On May 28, 10:35Â am, knucmo
hotmail.com> wrote:> On 28 May, 01:29, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
cox.net> wrote:
>>> Dear knucmo:
>
>> "knucmo"
hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> On 20 Apr, 15:20, Sanny
hotmail.com> wrote:>>>> Ether is something present everywhere
>
>>> Aether is nothing - if the Michelson-Morley
>>> experiment is anything to go by.
>
>> MMX disproves an aether that is medium to propagation of light,
>> separate from propagation of matter.
>
> True, but subsequent developments rule out your options below:
>
>> It does nothing for a dragged aether
>
> Special relativity predicts the result of the experiment devised by
> Fiseau (interferometer experiment) with no need of the aether concept.
>
>> a Lorentz aether
>
> Which Einstein criticised as being ad hoc, and:
>
> 'What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of
> relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that
> the state of the former is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places,
> which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations;
> whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of
> electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and
> is everywhere the same.'
>
>
>
>> or (of
>> course) no aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
