Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz <bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1173102832.025976.16980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Mar 4, 9:45 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JohnKennaugh<J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:$IJdqYPTnc4FFwJe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
<snip>
Thus the medium involved,
which became known as the ether, was required to exhibit physical
properties which differed from moment to moment, according to whether
the field it was supporting was static or in motion. This gave rise
to much trouble.
It sure did. MMX killed that aether, dead.
Unless, of course, the Earth has its own ether system which is Earth-
centered. In that case, the MMX results would be expected.
Dragged aether's are a drag. How does the aether my planet drags with it
interact (avoid interacting) with the aether that your space ship drags
with it?
You can propose that aethers do not interact with each other and be
consistent with experimental data, but why carry a crutch around when it is
no longer needed?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: vern
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- References:
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: vern
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Prev by Date: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Next by Date: Re: Deriving space-time interval
- Previous by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Next by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading