https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
>
> https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html

"Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> accounted for."

But starlight aberration refutes it.

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 6:57:11 AM UTC-7, Alan B wrote:
> https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html

Meh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> >
> > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
>
> "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > accounted for."
>
> But starlight aberration refutes it.

https://groups.google.com/g/npachat/c/eg8-bTVkLd8/m/plMkM9SnpmoJ

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> >
> > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
>
> "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > accounted for."
>
> But starlight aberration refutes it.

The current correct link to the stephenkinsella.com page is now at https://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/texts/beckmann_einstein-dissident-physics-material.pdf

On 9/22/23 11:21 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
>> https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
>
> "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
>> accounted for."
>
> But starlight aberration refutes it.

As do all quantum optics experiments.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> >
> > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
>
> "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > accounted for."
>
> But starlight aberration refutes it.

Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
arriving to the telescope at an angle.
Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:07:35 AM UTC-6, Lou wrote:
>
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> > >
> > > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
> >
> > "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> > earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > accounted for."
> >
> > But starlight aberration refutes it.
>
> Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
> do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
> the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
> arriving to the telescope at an angle.
> Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.

Notice that LLR experiments refute emission theory, as does de Sitter's
double star light (X-rays for experimental confirmation).

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> >
> > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
>
> "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > accounted for."
>
> But starlight aberration refutes it.

James Marsen said in a different google group:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recommend Prof. Petr Beckmann’s explanation of stellar aberration in section 1.3 of his book “Einstein Plus Two”.

He derives the change of the direction of the wave fronts of EM radiation from a star occurs at the outer boundary of the local-ether halo that envelops a celestial body.

 For the Earth, the radius of the halo’s outer boundary is roughly 1,000,000 km where the gravitational influence of the Sun becomes dominant.

This, of course, makes moot any questions about whether the aberration occurs within a telescope.

Also, Prof. Beckmann quantitatively derives the general formula for the aberration for two transparent, non-refractive “blobs” where one is smaller than the other and is entrained within it.  Aberration occurs at the outer boundary of the entrained blob as it moves within the larger one.  See his short article in Volume 1, page 33 of a journal called “Galilean Electrodynamics” (GED): “Entrainment by Non-Refractive Media”:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14D8qs_mH4cDI0yMa9Qyz4qSt16b5Y8a8/

I also recommend Prof. Howard Hayden’s article on stellar aberration in Volume 4, pages 89-92 of GED. He shows that Einstein’s explanation for stellar aberration based on Special Relativity leads to wildly incorrect predictions of the aberration of many binary star systems. See article titled: "Stellar Aberration":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dLjvdUyqlqVi4GfqGjJhd78lTtba2Pl0/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday 24 September 2023 at 05:09:39 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Notice that LLR experiments refute emission theory, as does de Sitter's
> double star light (X-rays for experimental confirmation).

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:07:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> > >
> > > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
> >
> > "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> > earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > > accounted for."
> >
> > But starlight aberration refutes it.
> Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
> do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
> the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
> arriving to the telescope at an angle.
> Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.
Yes, fortunately the MMX disproved the ether and entrained ether is a grasping at straws.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:02:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:07:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> > > >
> > > > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
> > >
> > > "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> > > earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > > > accounted for."
> > >
> > > But starlight aberration refutes it.
> > Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
> > do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
> > the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
> > arriving to the telescope at an angle.
> > Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.
> Yes, fortunately the MMX disproved the ether and entrained ether is a grasping at straws.

You mean Lense-Thirring and frame-dragging?

Drift was, sort of measured, ....

It's not unreasonable to keep at least some measure of identity separation
from such public forae as these.

Ether theories are passe, but, drift was sort of measured, and
sometimes people talk up "aether theories" or what.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:21:06 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:02:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:07:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
> > > >
> > > > "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> > > > earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > > > > accounted for."
> > > >
> > > > But starlight aberration refutes it.
> > > Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
> > > do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
> > > the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
> > > arriving to the telescope at an angle.
> > > Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.
> > Yes, fortunately the MMX disproved the ether and entrained ether is a grasping at straws.
> You mean Lense-Thirring and frame-dragging?
>
> Drift was, sort of measured, ....
>
>
> It's not unreasonable to keep at least some measure of identity separation
> from such public forae as these.
>
> Ether theories are passe, but, drift was sort of measured, and
> sometimes people talk up "aether theories" or what.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1915027116

It seems Fresnel's aether drag is sort of like my "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory,
where the light speed goes each way light speed locally, as the frame leaves it
at "light speed", though the way I've phrased mine it sorts of sits alright with
"Special Relativity".

I.e. with "Light Speed Rest Frame Theory" as an abstraction, one can sort of put
together Special Relativity, Einstein's, and, something like "Aether Drag", Fresnel's.

I.e. it doesn't violate the L principle or light speed's constancy, but lets motion of objects
leave the light they emit.

It's a pretty simple addition to help refurbish the avenues of theory that were
left behind, where they have value for their insights and indeed experimentally
and empirically.

It's like a lot of things back to Zeno's principle or paradox:
does it even move at all?

Aren't otherwise objects, "stuck in their picture"?
While of course that the L principle is profound and
quite thoroughly not invalidated.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:32:17 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:21:06 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 8:02:40 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:07:35 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:21:44 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:57:11 AM UTC-6, Alan B wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://epjc.epj.org/articles/epjc/abs/2001/14/epjc0759/epjc0759.html
> > > > >
> > > > > "Based on this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide variety of
> > > > > earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar propagation phenomena are
> > > > > > accounted for."
> > > > >
> > > > > But starlight aberration refutes it.
> > > > Fortunately MMX proved that classical emission models of emr
> > > > do not need an aether. In which case one calculates aberration in
> > > > the observer frame for a classical model where light is already
> > > > arriving to the telescope at an angle.
> > > > Notice that SR also uses this method to explain aberration.
> > > Yes, fortunately the MMX disproved the ether and entrained ether is a grasping at straws.
> > You mean Lense-Thirring and frame-dragging?
> >
> > Drift was, sort of measured, ....
> >
> >
> > It's not unreasonable to keep at least some measure of identity separation
> > from such public forae as these.
> >
> > Ether theories are passe, but, drift was sort of measured, and
> > sometimes people talk up "aether theories" or what.
> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1915027116
>
> It seems Fresnel's aether drag is sort of like my "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory,
> where the light speed goes each way light speed locally, as the frame leaves it
> at "light speed", though the way I've phrased mine it sorts of sits alright with
> "Special Relativity".
>
> I.e. with "Light Speed Rest Frame Theory" as an abstraction, one can sort of put
> together Special Relativity, Einstein's, and, something like "Aether Drag", Fresnel's.
>
> I.e. it doesn't violate the L principle or light speed's constancy, but lets motion of objects
> leave the light they emit.
>
> It's a pretty simple addition to help refurbish the avenues of theory that were
> left behind, where they have value for their insights and indeed experimentally
> and empirically.
>
>
> It's like a lot of things back to Zeno's principle or paradox:
> does it even move at all?
>
> Aren't otherwise objects, "stuck in their picture"?
> While of course that the L principle is profound and
> quite thoroughly not invalidated.

Fresnel and Fatio and FitzGerald were each pretty great thinkers.

Fresnel particularly, with Fizeau as sort of "Fresnel's echo",
Fresnel on optics is pretty great.

Then, concepts, or principles, like this "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory,
or "Rest Exchange Momentum Theory", for that "Relativity of Simultaneity
is extra-local" or "Einstein's bridges really refer to the connection of
the linear and angular and as of about the pseudo-momentum" or
Einstein's big point about his attack on Newton and for Newton the
Zero-eth Laws, help keep things simple while not discarding things also
including things, for a fall gravity as a quantum gravity, but a continuous
gravity, neatly in the middle of things.

.... And putting GR back in front of SR not the other, wrong, way around.

It's a continuum mechanics, ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgreCqD2gqo&t=976