Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393173

Re: Why isn't ether confirmed

Show all headers | View raw

Am 19.09.2016 12:35, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:hsadnSw7F48cwQjLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> |In science, an experiment confirms a theory when it is consistent with its
> |predictions. For a theory to be believable, it is NOT sufficient to have no
> |refuting experiments, it is also necessary to have at least some confirming
> |measurements [#]. When there are thousands or millions of confirming
> |measurements and experiments spanning the theory's domain, and no refuting
> ones,
> |then the theory is believable and becomes part of scientists' general
> |understanding of the world [@]. This understanding, of course, is not case
> in
> |stone, and in the future a better theory could come along....
>
> Looks almost logical, doesn't it?
> But noone has ever seen a relativist yelling "Lorentz's ether
> is confirmed!! Those, who don't believe it , are stupid reality
> deniers!!!!!!"

'ether' should be stable, so that planets could move through it.

'Stable' means: does not move.

And that would require an anchor point, in respect to which the ether 
would not move.

So the ether would cause some sort of wind, if you move through it.

But this would contradict relativity.

So we need an ether, that is 'relativistic' in nature.

This means, that a certain set of entities have for a certain observer 
this 'ether-like features' (thin, elastic, invisible, transparent), 
while in another FoR other entities have the same features and the 
former ether is not thin and transparent anymore.

This behaviour is too confusing to be called 'ether', so I would like to 
use the term 'spacetime' instead.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-19 03:35 -0700
  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:12 -0700
  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 11:05 -0700
  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-09-19 17:15 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 19:08 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-09-22 05:29 -0700
  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 17:22 -0700
  Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:46 +0200
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-20 22:11 -0700
    Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 23:23 -0700
      Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 08:50 +0200
        Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-21 00:09 -0700
          Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:23 +0200
            Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 00:04 -0700
              Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-04 05:37 +0200
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 03:14 -0700
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 09:00 +0200
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-26 01:16 -0700
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 22:16 +0100
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 00:24 -0700
                Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:17 -0700

csiph-web