Re: Einstein and the Ether, Reciprocating Space-Time and Transverse Waves

stephen_at_nomail.com
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: 25 Jul 2004 04:28:27 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:

: "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
: news:slrncg0449.cg0.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
:> Harry:
: SNIP

:> >Bilge, the points were that - due to too heavy snipping - Uncle All lost
:> >track and he even advertised rubbish.
:> >BTW, I don't care much if it is called vacuum or ether.
:>
:> Well herald, I do care, since I have to know what someone means.
:> If you choose to refer to the vacuum as the ether, then you can no
:> longer argue that the ether is a medium at absolute rest which
:> serves the purpose for which you've previously used the concept of
:> an ``ether''. I personally have no objection to you labelling the
:> vacuum in any way you want, if that's what turns you on. I do object
:> to the use of semantics to try and equate two incompatible concepts,
:> however.

: Bilge, you caught my attention as you are the first one who makes the claim
: to me that "vacuum" is incompatible with "ether" - especially as "ether" is
: often used for (physical) "space", and so is "vacuum". Please elaborate on
: it, thanks!

Ether is usually used to mean some medium composed of particles
with mechanical properties that exist in space. Claiming that
ether is space seems to invalidate the whole mechanical explanation
the ether is supposed to provide.

Stephen

Relevant Pages