Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Ilja SchmelzerIlja Schmelzer Date: May 27, 2008 00:02
On 27 Mai, 04:44, oldcoot sbcglobal.net> wrote:> Any viable theory of gravity has to address the
> most dramatic displays of gravity in action, for example a supernova.
> So what is the _acting mechanism of causation_ whereby a massive star
> is crushed down to a black hole? That is to say, what property of the
> "aether" literally POWERS the gravity that powers the stellar collapse
> that that drives the fusion that rebounds as a SN blast, leaving
> behind the collapsed mass?
For this purpose it is sufficient to obtain the Einstein equations in
some limit of the theory and then to show that the main part of the SN
explosion is covered by this limit.
This is done in my theory of gravity, see ilja-schmelzer.de/glet.
> And why, pray tell, do "aetherists" still cling to the archaic and
> stigma-ridden term (aether / ether)? It provokes the Pavlovian
> response in the hearer to simply laugh at it and ridiclue it. If you
> want to be taken serious and intend to present a working model that
> answers the above 'litmus test', get rid of that scarlet-letter word
> fercrissakes. Strike it from the lexicon. Start out with an untainted,
> neutral term.. like the spatial medium.
For a medium in three-dimensional space, which has c as its speed of
sound, and which, for small distances, violates relativistic symmetry,
it would be a kind of deception to use another name.
If somebody rejects a theory simply because it contains the term
"ether", there is no hope he will study a theory in 3D space with some
sort of condensed matter in it. Thus, it doesn't matter anyway.
| 
