aren't reality just like maps are not the territory. QFT is
> an excellent model (in its domain of applicability) and will probably give
> way to a more inclusive model some day.
>
> Will our ideas of what constitutes "a law of nature" change, too? Do you
> believe that E = mc^2 is a law of nature? How about \gamma mc^2? How
> about the invariance of c? Or the invariance of m, for that matter?
>
> Gary

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

W dniu 29.03.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
>> On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> > There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >
>> electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects >
>> of an aether?
>>
>> They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
>
> We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
> delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
> the Planck scale, or perhaps not.  Don't you think that field theories
> are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
> the seeds of their own limitations?

You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
your wannabe gedanken delusions.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >
> > > electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable effects >
> > > of an aether?
> > >
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of aether.
> >
> > We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
> > delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
> > the Planck scale, or perhaps not.  Don't you think that field theories
> > are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
> > the seeds of their own limitations?
>
> You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
> your wannabe gedanken delusions.

Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works, in
spite of having his nose rubbed in it many, many times:

https://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf

"Important relativistic effects on GPS satellite clocks include gravitational
frequency shifts and time dilation. These effects are so large that if not
accounted for, the system would not be effective."

So weird Wozzie-boy chooses to ignore reality. Go figure!

https://www.academia.edu/61719525/Relativity_in_the_global_positioning_system

"there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would
need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the
satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact therate of the clock
in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the
synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate
necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it
was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5
parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity
predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12."

So the uncorrected clock confirmed GR and the synthesizer was turned on,
synchronizing the GPS with earth time. Wozzie-boy is either abysmally stupid
or he is a congenital liar. Not a good resume either way.

W dniu 29.03.2024 o 17:12, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 14:48, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > On 3/25/24 10:28 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> > >
>> > > There are no observable effects of an aether? What then are the >
>> > > electromagnetic and gravitational fields, if not observable
>> effects > > > of an aether?
>> > >
>> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > They are modeled as fields, completely unrelated to any sort of
>> aether.
>> >
>> > We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
>> > delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down to
>> > the Planck scale, or perhaps not.  Don't you think that field theories
>> > are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that may contain
>> > the seeds of their own limitations?
>>
>> You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
>> your wannabe gedanken delusions.
>
> Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works,

It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
halfbrain.

gharnagel wrote:

>> > We model reality with a system of mathematics based on calculus where
>> > delta_x approaches zero, whereas reality is granular - perhaps down
>> > to the Planck scale, or perhaps not.  Don't you think that field
>> > theories are an attempt to circumvent the granularity problem that
>> > may contain the seeds of their own limitations?
>>
>> You're not modelling reality, you're modelling your wannabe gedanken
>> delusions.
>
> Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works,
> in spite of having his nose rubbed in it many, many times:

not at all. He is correct here. You contradict yourself with granularity
admitting the continuum of space time exists. You don't know what you
admit. For instance, denying the "climate" is antisemitic and you lose
your job. I'm not making shit here.

𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗘_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗘:_𝗧𝗛𝗘_𝗖𝗢𝗟𝗗_𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛
https://b%69%74%63hute.com/video/octgUCiO2plf

where is amrica compared to China, which is communist?? They are fighting
Russia by lies, afraid of China.

𝗖𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗾𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮_𝗧𝗵𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁_𝗳𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰_𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆_𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮._𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆_𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗳𝗳
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/video/xh31DKqYJvTu

that's what happens having face-pig 𝙠𝙝𝙖𝙯𝙖𝙧_𝙜𝙤𝙮𝙨 robing your country. They
eat pork.

On 3/27/2024 3:10 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
> Volney:
>> On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:

>>> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
>>> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
>>> mechanics to the aether.
>>
>> QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.
>>
>> [snip bla bla bla]
>
> [snip bla bla bla]!!!
>
> I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
> Go check out who that is on wikipedia.
>
> Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
> Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:
>
> "Is there an Aether?"
>
> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>
> and here is Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
>
> I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.
>
I didn't see that that was Dirac. It sounded too kooky. Looking into
that, I see L. Infeld responded to Dirac's letter essentially stating an
aether was not necessarily required.

Dirac also didn't develop this concept into a theory. I don't know
whether he realized it may be false or was just unable to pursue the idea.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 17:12, gharnagel pisze:
>
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
> > > your wannabe gedanken delusions.
> >
> > Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS works,
>
> It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
> halfbrain.

Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works so he could tell
fables about it again. In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks"
ONLY on the earth. They're not good clocks aboard or on Mars or anywhere
else. Wozzie-boy isn't a halfbrain: he's a nobrain.

Volney wrote:
>
> I didn't see that that was Dirac. It sounded too kooky. Looking into
> that, I see L. Infeld responded to Dirac's letter essentially stating an
> aether was not necessarily required.

> Dirac also didn't develop this concept into a theory. I don't know
> whether he realized it may be false or was just unable to pursue the idea.

In Q.E.D., Feynman got around the ether problem by emphasizing that the
photon is a particle. All particles have wave/particle duality. Electrons
are fairly-well localized particles, yet they exhibit wave behavior, too,
as do neutrons and protons. So they're all particles and don't need no
stinking ether.

dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> W dniu 29.03.2024 o 17:12, gharnagel pisze:
>>
>> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You're not modelling reality, you're modelling
>> > > your wannabe gedanken delusions.
>> > > Says the ignorant Wozzie-boy who doesn't understand how the GPS
>> works,
>>
>> It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
>> halfbrain.
>
> Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works

The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
significant.

> fables about it again.  In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks"
> ONLY on the earth.

Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd
opinion of you and your fellow idiots.
And found them good ebough for the satellites.
What a pity, isn't it?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
> > > halfbrain.
> >
> > Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
>
> The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
> significant.

Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

> > In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY
> > on the earth.
>
> Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
> and your fellow idiots.

And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again. The GPS staff
had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

> And found them good ebough for the satellites.

Well, not on board the satellites. They were no longer "good"
clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

> What a pity, isn't it?

It's a pity for the nonexistent denizen and the no-brained
Wozzie-boy. Everyone else is just fine.

W dniu 30.03.2024 o 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>
>>   dniu 30.03.2024 o 18:28, gharnagel pisze:
>> >
>> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > > > > It works the way that it has real clocks, poor
>> > > halfbrain.
>> > > Wozzie-boy deleted the explanation of how the GPS works
>> The impudent lies of your fellow idiots are not
>> significant.
>
> Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
> everyone is just as dishonest as he is.

You said that GPS clocks are not real.
Because they can't fit the "reality"
of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

>
>> > In fact, the clocks on the birds are "good clocks" ONLY
>> > on the earth.
>> Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
>> and your fellow idiots.
>
> And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.  The GPS staff
> had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
> in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?

> Well, not on board the satellites.  They were no longer "good"
> clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

But, somehow, they are "good" for the non-hypothetical
computers aboard the satellite. So, take your delusional
"hypothetical denizens" and put them straight into your
dumb, lying ass, where they belong. You've fabricated
them. Simply.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> W dniu 30.03.2024 o 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
> > everyone is just as dishonest as he is.
>
> You said that GPS clocks are not real.
> Because they can't fit the "reality"
> of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
> if that's not a lie - what a lie is?

Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
AND the ground clocks. The satellite clocks must be corrected
twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.
And that proves that Wozzie-boy is a liar since the bird clocks
don't exactly track the ground clocks.

> > > Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
> > > and your fellow idiots.
> >
> > And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.  The GPS staff
> > had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
> > in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.

> Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
> when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
> work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?

More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy. Stupid no-brain
tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.

> > Well, not on board the satellites.  They were no longer "good"
> > clocks to a hypothetical denizen aboard the satellite.

> But, somehow, they are "good" for the non-hypothetical
> computers aboard the satellite.

Another desperate lie. "Computers" onboard arent the clocks onboard.

> So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
> straight into your dumb, lying ass, where they belong.

They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy. You're
a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity. Your
disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
assault to honesty and intelligence.

On 03/30/2024 08:45 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 3:10 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
>> Volney:
>>> On 3/27/2024 8:36 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>
>>>> This argument is unassailable from the 1905 point of view, but at the
>>>> present time it needs modification, because we have to apply quantum
>>>> mechanics to the aether.
>>>
>>> QM has no need for an aether and is incompatible with one.
>>>
>>> [snip bla bla bla]
>>
>> [snip bla bla bla]!!!
>>
>> I wonder whether you realize that you are responding to P. A. M. Dirac.
>> Go check out who that is on wikipedia.
>>
>> Everything within the line of hashes ### is a full reproduction of
>> Dirac's 1951 Note/Letter to the Nature Journal, titled:
>>
>> "Is there an Aether?"
>>
>> https://doi.org/10.1038/168906a0
>>
>> and here is Schrödinger's commentary on Dirac's aether electrodynamics.
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/169538a0.pdf
>>
>> I hope you don't need an introduction to who Schrödinger is.
>>
> I didn't see that that was Dirac. It sounded too kooky. Looking into
> that, I see L. Infeld responded to Dirac's letter essentially stating an
> aether was not necessarily required.
>
> Dirac also didn't develop this concept into a theory. I don't know
> whether he realized it may be false or was just unable to pursue the idea.

There was a really good video of Dirac in Italy,
explaining some things.

He said that most physicists were followers and that
it would take someone very brave to reconcile with
de Broglie and company the particle/wave duality.

It was discussed here on sci.math, you can probably find
it from searching sci.physics.relativity for my posts
and looking for "Dirac" and "de Broglie".

I went to review it and noticed it had been removed.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

W dniu 31.03.2024 o 04:19, gharnagel pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
>> W dniu 30.03.2024 o 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
>> > > Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
>> > everyone is just as dishonest as he is.
>>
>> You said that GPS clocks are not real.
>> Because they can't fit the "reality"
>> of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
>> if that's not a lie - what a lie is?
>
> Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.

Google still keeps the record (I guess),
poor halfbrain trash.

> The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
> AND the ground clocks.  The satellite clocks must be corrected
> twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.

And because GPS staff is pissing at your
moronic religion demanding us to leave
the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
for the ethernal glory of the madness of
your idiot guru.
Well, common sense was warning the idiot.

>> > > Somehow, GPS staff didn't share the absurd opinion of you
>> > > and your fellow idiots.
>> > > And Disturbed Wozzie-boy prevaricates again.  The GPS staff
>> > had to switch on the synthesizer to bring the on-board clocks
>> > in synchronism with the earthbound clocks.
>
>> Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
>> when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
>> work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?
>
> More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy.  Stupid no-brain
> tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.

Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
religion will still be ignored by professionals
and their clocks. And your fabricated
"hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
your madness - are no way any balance
for that.

>> So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
>> straight into your dumb,  lying ass,  where they belong.
>
> They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy.  You're
> a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity.  Your
> disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
> assault to honesty and intelligence.

Rave and spit, poor halfbrain trash, your
religion will still be ignored by professionals
and their clocks. And your fabricated
"hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
your madness - are no way any balance
for that.

Maciej Wozniak prevaricated:
>
> W dniu 31.03.2024 o 04:19, gharnagel pisze:
> >
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu 30.03.2024 o 20:36, gharnagel pisze:
> > > >
> > > > Wozzie-boy calls everyone else a liar because he believes
> > > > everyone is just as dishonest as he is.
> > >
> > > You said that GPS clocks are not real.
> > > Because they can't fit the "reality"
> > > of your idiot guru prophecies. Well,
> > > if that's not a lie - what a lie is?
> >
> > Everything that Wozzie-boy asserts is a lie.
>
> Google still keeps the record (I guess),
> poor halfbrain trash.

Google doesn't do anything anymore, no-brain.

> > The truth is that "GPS clocks" include the satellite clocks
> > AND the ground clocks.  The satellite clocks must be corrected
> > twice a day because the orbits vary from ideal conditions.

> And because GPS staff is pissing at your
> moronic religion demanding us to leave
> the clocks uncorrected and desynchronizing -
> for the ethernal glory of the madness of
> your idiot guru.
> Well, common sense was warning the idiot.

Actually, the GPS staff and Neil Ashby prove that no-brain Wozzie-
boy is a lying weasel.

> > > Somehow your mad assertions that it's good
> > > when the clocks are not synchronized - didn't
> > > work on them. Right, poor halfbrain?
> >
> > More desperate lying by no-brain Wozzie-boy.  Stupid no-brain
> > tries to conflate clocks onboard with ground clocks.
>
> Rave and spit,

My "raving and spitting" was rebranded from stupid, no-brain
Wozzie-boy's posts. So he has hoisted himself on his own petard.

> poor halfbrain trash,

Half a brain is better than no brain.

> your religion will still be ignored by professionals and their
> clocks.

Pot, kettle, black :-))

> And your fabricated "hypothetical denizens" applying and praising
> your madness - are no way any balance for that.

Mad no-brain Wozzie-boy raves and spits :-))

> > > So, take your delusional "hypothetical denizens" and put them
> > > straight into your dumb,  lying ass,  where they belong.
> >
> > They belong in your dumb lying ass, no-brain lying Wozzie-boy.  You're
> > a disgrace to the Polish people as well as all of humanity.  Your
> > disgusting career of vicious lies and desperate fabrications are an
> > assault to honesty and intelligence.
>
> Rave and spit,

Just rebranding Demented Wozzie-boy's own raving and spitting. Adding
some honest appraisal of a demented charlatan who hasn't bothered to look
himself in the mirror and asked, "Have I done any good?"

https://hymnary.org/text/have_i_done_any_good_in_the_world_today

> poor halfbrain trash,

Wozzie-boy's brain has been starving for honest work for decades. It
has shrunk to the size of an atom from disuse.

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your
hat off.” ― Kurt Vonnegut

> [Repetitious lies deleted for sanitary reasons]

Mad Wozzie-boy has nothing of value to contribute to any valid discussion.
All he does is spit and rave, then blames others for what he does. He will
go down in flames if he doesn't change his ways.

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their
part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second
death." -- Revelations 21:8

“When men are full of envy they disparage everything, whether it be
good or bad.” ― Tacitus

Goodbye, Wozzie-boy. Happy Easter