"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
That's not right. Diligent searches for an aether failed
to find one. The Michelson-Morley experiments, for example.
The aether was not abandonded on a whim, but by empirical
necessity.

MMX did nothing more than prove that in a closed
enviroment, a bounce will occur the same as if the
constant moving enviroment were not moving at all.

It proved nothing about an aether not existing.
The only thing that MMX proved about the aether is
that it must be dragged if it exists at all.
No proof of non existance could have been made
with MMX since drag is a fact about our entire atmosphere.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
That's not right. Diligent searches for an aether failed
to find one. The Michelson-Morley experiments, for example.
The aether was not abandonded on a whim, but by empirical
necessity.

MMX did nothing more than prove that in a closed
enviroment, a bounce will occur the same as if the
constant moving enviroment were not moving at all.

It proved nothing about an aether not existing.
The only thing that MMX proved about the aether is
that it must be dragged if it exists at all.
No proof of non existance could have been made
with MMX since drag is a fact about our entire atmosphere.

Your knowledge here is faulty (at best). Aether
dragging was considered and likewise rejected
because the effects of a dragged aether were not
detected (light aberration from stars, frictional
drag on the orbits, etc.).

And James, it was not a closed environment. The
object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
the source of light.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
Your knowledge here is faulty (at best). Aether
dragging was considered and likewise rejected
because the effects of a dragged aether were not
detected (light aberration from stars, frictional
drag on the orbits, etc.).

Greg,
the orbits are caused by the motion of the aether
like a water moving anything it can.
The aether would still be dragging and the
entire system is a box in itself.


And James, it was not a closed environment. The
object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
the source of light.

It was closed technically.. c.mon Greg.
Think.....
It was a bigger box around the smaller box.
Let me try this for example.
Place a tiny MMX detector in a small box
(we will call that box, our Solar system)
Now place a box around that box,
(we will call that our Galaxy)
then go ahead.. place another box because
everyone knows our galaxy is part of the Universe Box.
what is holding the Universe? who knows..
maybe yet another box.
but.. If you are in the box, you will not measure the drag
because the smallest box is at the mercy of the largest box.
drag and all!

Good thing the boxes are not completely solid.
imagine of someone kicked the biggest box.

"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...

[snip]

And James, it was not a closed environment. The
object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
the source of light.

It was closed technically.. c.mon Greg.
Think.....
It was a bigger box around the smaller box.
Let me try this for example.
Place a tiny MMX detector in a small box
(we will call that box, our Solar system)
Now place a box around that box,
(we will call that our Galaxy)
then go ahead.. place another box because
everyone knows our galaxy is part of the Universe Box.
what is holding the Universe? who knows..
maybe yet another box.
but.. If you are in the box, you will not measure the drag
because the smallest box is at the mercy of the largest box.
drag and all!

Good thing the boxes are not completely solid.
imagine of someone kicked the biggest box.

Absurd. Are you saying that nothing moves in the
Universe? Are you Louis Savaine in disguise?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...

[snip]

And James, it was not a closed environment. The
object of MMX was to detect the motion of the Earth
through the aether, and as such, used starlight as
the source of light.

It was closed technically.. c.mon Greg.
Think.....
It was a bigger box around the smaller box.
Let me try this for example.
Place a tiny MMX detector in a small box
(we will call that box, our Solar system)
Now place a box around that box,
(we will call that our Galaxy)
then go ahead.. place another box because
everyone knows our galaxy is part of the Universe Box.
what is holding the Universe? who knows..
maybe yet another box.
but.. If you are in the box, you will not measure the drag
because the smallest box is at the mercy of the largest box.
drag and all!

Good thing the boxes are not completely solid.
imagine of someone kicked the biggest box.

Absurd. Are you saying that nothing moves in the
Universe? Are you Louis Savaine in disguise?

Opposite Greg,
Everything moves in the unverse and it all moves
just like spheres within spheres so each
sphere will have it's own spherical aether moving
with it.

The Universe is the entire train connected together,
The Galaxies Are The Train Cars
etc...
start throwing things towards any of the walls
in any part of the universe, guess what?
all the tennis balls bounce as if they were not even moving
as long as the speed is close to a constant in any single
box you are throwing it in.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message

Absurd. Are you saying that nothing moves in the
Universe? Are you Louis Savaine in disguise?

Opposite Greg,
Everything moves in the unverse and it all moves
just like spheres within spheres so each
sphere will have it's own spherical aether moving
with it.

Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
portion near the surface) then it can't also be
sationary with repect to stars in all directions.
Aberration and velocity diifferences for light would
be observed.

James, you should check out some of the popular
literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
trumped philosophy.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
portion near the surface) then it can't also be
sationary with repect to stars in all directions.

Greg,
when you jump from air to space,
the aether would make such a difference you would
call it the airs change.
once above such you would not see anythign but space
moving along with the planets motion mostly.
until the next "change in aether is seen" and again
it will only be seen when something like matter shows it.
so the matter will be the "observational cause
of the shift.... etc...

James, you should check out some of the popular
literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
trumped philosophy.

I have checked a lot of it out.
it all comes down to bouncing balls in constant moving boxes still.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
Makes no sense, since the aether can't be dragged
in all directions at once. The Earth is in orbit,
remember? It's also rotating. If the aether is
stationary with respect to the Earth (even a small
portion near the surface) then it can't also be
sationary with repect to stars in all directions.

Greg,
when you jump from air to space,
the aether would make such a difference you would
call it the airs change.
once above such you would not see anythign but space
moving along with the planets motion mostly.
until the next "change in aether is seen" and again
it will only be seen when something like matter shows it.
so the matter will be the "observational cause
of the shift.... etc...

So since the aether is the supposed medium that
carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
was not and is not observed.


James, you should check out some of the popular
literature on subject. It was quite an amazing
chapter in the history of science, with Big Names
arguing different sides. As expected, experiment
trumped philosophy.

I have checked a lot of it out.
it all comes down to bouncing balls in constant moving boxes still.

Oy vey. What a silly little man you are.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
So since the aether is the supposed medium that
carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
was not and is not observed.

the boundaries contain other matter so of course
other matter will be accepted as the main cause.
Sheesh!
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

"Spaceman" wrote in message

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...
So since the aether is the supposed medium that
carries light, there *MUST* be aberration and
refraction effects at those boundaries. Such
was not and is not observed.

the boundaries contain other matter so of course
other matter will be accepted as the main cause.

Please provide references. Otherwise I think you're
making stuff up again (lying).

The point is that *NO* such refraction or aberration
is seen, yet it *Must* be seen if aether exists.
Through your replies. Start by understanding what
it is you're trying to answer.