Re: A little challenge for relativists.

shevek wrote: 
One could certainly define "ether" to mean whatever one likes and apply
it to almost anything, but what's the point?  In particular these
theories apply to different positions in space and time.  In so far as
space and time can be equated with an ether, these are ether theories.

To apply "ether" to SR or GR is to completely change the meaning of the word. As you say, "what's the point?"


Lorentz died in 192X -- where is LET today?
    (nowhere, except in the delusions of a handful of idiots
     around here)

But.. you just defended LET above (called it viable), and you write
quite eloquenly on the subject in this forum. How is that in the
delusions of a handful of idiots?

I do not "defend" LET, I _explain_ it. As many of my writings have shown, it is not useful, and its foundations are seriously flawed. SR is experimentally indistinguishable from LET and does not share its theoretical flaws.

LET is indeed, _nowhere_. I know this because I have studied it.


Tom Roberts	tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages