On 09/22/2012 08:29 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Because the idea of the ether they were after (i.e. were trying to
confirm) was completely mechanicistic. They never expected light would
"sink" or "shorten" into the direction of movement. That is,
*longitudinally*.
Corolarium 1: The Universe is not mechanicistic. Light, at least,
completely evades a mere mechanicistic representation. If the Universe
were mechanicistic, it would be a dead, and dark, one.
Corolarium 2: That "sink" or "shortening" must imply something.
Conservation of energy, remember?
Now, one hundred years after, give or take a couple of decades: Are we
ready to really understand this? Or we'll continue to play shell games
and dumb?
In other words: There's more to it than what's usually stated. Modern
science evades the question by modeling only the visible part of the
equation, i.e. the material aspect. *There's, without any doubt at all,
an invisible or spiritual aspect to all of it.* Just don't try to
imagine it, visualize it, or model it in material terms. But, for God's
sake: *don't forget about it*. Because you, your very self, is at the stake.
