Re: Why the speed of light is constant

"Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F1cNj.8461$V14.5797@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Paul Mays wrote:
| > --
| > Paul R. Mays
| > "I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
| > I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
|
| Convention places the sig at the bottom.
|
| > "Bryan Olson" wrote:
| >> Paul Mays wrote:
| >> [...]
| >>> the above explans why an Aether (Quantum State) has no drag and is not
| >>> directlly detectable while maintaining all existing physical intact.
|
| >> Just like all non-existent things.
| >
| > Note.. Directlly Detectable... Does not imply Non-existant.
|
| But wait, there's less: "maintaining all existing physical intact."
|
| > Its absolutelly Indirectly Detectable and is why so many,
| > including Einstine, Maxwell and many others have addressed it.
|
| Where specific theories posited a detectable either, it turned
| out not to be detected. Current etherists typically just say it
| *has to* be there. They cannot experimentally distinguish light
| moving through their beloved either from light moving through
| empty space.
|
| > Because some cannot understand a concept does not mean
| > the concept is incorrect.
|
| The scientific theory of an either turned out to be incorrect.
| Current stories of the either tend to avoid saying anything
| specific enough that they could possibly be incorrect.
|


One of your better posts, son of Ol. Quite amusing, in fact.
You have my applause.

Aether the distinction between an either and space vacant is
a subtle one, awe it may not be. Yet should Ockham's guillotine
divide either relative fancy from fact, let this be the lever by
which the mouton should fall:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/




.