I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
John Berry wrote:
> It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
SR has many logical inconsistencies
If you believe that, then it's pointless to continue this discussion.
SR is exactly as consistent as linear algebra. If SR has internal
inconsistencies then so does linear algebra. If you don't understand
that simple fact, then you don't understand SR, and if you don't
understand it then you're certainly not in a position to judge its
internal consistency.
There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I can't
think of anything less fun than discussing these issues with someone who
seemingly has no interest is the subject
But you see, I agree. But from where I'm standing, it is /you/ who has
no interest in actually learning the subject. I've spent years studying
this, and months arguing with people whose views are very much like
yours (in venues other than Vortex), and I no longer find such debates
entertaining.
To learn relativity is to understand it, and if you did that, then you
would see that it's not internally inconsistent. However, that takes a
lot more effort than just calling it "illogical".
SR may be wrong -- which is something to be determined by experiment --
but it is not inconsistent.
because if you did you would
agree rather than quip.
>
> If so, how you do you account for the results of the
Michelson-Morley
> and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the
> "classical" aether theories, along with the ballistic
theory. (Or do
> you deny that MMX actually got a null result?)
>
>
> Oh boy, do your own research.
OK, I guess that answers the question.
I guess you didn't read the next part where I did in fact go over the
reasons why the MMX in no way disproves an entrained aether.
Oh, yes, you said "maybe" their result wasn't really null, "maybe" their
experiment was highly flawed, and "maybe" "many" "better" experiments
give a nonnull result. AFAIK the last "maybe" is flatly false; their
experiment has been repeated many times in a number of forms and the
results are consistently null.
The first "maybe" -- that their original result was nonnull -- is also
false, in that their result was null to within their error bars.
You also said an "entrained" ether predicts a null result -- that's
true, but a fully dragged ether runs into trouble with the Sagnac
experiment. Sagnac requires Fresnel dragging, which is a very
particular form of partial entrainment, to be consistent with an aether,
but that, in turn, is inconsistent with the null result of MMX. (And
the Sagnac effect is used in commercial devices; there's no debate at
all about the result of that particular experiment. Your sloppy notion
of some kind of entrainment which would just happen to be consistent
with MMX in a basement doesn't make it in the face of the Sagnac results.)
Alternatively, you can explain both experiments with a Lorentz ether,
but then you find yourself with a theory which matches SR in every
testable prediction.
You seem to be more interested in cheap shots than science or truth.
You misunderstand. I'm interested in science and math, as well as
truth. IMO your position isn't based on any of those.
