Re: Sometimes I wonder, if Physicists actually *want* to know how it works

On May 11, 6:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 11, 2:09 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 11, 8:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 11, 9:03 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 6:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 7:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

mpc755 wrote:
By definition, anything that is massless requires a medium in order to
propagate.

   What definition is that? Observation indicates otherwise!

Nature's

You do not have that authority without reference to experimental
support. This is how science works -- by investigation, not by ex
cathedra decree.

PD

There is zero experimental evidence that light can propagate through a
void.

There is zero experimental evidence that the aether does not exist.

There is also zero experimental evidence that invisible gremlins who
take care to cover their tracks do not exist.

However, every substantive and mathematically developed theory based
on a material aether has experimental implications (other than the
Michelson-Morley experiment) that do not match well with measurement.
When you have a substantive and mathematically developed theory based
on the aether that agrees with the BODY of experimental evidence (not
just the Michelson-Morley experiment), do get it published.

PD

Post a link for a couple of the BODY of experimental evidence.

http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/experiments.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR
.