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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393295

Re: Why isn't ether confirmed

Show all headers | View raw

Am 21.09.2016 09:09, 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.
>>> You agree, that Lorentz theory is not. Refuting it would
>>> mean refuting your SR too.
>>> If the "logic" stated above was not a fake for dummies,
>>> you would scream about zillions of experiments confirming
>>> Lorentz's ether. As well as you scream about confirming
>>> your SR shit.
>>> But you don't.
>>
>>
>> Please specify whom you address with 'you'.
>
> It's plural "you" meaning your community
> of physicists.


But there are other plurals possible, like e.g. lefthanders, 
politicians, human beings, males, Chinese or the people which like to 
drink beer.

So you should add at least a few hints, whom you like to address with 'you'.

>> Since you replied to a posting from me, you should somehow comment on
>> the content of what I have written.
>>
>> But I have not written anything about Lorentz.
>
> I didn't write you did. I just wrote something
> about Lorentz myself.


So you start ranting ('blah, blah, blah.') about something you wrote 
yourself.

What is that good for?

>> 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.


This could be avoided actually, if the title is altered every now and then.

But this had disadvantages, too, since it would disrupt the thread.

So, as a rule of thumb, I leave the title as it is, ever if the subject 
moves away from the subject of the OP and its initial title.

> It's about logic of confirming things in physics.

Wasn't the subject 'Lorentz' and 'ether'???



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