Re: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"

On Aug 6, 11:13 am, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <80de4$4899a8e8$4fa1266$29...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nie says...



"How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"

How would you know? Your entire post shows how out of touch with reality you
are.



    The previous posting showed ("A Basic Look at the Aether") that the
classical Aether must exist because it endowed the volume of supposedly
"empty" space with observable properties.

But this is patently false. ON the contrary: even by the time of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the "classical ether" had become almost ghostly,
since it was -losing- properties, not gaining them. But as this latest MM
experiment made clear, it was becoming so ghostly, it was time to discard it
completely.

SO this is what scientists did. But of course, some diehards insisted on
carrying the banner of the "classical ether" to the end. You must be one of
them.

[snip]

    E-mail:- einsteinh...@xxxxxxxx

Einstein's physics is not a hoax. You must be either insane or dishonest or
incredibly ignorant to make this irresponsible accusation. What is even worse,
you are implicitly making this accusation not just against Einstein, but against
legions of excellent physicists, all of whom agree that Einstein's theories of
SR, GTR, and even his unwilling contributions to quantum mechanics, are
excellent physics.



    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED.

This cannot possibly be true. Are you just a shameless liar, or are you really
so incompetent at evaluating the rebuttals?

Your false positions are well exposed by the mountains of experimental evidence
supporting SR, so well described at:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....

THAT is the "objective rebuttal" to all your nonsense and slanderous accusations
of 'hoax'.

 There have only been hand waving arguments by



individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Matt,the op is obviously a troll, or else someone who has never
cracked a science text published during the past 100 years or so.

At any rate, he is not worth a response.

Harry C.

.