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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394779

Re: Why isn't ether confirmed

Show key headers only | View raw

Am 22.09.2016 09:04, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>>>>>>> |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.
>>>>>
>>>>> blah, blah, blah.
>>>>> According to your official "logic", stated above,
>>>>> ether is confirmed when an ether theory is not refuted
>>>>> experimentally.
>
...
>> So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote
>> yourself.
>
> No. Wrong conclusion, as expected from a moron.


So you meant actually me and what I have written with 'blah, blah...'.

In case you actually try to criticise one of my statements, you should 
at least write, which statement you want to criticise and why.


Since you have quoted this partial sentence:

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

this is the statement, with which you do not agree.


>>>> And you only left one half sentence of my message, without any hint, why
>>>> you have chosen this particular part.
>>>
>>> Your whole post was  off topic. The thread has
>>> "ether" in the title, but it is not about ether.
>>
>> Well, maybe the subject of the thread does not truly fit to where the
>> thread went.
>
> It does. The thread is about confirming and the title
> is "why isn't [something] confirmed."

What do want to say with 'confirmed'?

You apparently think, there exist a hidden committee, which confirms (or 
rejects) scientific theories (???).

But no such thing exist, hence a theory does not get confirmed. Theories 
are what withstood attempts to disprove them.

It is more a question of acceptance in the general public and by the 
special public of scientists, concerned with this particular subject.

If 'ether' is a somehow useful hypothesis, than such a hypothesis will 
eventually be used.

But to be useful, the hypothesis must first be formulated in a usable 
fashion.

So the question is certainly possible, which features such an ether 
should have, whether it is stable and in respect to what.


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