About light speed and ether

  • 76 Replies
  • 25259 Views
About light speed and ether
« on: June 17, 2010, 01:29:57 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2010, 01:49:59 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2010, 04:46:28 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2010, 04:49:04 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning
No problem, didn't mean to make you apologize or anything, I'm just not sure what you are asking.  I'd love to help you out though.  I'm about ot eat breakfast over the world cup, but afterwords I'll dig up a few sources for you to read. 
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Lorddave

  • 16036
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2010, 04:53:16 AM »
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • feck arse drink
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2010, 05:00:28 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
A little something for you to think about.

As an absolute vacuum, to date, has not been observed. Any value for c is only an estimate as it has never been measured. The speed of light has been observed at around 40 mph (in supercooled sodium. Also at 0 mph in Bose Einstein condensate.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2010, 05:21:43 AM »
There are also theories involving Variable Speed of Light that are worth a read.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16569
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2010, 05:40:11 AM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning
No problem, didn't mean to make you apologize or anything, I'm just not sure what you are asking.  I'd love to help you out though.  I'm about ot eat breakfast over the world cup, but afterwords I'll dig up a few sources for you to read. 

Actually to be honest, to start off, the best place to go is wikipedia.  From there if you have questions I can direct to an appropriate article.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2010, 08:13:53 PM »
Actually, at least what it says on wikipedia, the constant speed of light was tied into the nonexistence of aether, as it had no medium.

Question. what exactly makes it slow down in other things? the physical bumps as it hits the molecules? and in the modern understanding of light, is the photon actually moving in a wave motion?

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2010, 11:29:51 AM »
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.
A better analogy would be bouncing off of pins in a Pachinko game. When moving through matter a photon will hit an atom, raise the energy level of an electron, get re-emitted, an repeat until it exits the material or is permanently absorbed.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2010, 12:40:29 PM »
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.

It's actually due to the light be absorbed and emitted if I remember correctly.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2010, 05:32:13 PM »
Isnt that what I just said? lol
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2010, 02:25:19 AM »
Isnt that what I just said? lol

apparently the light feels like it gets there instantly but to everyone else it takes time.  ???

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2010, 06:17:43 AM »
That would imply that the photon leaving a pane of glass is the same photon that entered it.  Its not.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2010, 02:53:43 PM »
Isnt that what I just said? lol

I didn't scroll to the bottom before posting. My bad.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2010, 06:08:54 PM »
LOL, No Biggie.  I do sometimes write rather disjointed. Thought maybe it was me.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2010, 06:35:28 PM »
the explanation that it is the absorption and emitting of the photon that makes it appear that the light is slowing down confuses me. more to the point why that causes the light to bend when it goes into a medium but go semi straight through the medium. it seems like the photon should be emitted randomly. or if it is emitted so it keeps going in a semi straight line then why does it bend when it first enters the substance?   and it seems like it should only slow down certain light. since some light would not have a matching energy level of an electron levels of the substance so it would not be absorbed. not sure how coherent that was. if that made no sense i apologize.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 06:19:23 AM by optimisticcynic »
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2010, 10:50:08 PM »
It confuses me still, and I have read the Feynman Lectures on the subject, so I could be completely wrong. Here is some more info though.

Reference: F. A. Jenkins, H. E. White, Fundamentals of Optics
McGraw-Hill, NY, 1950

Your question is a good one for the answer is at the heart of modern
physics and engineering. No material is transparent or opaque throughout
the electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes can only sense a small portion of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
Other forms of electromagnetic radiation include radio waves, microwaves,
infrared radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays. All of these,
known collectively as the electromagnetic spectrum, are fundamentally
similar in that they move at 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light
through a vacuum. The only difference between them is their wavelength,
which is directly related to the amount of energy the waves carry (photon
energy). The shorter the wavelength of the radiation, the higher the energy.

The rainbow of colors we know as visible light is the portion of the
electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths between 400 and 700 billionths
of a meter (400 to 700 nanometers). It is the part of the electromagnetic
spectrum that we see, and we are fortunate that this coincides with the
wavelength of greatest intensity of sunlight and lowest atmospheric absorption.
Visible waves have great utility for the remote
sensing of objects and for the identification of different
objects by their visible colors. If our eyes used longer infrared wavelengths,
we would live in a dense fog all of the time because of the absorption of infrared light
by water vapor molecules in the air. As for your example, a diamond is
transparent at visible wavelengths and it is opaque in the infrared part
of the spectrum. Tissue paper can absorb or scatter light at visible wavelengths
and it is transparent to microwaves and radio waves.

When photons of electromagnetic radiation pass through a substance the
energy can be transmitted, it can be scattered or the energy can be
absorbed as heat. As the photons encounter atoms, or molecules
composed of bonded atoms, they temporarily raise the electrons of
these particles to a higher energy state (quantum level). Depending on
the physical properties of these atoms or molecules, and their physical
spacing, the electrons can reradiate an identical energy photon (the
same wavelength) in the same direction as the incident photon was
traveling. However, in this process there is a slight delay in the
transmission by each atom or molecule. This delay appears to slow down
the speed of light passing through the material and we call this the
index of refraction of the material.

The atoms or molecules could reradiate the delayed
energy in directions other than the direction of travel of the original
photons. We call this scattering. In very special materials the
reradiated photons can be changed in wavelength (color) and we call
this a nonlinear material.

Finally the atoms or molecules can
absorb the energy of the photon and convert it to heat. We call this
absorption. In most materials transmission, scattering and absorption
all occur at the same time only, dependent on the wavelength, with
different relative amounts of energy in each.
Not only do transparent materials have an index of refraction, this
index can change with wavelength (photon energy). In the visible part
of the spectrum we call this chromatic aberration which we observe in
camera and telescope lenses and prisms. However, in the general case
we call this delay dispersion. Material dispersion can change over
very great values at some places in the electromagnetic spectrum.
A resonant absorption and possible reradiation can also occur at a
very specific wavelengths and each element in the periodic table of
elements has a particular set of resonant absorption wavelengths
throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. We can use these dark
bands in the spectrum to identify the specific elements and molecules
over astronomical distances. We can also use resonant reradiation to
create lasers and atomic clocks. However, in general absorption can
occur of large portions of the spectrum.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2010, 09:52:58 AM »
I award that the most helpful copy pasta of the day.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2010, 12:06:48 PM »
Yeah, I didnt feel like reinventing the wheel on that question.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2010, 12:55:05 PM »
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2010, 03:19:22 PM »
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
You know, there is this thing called google.  I find it very useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2010, 04:34:31 PM »
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
You know, there is this thing called google.  I find it very useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

sorry refraction. all the reason I found for refraction deal with the fact light speed changes in a medium.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2010, 05:14:49 PM »
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o

OK for the OP, that isn't terminal velocity, that is inertial velocity. nothing is there to make it go faster, nothing is there to make it go slower. i.e. no resistance here

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2010, 09:18:28 AM »
Nikola Tesla:

You are wrong, Mr. Einstein - ether does exist!

They say much about the Einstein's theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether's opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson - Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth's movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn't mean the ether's non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.

What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether's properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether's existence.

A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.

Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson - Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.

Einstein's assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let's consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It's correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether's substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.

I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!
« Last Edit: June 22, 2010, 09:20:11 AM by levee »

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2010, 10:14:30 AM »
Except that ball lightning has never been proven to exist, nor really created artificially. And even if it were, comparing an atmospheric phenomena, where the properties of the gasses in the air would have a far greater effect than any "ether", to the propegation of light through some undiscovered medium is a bit of a non sequitur.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2010, 02:40:30 AM »
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.


British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=A_AFl6e1a5cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+stenhoff+ball+lightning&source=bl&ots=wSqiUDORSG&sig=DcNmITdJIatF4tBTH0gebD48qGo&hl=ro&ei=XCUjTP-fBdWTONXP-ekE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)


U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html


 Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

    I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

See also: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg999066#msg999066


Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."
« Last Edit: June 24, 2010, 02:42:29 AM by levee »

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2010, 04:04:26 AM »
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.


British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=A_AFl6e1a5cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+stenhoff+ball+lightning&source=bl&ots=wSqiUDORSG&sig=DcNmITdJIatF4tBTH0gebD48qGo&hl=ro&ei=XCUjTP-fBdWTONXP-ekE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)


U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html


 Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

    I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

See also: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg999066#msg999066


Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."


I'm sorry, but you must lrn2gravity water doesn't stick, it goes where the forces make it

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2010, 04:29:07 AM »
The same comments apply to you voice...no research at all...you are blindly accepting anything offerred on a scientific plate...use your intelligence please...

For those who do not know these facts, I. Newton believed from the very start of his research in TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, responsible for terrestrial gravity and for the movement of the planets/stars.

Let us go back to the very source:

It is astonishing to find out that "at the outset of his 'Principia,' Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word 'attraction' with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his 'Principia' (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, 'Scholium'), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses. In section XI. (Introduction) he expresses the opinion that 'there is some subtle spirit by the force and action of which all movements of matter are determined'

It is obvious that he left it to the stupidity of the public and also to his fellow occult scientists from the London Royal Society (who quietly spread this notion for decades after 1760; now we know that Newton actually lived some 50 years later than what is presented in the conventional chronology) to infer or to construct an attractional gravitation concept, which, as we have seen, is absolutely impossible.

Now, the quotes from Newton himself, specifying clearly the notion of rotational/circulating aether gravitational force responsible for the orbits of the planets/stars:

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

And the fact that Newton thought that terrestrial gravity was A PUSHING/PRESSURE KIND OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, and not at all an attractive gravitational concept:

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'. His student notes showed him mulling over the design of a perpetual-motion engine to harness the downward flow of the gravity-ether.

Newton, February 1679: from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would endeavour to move downwards.

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


Let us take a look at the fact that there is no attractive gravity...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

Without attractive gravity, round earth theory falls flat on its nose...

By repeating the actual propaganda, the round earth supporters show the unbelievable level of their scientific ignorance; NEWTON NEVER MENTIONED ANY KIND OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE CONCEPT, on the contrary...

Re: About light speed and ether
« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2010, 06:03:55 AM »
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.


British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=A_AFl6e1a5cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+stenhoff+ball+lightning&source=bl&ots=wSqiUDORSG&sig=DcNmITdJIatF4tBTH0gebD48qGo&hl=ro&ei=XCUjTP-fBdWTONXP-ekE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)


U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html


 Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

    I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

See also: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg999066#msg999066


Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."


he sounds like a bit of an eccentric  :P