John Berry wrote:
The heart of the matter is this.
Even is SR & GR weren't flawed, even if there were no experiments which
showed it to be incorrect (there are quite a few) it is still a fact
that aether theory had no reason to be dropped as there is no evidence
against a fluid aether (a stationary one is illogical at the outset as
galixies are flying apart and is well disproven) and even Einstein said
there was one.
I haven't seen that. I've heard people claim he did but I have never
seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually asserted that there
must be an aether.
Certainly he said there was no proof that there was _not_ an aether, and
he said that very early on. I don't know that quote word for word, but
it was something to the effect of "Note, gentlemen, that we have not
proved that there is no aether. We have merely shown that it is not
necessary that there be an aether".
Again, I have never seen the claimed assertion by Einstein that there
must be an aether. I think you -- or someone else on this list -- said
he said that around 1919. A reference would be appreciated.
Funny that, the MMX shows the result that M & M expected which was that
there is an aether drift,
According to the analyses I have read their result did _not_ show an
aether drift. It was a null result, to within the precision of the
experiment. So I have read in textbooks, and so I've been told by
physicists who've actually worked through an error analysis of the
experiment.
Enstein submitted a theory that allowed one to
look at this without an aether
Not a positive result -- if it could be demonstrated conclusively that
the MMX gave a positive result it would falsify SR.
SR allows one to explain a negative result without resorting to an
aether. Lorentz ether theory allows one to explain a negative result
with the use of an ether. Take your pick.
Either way, though, you'll have the same set of "paradoxes" and the same
Lorentz transforms to cope with, because mechanics comes out the same in
both theories. (Lorentz formulated the ether theory which explains MMX,
and the transforms are called "Lorentz transforms" -- that's not a
coincidence.)
and then went on to say that only a fool
wouldn't think there is an aether and that's the basis of it being cast
aside??? isn't that a tad curious?
It is, if it's true. How about a reference? As I said I've never seen
the article in which he said this, nor a direct quote from him to that
effect, so I don't know what the context may have been.
And yet you basically consider that anyone who believe in it or
questions SR/GR to be a crank.
No I don't. I consider people who refuse to learn the mathematics of a
theory yet claim the theory is self-contradictory cranks, and I consider
people who pretend to the existence of evidence which doesn't exist to
be cranks. People who simply question theories, and decide that they
don't think those theories necessarily describe reality, are not cranks.
So how about you try working through the mathematics of the
contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the
results here?
I mean, work them through using the Lorentz transforms. I'll be happy
to argue them with you, if you'll actually work through the math rather
than just blowing off the calculations and calling it all "bunk".
