Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In .com
James wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote:
. . . .

deletes by O'Barr

Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
... it is unscientific to teach people that SR
proves that there cannot be an absolute reference
frame. The fact that it can be ignored is not
proof
that it is not there. And it is unscientific for
people to say there is no ether. What tests have
shown is that there is, so far, no ether that
produces the effects of a mechanical wind pressure
that can be separated from gravity or electrical
effects, etc. And there is no absolute space
where rulers and clocks are unaffected by their
motions in space. These things can be shown. But
the ether used in LET cannot be disproved to
exist, and will never be disproved as long as SR
is correct.

James wrote:
Within the context of relativity, SR and GR, there
are no absolute reference frames. So when teaching
the theory it makes sense to state this.

Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) comments:
In a limited way, every word you said above is
correct. SR and GR do not directly use an absolute
reference frame. And it is required that this be
stated if you are going to teach these theories. But
the error is in the science! All physical theories
should be presented and taught as they presently
stand within the known science. And a good college
professor will be sure to do this, usually at the
introduction of the course. And the known science
includes LET. Thus, when SR and GR are taught
without the correct science, where these stupid
professors say such things that SR proved that all
ether theories were wrong, they lie!

Which stupid proffessors are these?

When they say
such things that SR or GR could not work if there
were an absolute reference frame, they lie.

Within the context of relativity [SR and GR] there are no absolute
frames of reference. You seem to want the stupid professors to mix up
different theories.

And I see that you yourself have not been too
careful here to say things as they should be said
scientifically. Why is that? Why are you so afraid
to simple say what we presently know?

I'm more scientific than you gerald. I can, at the least, differentiate
between theories.

James wrote:
What tests have been conducted which show that the
ether, and or an absolute frame of reference exist?

O'Barr comments:
Scientifically, if every test made shows a theory
makes correct predictions, within its error of
margin, then these tests show that that theory is an
acceptable or a correct theory.

All it means is the theory has made correct predictions with respect to
observed natural phenomena. LET making correct predictions wrt observed
natural phenomena doesn't confirm the physical existence of the ether
any more than GR making predictions wrt observed natural phenomena
confirms the physical existence of curved spacetime.

And therefore, for
too many repeats here to be justified, every test
that has shown SR to be correct, also affirms the
correctness of there being an ether! QED!
Again, why are you being so dense?

Actually you, gerald, are being dense. You actually believe theoretical
models confirm the physical existence of theoretical constucts without
real direct experimental evidence. Get a clue. You really don't
understand the purpose of theoretical models.

[Snip the rest of geralds inane comments].