Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: Cecil Moore (w5dxp_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:20:16 -0500

robert j. kolker wrote:

> Ole D. Rughede wrote:
>> Could scarcely be said more precise.
>
> To say X exists with charactestics A and it turns out that either such
> an X does not exist or it does but has characterstic B not equal to A is
> far from precise. It is just plain wrong.

Complete BS! An atom was first assumed to be one of four possible
atoms. There was one atom for earth, one for fire, one for water,
and one for air. Last time I checked, the word "atom" had been
upgraded to correspond to the latest knowledge on atoms. So the
question remains; Why is "aether" such an emotionally laden word
for you and what place do your personal emotions have in modern day
physics? 

--
cheers, Cecil
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... kolker wrote: ... > To say X exists with charactestics A and it turns out that either such ... There was one atom for earth, one for fire, one for water, ... Why is "aether" such an emotionally laden word ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the weight aginst evol
    ... Robert J. Kolker wrote: ... thought that the atom was indeed indivisible. ... was only in the 20th century (Rutherford, ... It would be nice, Kolker, if occasionally you'd work out what the issue was ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast