The problem with "aether" is that there are lots of different types of
aether that can be proposed; so how is it to be defined; on the
simplest level-> could take it as definition that-> a wave has a
medium; and then -> if light is a wave then it should have a medium.
I explain the apparent confirmations of relativity theory-> "they" are
lying; by such tactics as sin of omission.
------ Original Message ------
From: "H LV" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, 28 Nov, 20 At 21:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:De Hilster on Einstein fallacy
One of the panelists offers what could be called a weak criticism of
relativity theory.
He says all aether theories are irrelevant because they can't be proven
or disproven, so it is unfair
for relativists to assert anything about the existence or non-existence
of an aether.
However, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had produced a fringe shift
that would have confirmed
the existence of aether. Michelson took the null result to mean there
was something wrong with his
understanding of the aether rather than as concept to be dismissed as
irrelevant or obsolete.
Any new aether will have to explain the null result and all other
apparent confirmations of relativity theory.
Harry
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> >
wrote:
fudging math is standard part of science/physics
Einstein's work not even properly translated from German into English,
and was probably done by his wife anyway; so all built on
misunderstandings as per latest talk at ANPA->
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0&feature=emb_logo
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPi5WC_IV0&feature=emb_logo>
