Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists

In article <1132344568.762067.208070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>David Thomson wrote:
>> > I imagine the article explains how certain numerical solutions of GR
>> > suggest that space-time has properties that are similar to a fluid.
>> > Then the concept of "aether" was mentioned in passing, and you latched
>> > on.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the article wasn't written about your imagination. Here
>> is a relevant section of the December 2005 Scientific American article:
>
>Unfortunately indeed. My imagination creats all sorts of crazy ***!

An aether theory that is both quantum mechanical and relativistic, it
would seem. Beyond the superficiality of an aether being involved, it's
not much help for those that hope an aether would allow them to dispense
with one or both.

--
"Will we be suturing the anus?"
.

Quantcast