Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Feb 2007 00:14:50 -0800
On Feb 11, 10:41 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:20:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:vrKpSAIwBOzFFwxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
so
you can forget the aether.
If the theory doesn't NEED an aether in order to develop math that is
consistent with ALL data, then we don't need an aether either.
What does it add to 'the state of the art' to use a term that has 'baggage
from history' especially when that baggage is wrong?
Better to make up a new term and make sure that the properties of that term
are carefully defined. Better still is to avoid any term unless one is
needed.
By that same argument you wouldn't bother to
look for a cause or physical process because you can do the maths
without it.
If we can explain all data without recourse to an aether, than we don't
need an aether AND we avoid having to explain WHY that aether doesn't
behave as 'an aether SHOULD behave'.
ON the other hand, IF any data REQUIRES an aether, then we must use it AND
explain why it behaves as it does.
Show me such data.
The second postulate of relativity requires an aether.
Run my animation:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
Hypocritical and stupid Ralph Rabbidge dismisses SR 'because it
requires an aether' while hosting his own theory about the 'h-aether'.
.
- References:
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: John Kennaugh
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Prev by Date: Re: LIGO.
- Next by Date: Re: relativity: what if you can measure how far the light traveled?
- Previous by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Next by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
