Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 5 Mar 2007 09:29:30 -0800
On Mar 5, 9:13 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote innews:1173102832.025976.16980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
<snip>
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?
So your implied answer is "Yes," an ether system which is Earth-
centered would explain the MMX results. Whether such a system is
ruled out by observation is a different matter.
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?
Not different ethers, just different flows of the same ether. There's
no reason to think that ether interacts with itself in the absence of
matter.
Why think of it as a crutch? It solves the problem John points out;
an ether is assumed in SR as there is no other rational, logical basis
for the second postulate. On the other hand, if you don't mind
throwing rationality and logic out the window, then ... .
Vern
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: shuba
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- From: Androcles
- 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
- From: bz
- Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Prev by Date: Barney and Fred flintstone
- Next by Date: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Previous by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Next by thread: Re: SR theory is simplistic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading