[EL]
Physics is a science of measurements.
Measurements ascertained by comparison with a standard.
Kinematics as a fundamental branch of physics is concerned with motion.
Motion is generally described by two most fundamental dimensions, which
are time and length.
To measure time and length there must be an arbitrated standard that
enjoys a maximal confidence, and to which comparisons are made.
This means that a measurement would be crude or imprecise or even wrong
if the measurer fails to be precise when executing the comparison to an
undoubtedly precise standard that not only enjoys a maximal confidence
in such precision but that such standard is durable and invariant
whenever a measurement was made.
Then, by definition, an "unconfident standard" or "uncertain standard"
are Oxymoronic expressions with inherent contradiction built in from
start.
Confidence and certainty are not absolute concepts but rather
scale-dependant and significantly judged.
It is not uncommon to hear expressions such as "The degree of
confidence" or "The degree of certainty".
Scientists relentlessly seek the highest resolution to increase
precision to a limit beyond which the remaining fractional variance
must be insignificant.
However, an extra effort to invade the insignificant zone with extra
precision pays off when addition and multiplication operations take
place moving the insignificant figures into the zone of significance.
This trend is not just a human invention but also a natural process
with which order emerges from chaos as a persistent pattern.
In everyday life, bartering or exchanging value, involves a counting
operation that might involve measurements.
Crude measurements are usually satisfactory, but when it comes to
scientific experiments, the context dictates the boundary that
separates significant quantities from insignificant quantities.
The classical laws of physics, set by Newton and Galileo and the
scientists of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries were
absolutely satisfactory and sufficient for the majority of the
phenomena being measured.
A turn-point experiment was to test the hypothesis that the material of
planet earth moved through an Aether like a sieve in does water, and
such a speed must be obviously relative such that one could be able to
measure the speed of the water through the sieve and consequently the
Aether through material objects.

To measure such a hypothetical relative speed demanded a standard
measure of length and a standard measure of time (By definition must be
invariant under any circumstances).

By the standards available to Michelson and Morley then, the experiment
yielded a NULL.
The scientists then were divided into two factions, one that insisted
that Aether must exist and that length and time standards under that
specific context must have been variant (Lorentz-Einstein SR), while
the other faction took the result to be a negation of the existence of
Aether as a hypothesis altogether while confirming certainty and
confidence in the standards of time and length as arbitrated absolutes
(Not Relative).
To make this very clear, we should know that Lorentz-Einstein SR was
not quite welcome at the beginning by the empiricists who would never
trade their certainty and confidence in the arbitrated standard length
and time for anything. Those empiricists accepted the MMx as an
empirical proof that Aether does not exist and that Lorentz and
Einstein are clownish dreamers who are fabricating a theory of length
and time variance to cling on to the Aether hypothesis.
Einstein is known to have gone a long way with the analogy of a box
that contained a well defined coordinate space that must continue to
exist even after removing the walls of the box one after the other
leaving only a point.
Expressions such as vacuum and empty-space were replacements of choice
to decrease the strong opposition of a continued belief in Aether, but
the variance of length (contraction) and time (dilation) remained as a
screaming evidence that relativity is founded on the Aether Hypothesis.

We all know that a relatively moving Aether was empirically disproved,
and as a consequence the Lorentz-Einstein SR must be hogwash that was
specifically invented to justify the NULL result while keeping Aether
as a relatively moving medium.
At the beginning of the twentieth century neither the theory of chaos
nor the fractals algebra was theorised yet.
Thus, there was no third alternative to reconcile both sides' logic. We
may not belittle either factions of great scientists, hence we must
find another explanation for the NULL result to keep the standard time
and length as certain arbitrations while finding the true nature of
Aether, which is the inevitable medium for light waves' propagation.
The Quantum Field Theory, which evolved into Spinors Theory, when
combined with the Theory of Chaos can explain very clearly how a
chaotic medium is nonexistent until induced fluctuations instil order
to emerge from that chaos. This means that Aether has no state of its
own other than the nondeterministic chaos, and when light propagates
through Aether, it is so by inducing the Orderly fluctuations in the
Chaotic Spinors.
This hypothesis, explains the NULL, redefines the Aether and keeps the
arbitrated standards as invariant absolutes.
The concept of speed is meaningless without a relative spatial
reference from which distance can be measured.
Yes, the propagation medium as its constants that modify the velocity
of the wave when fixing its wavelength and frequency as produced, but
due to the relative state of motion of the observer, there can be no
experience other than a frequency shift over the absolute time interval
in which the cycles are being counted.
The essence of frequency is a ratio between geometric time (being
counted in units of complete cycles of change of state) and the
standard arbitration of an absolute time (such as the second).
Then frequency when rigorously examined is in fact a dimensionless
ratio, which is a quantity of A-Type-Units within a quantity of
B-Type-Units.
The A-Type-Units, being geometric, correspond to a spatially evolved
hyper-dimension, such as a wavelength.
The B-Type-Units, being absolute, correspond to an arbitrated standard,
such as the second of time.
This means, that while we may consider frequency to be dimensionless as
being time per time, we may also consider frequency to be a speed when
we consider the relation to be wavelengths per time.
However, the inverse of frequency must be a time interval only because
then it would be the measure of the geometrical temporal duration of
the cycle of interaction, or the the temporal duration in which the
hyper-dimension evolved spatially.
We may conclude that time is a pseudo-dimension the units of which
quantify a dimensionless ratio.
Then, we should realise that a dimensionless ratio such as v/c must be
in fact [L/L], which is a comparative measure between the displacement
traversed by a body and the displacement traversed by light during the
same unit of time. This means that the displacement of light during one
unit of absolute time is the yardstick of length units to which the
displacement of a body is being compared. It is _That_ yardstick, which
appears in the tau-charts of the 4D Minkowski space coordinate system.
Since there is no motion that can be relative to emptiness, or even a
chaotic Aether, the speed of light c must be relative to its source,
but when it interacts with the observer it cannot be a constant any
more.
This must be true given no postulates to defy, because using the source
of light as a reference means that the speed of light is _c_ relative
to that reference as much as the observer of the light is moving
relative to the that same source. Then both speeds (light and observer)
interact by their velocities in the coordinate space of the source.
Now the question is what happens when such velocities are added or
subtracted as inline-components of vectors?
The wavelength is an immaterial invariant but it is defined by both,
the fluctuation frequency at the source and the constants of
propagation of the medium. However, the number of quantum actions from
wave onto the observer is counted as a frequency. Therefore a frequency
shift between source and observer is precisely an expression of the
relative inline-component of velocities between light and observer.
Imagine a tiny surfer to ride a wave in a bond caused by a pebble. The
frequency depends on the acceleration of the pebble and its velocity on
entering the surface of the water, but the wave speed is a property of
water and the wavelength is the ratio between the surface speed of the
wave and its frequency. Then the tiny surfer will experience one
continuous force in the radial direction as long as he rides a single
wave and will move with the speed of the wave. On the other hand, if a
tiny motorboat moved fast to the centre of the wave then the tiny
rider of the tiny motorboat will experience more waves per second than
frequently generated.
Since the device used by Michelson had co-moving parts then no relative
velocities existed between the light and the device parts other than
_c_, hence the NULL result.
Now that you know that Aether exists, and that standard units of time
and length are invariant while the inline component of relative
velocity between light and observers as not a constant, what shall you
do?


EL

Made it partly through your post.
I believe in moving dimensions.
That is the aether I believe in.

Catch up to its motions and space shrinks
and time slows. The aethers motion would be
absolute while objects moving in it would
have different measurements of extension
(and motion). Only the accelerated body shrinks.
Moving dimensions giving the dynamics
of relativity.

Cheers.

"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
| [EL]

snip

| Since there is no motion that can be relative to emptiness, or even a
| chaotic Aether, the speed of light c must be relative to its source,
| but when it interacts with the observer it cannot be a constant any
| more.

The speed of light in vacuum defines two values c as the measurement of the
event c and zero as the event vacuum.
--
Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two
unbound field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)

"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
[EL]
Physics is a science of measurements.
Measurements ascertained by comparison with a standard.
Kinematics as a fundamental branch of physics is concerned with motion.
Motion is generally described by two most fundamental dimensions, which
are time and length.
To measure time and length there must be an arbitrated standard that
enjoys a maximal confidence, and to which comparisons are made.
This means that a measurement would be crude or imprecise or even wrong
if the measurer fails to be precise when executing the comparison to an
undoubtedly precise standard that not only enjoys a maximal confidence
in such precision but that such standard is durable and invariant
whenever a measurement was made.
Then, by definition, an "unconfident standard" or "uncertain standard"
are Oxymoronic expressions with inherent contradiction built in from
start.
Confidence and certainty are not absolute concepts but rather
scale-dependant and significantly judged.
It is not uncommon to hear expressions such as "The degree of
confidence" or "The degree of certainty".
Scientists relentlessly seek the highest resolution to increase
precision to a limit beyond which the remaining fractional variance
must be insignificant.
However, an extra effort to invade the insignificant zone with extra
precision pays off when addition and multiplication operations take
place moving the insignificant figures into the zone of significance.
This trend is not just a human invention but also a natural process
with which order emerges from chaos as a persistent pattern.
In everyday life, bartering or exchanging value, involves a counting
operation that might involve measurements.
Crude measurements are usually satisfactory, but when it comes to
scientific experiments, the context dictates the boundary that
separates significant quantities from insignificant quantities.
The classical laws of physics, set by Newton and Galileo and the
scientists of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries were
absolutely satisfactory and sufficient for the majority of the
phenomena being measured.
A turn-point experiment was to test the hypothesis that the material of
planet earth moved through an Aether like a sieve in does water, and
such a speed must be obviously relative such that one could be able to
measure the speed of the water through the sieve and consequently the
Aether through material objects.

To measure such a hypothetical relative speed demanded a standard
measure of length and a standard measure of time (By definition must be
invariant under any circumstances).

By the standards available to Michelson and Morley then, the experiment
yielded a NULL.

Which is why they have been repeated to higher accuracy - and still yielded
null.

The scientists then were divided into two factions, one that insisted
that Aether must exist and that length and time standards under that
specific context must have been variant (Lorentz-Einstein SR), while
the other faction took the result to be a negation of the existence of
Aether as a hypothesis altogether while confirming certainty and
confidence in the standards of time and length as arbitrated absolutes
(Not Relative).

Since then the faction that says an aether must exist has all but
despaired - basically it mostly consists of a few cranks that jump up and
down and carry on about what they do not understand on
sci.physics.relativity and confuse armchair philosopsing with physics. The
post being a case in point.

To make this very clear, we should know that Lorentz-Einstein SR was
not quite welcome at the beginning by the empiricists who would never
trade their certainty and confidence in the arbitrated standard length
and time for anything. Those empiricists accepted the MMx as an
empirical proof that Aether does not exist and that Lorentz and
Einstein are clownish dreamers who are fabricating a theory of length
and time variance to cling on to the Aether hypothesis.
Einstein is known to have gone a long way with the analogy of a box
that contained a well defined coordinate space that must continue to
exist even after removing the walls of the box one after the other
leaving only a point.
Expressions such as vacuum and empty-space were replacements of choice
to decrease the strong opposition of a continued belief in Aether,

They did not replace an aether which by definition is a substance that was
supposed to fill space.

but
the variance of length (contraction) and time (dilation) remained as a
screaming evidence that relativity is founded on the Aether Hypothesis.

Since the POR is not compatible with an aether (it in principle breaks the
isotropy of an inertial frame) all the above shows is your lack of
understanding.


We all know that a relatively moving Aether was empirically disproved,


The existence of theories containing an aether shows otherwise.

and as a consequence the Lorentz-Einstein SR must be hogwash that was
specifically invented to justify the NULL result while keeping Aether
as a relatively moving medium.

SR is based on one principle and one principle only - the POR which has
never been refuted.

At the beginning of the twentieth century neither the theory of chaos
nor the fractals algebra was theorised yet.

You are waffling.

Rest of rubbish is same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

[EL]
Hobba, would you please record your barking in mpg format and E-mail it
to me.
I shall look for a rabid dog to translate it to a cat then maybe it
could meow it to me.
I snipped what you did not understand, oops, all what I wrote, and left
some lonely barking behind.
If someone could point to me any logical reasoning that countered mine
please post comments.
I admit that I do not understand barking languages.
My bad.
EL
[Bill Haila Hobba wrote]

Which is why they have been repeated to higher accuracy - and still yielded
null.


Since then the faction that says an aether must exist has all but
despaired - basically it mostly consists of a few cranks that jump up and
down and carry on about what they do not understand on
sci.physics.relativity and confuse armchair philosopsing with physics. The
post being a case in point.


They did not replace an aether which by definition is a substance that was
supposed to fill space.


Since the POR is not compatible with an aether (it in principle breaks the
isotropy of an inertial frame) all the above shows is your lack of
understanding.


The existence of theories containing an aether shows otherwise.


SR is based on one principle and one principle only - the POR which has
never been refuted.


You are waffling.

Rest of rubbish is same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
[EL]
Hobba, would you please record your barking in mpg format and E-mail it
to me.
I shall look for a rabid dog to translate it to a cat then maybe it
could meow it to me.
I snipped what you did not understand, oops, all what I wrote, and left
some lonely barking behind.
If someone could point to me any logical reasoning that countered mine
please post comments.

And how can logical reasoning counter the illogical?

sr

I admit that I do not understand barking languages.
My bad.
EL
[Bill Haila Hobba wrote]

Which is why they have been repeated to higher accuracy - and still
yielded
null.


Since then the faction that says an aether must exist has all but
despaired - basically it mostly consists of a few cranks that jump up and
down and carry on about what they do not understand on
sci.physics.relativity and confuse armchair philosopsing with physics.
The
post being a case in point.


They did not replace an aether which by definition is a substance that
was
supposed to fill space.


Since the POR is not compatible with an aether (it in principle breaks
the
isotropy of an inertial frame) all the above shows is your lack of
understanding.


The existence of theories containing an aether shows otherwise.


SR is based on one principle and one principle only - the POR which has
never been refuted.


You are waffling.

Rest of rubbish is same vein mercifully snipped.

Bill

EL:
[EL]
Physics is a science of measurements.

Metrology is the sciemce of measurements. Physics is the
science of physical processes.

Measurements ascertained by comparison with a standard.

Not really. That is the absolute worst way to obtain a precision
measurement. The reason the speed of light is known to be constant
to such a high degree of precision is due to experiments in which
a non-constant speed would give a non-null result. For basic physics,
like relativity, the actual speed of light is irrelevant. If it's
constant, then it has the value 1. The number 1 is not going to
become 1.000001 with better measurements. The speed of light is
irrelevant to relativity. If light is massive, then light has a
rest frame like every other massive object. Relativity doesn't
change. Maxwell's equations do.

Kinematics as a fundamental branch of physics is concerned with motion.

Kinematics is a tool for analyzing observations associated with motion.
It's not a fundamental branch of physics.

Motion is generally described by two most fundamental dimensions, which
are time and length.

Those are the same: length.

To measure time and length there must be an arbitrated standard that
enjoys a maximal confidence, and to which comparisons are made.
This means that a measurement would be crude or imprecise or even wrong
if the measurer fails to be precise when executing the comparison to an
undoubtedly precise standard that not only enjoys a maximal confidence
in such precision but that such standard is durable and invariant
whenever a measurement was made.

If that was true, it would have been impossible to ever build machines
or advance beyond the stone age. If you need a standard to make a precise
measurement, how did anyone ever make a measuring intrument that was
better than the ones which preceded it?

Then, by definition, an "unconfident standard" or "uncertain standard"
are Oxymoronic expressions with inherent contradiction built in from
start.

Uncertainties and confidence intervals have rigorous mathematical
definitions. Those terms mean what the mathematical definitions say
thoe terms mean. A semantics game based on the definitions from the
oxford dictionary is irrelevant.

Confidence and certainty are not absolute concepts but rather
scale-dependant and significantly judged.

No, the confidence intervals and uncertainties have precise definitions
that depend upon the data in a well defined way.

It is not uncommon to hear expressions such as "The degree of
confidence" or "The degree of certainty".

You're playing word games. The uncertainty (not certainty) in a
measurement is given by the standard deviation from the mean value
of all the data. The confidence level gives the probability that
a repetition of the experiment will give results consistent with
experiment for which the confidence level is given.

Scientists relentlessly seek the highest resolution to increase
precision to a limit beyond which the remaining fractional variance
must be insignificant.

Not true. What physicists seek is the simplest experiment that
will distinguish between two (or more) possible outcomes, i.e.,
is or is not consistent with theory T. As much work as possible
goes into avoiding the need to know numbers/constants/etc., with
much precision if it can be avoided.

However, an extra effort to invade the insignificant zone with extra
precision pays off when addition and multiplication operations take
place moving the insignificant figures into the zone of significance.

Again, uncertainties propagate in a way which is well defined.

[...]

To measure such a hypothetical relative speed demanded a standard
measure of length and a standard measure of time (By definition must be
invariant under any circumstances).

Does that mean you think that the precision of \pi will improve
with better measurements, too?


By the standards available to Michelson and Morley then, the experiment
yielded a NULL.

Which was far better than it needed to be to address the question
the experiment was supposed to answer. You could always wait until
technology is perfect, but that presents the problem of never being
able to develop any technology.

The scientists then were divided into two factions, one that insisted
that Aether must exist and that length and time standards under that
specific context must have been variant (Lorentz-Einstein SR), while
the other faction took the result to be a negation of the existence of

No, it was more like a lot of physicists were confused by the outcome.
Upon evaluating the explanations offered over the next quarter century,
it became clear that relativity contained the real physics.

Aether as a hypothesis altogether while confirming certainty and
confidence in the standards of time and length as arbitrated absolutes
(Not Relative).
To make this very clear, we should know that Lorentz-Einstein SR was
not quite welcome at the beginning by the empiricists who would never
trade their certainty and confidence in the arbitrated standard length
and time for anything. Those empiricists accepted the MMx as an

You are attempting to turn physics into philosophy.

empirical proof that Aether does not exist and that Lorentz and
Einstein are clownish dreamers who are fabricating a theory of length
and time variance to cling on to the Aether hypothesis.
Einstein is known to have gone a long way with the analogy of a box
that contained a well defined coordinate space that must continue to
exist even after removing the walls of the box one after the other
leaving only a point.
Expressions such as vacuum and empty-space were replacements of choice
to decrease the strong opposition of a continued belief in Aether, but
the variance of length (contraction) and time (dilation) remained as a
screaming evidence that relativity is founded on the Aether Hypothesis.

We all know that a relatively moving Aether was empirically disproved,
and as a consequence the Lorentz-Einstein SR must be hogwash that was
specifically invented to justify the NULL result while keeping Aether
as a relatively moving medium.
At the beginning of the twentieth century neither the theory of chaos
nor the fractals algebra was theorised yet.
Thus, there was no third alternative to reconcile both sides' logic. We
may not belittle either factions of great scientists, hence we must
find another explanation for the NULL result to keep the standard time
and length as certain arbitrations while finding the true nature of
Aether, which is the inevitable medium for light waves' propagation.
The Quantum Field Theory, which evolved into Spinors Theory, when
combined with the Theory of Chaos can explain very clearly how a
chaotic medium is nonexistent until induced fluctuations instil order
to emerge from that chaos. This means that Aether has no state of its
own other than the nondeterministic chaos, and when light propagates
through Aether, it is so by inducing the Orderly fluctuations in the
Chaotic Spinors.
This hypothesis, explains the NULL, redefines the Aether and keeps the
arbitrated standards as invariant absolutes.
The concept of speed is meaningless without a relative spatial
reference from which distance can be measured.
Yes, the propagation medium as its constants that modify the velocity
of the wave when fixing its wavelength and frequency as produced, but
due to the relative state of motion of the observer, there can be no
experience other than a frequency shift over the absolute time interval
in which the cycles are being counted.
The essence of frequency is a ratio between geometric time (being
counted in units of complete cycles of change of state) and the
standard arbitration of an absolute time (such as the second).
Then frequency when rigorously examined is in fact a dimensionless
ratio, which is a quantity of A-Type-Units within a quantity of
B-Type-Units.
The A-Type-Units, being geometric, correspond to a spatially evolved
hyper-dimension, such as a wavelength.
The B-Type-Units, being absolute, correspond to an arbitrated standard,
such as the second of time.
This means, that while we may consider frequency to be dimensionless as
being time per time, we may also consider frequency to be a speed when
we consider the relation to be wavelengths per time.
However, the inverse of frequency must be a time interval only because
then it would be the measure of the geometrical temporal duration of
the cycle of interaction, or the the temporal duration in which the
hyper-dimension evolved spatially.
We may conclude that time is a pseudo-dimension the units of which
quantify a dimensionless ratio.
Then, we should realise that a dimensionless ratio such as v/c must be
in fact [L/L], which is a comparative measure between the displacement
traversed by a body and the displacement traversed by light during the
same unit of time. This means that the displacement of light during one
unit of absolute time is the yardstick of length units to which the
displacement of a body is being compared. It is _That_ yardstick, which
appears in the tau-charts of the 4D Minkowski space coordinate system.
Since there is no motion that can be relative to emptiness, or even a
chaotic Aether, the speed of light c must be relative to its source,
but when it interacts with the observer it cannot be a constant any
more.
This must be true given no postulates to defy, because using the source
of light as a reference means that the speed of light is _c_ relative
to that reference as much as the observer of the light is moving
relative to the that same source. Then both speeds (light and observer)
interact by their velocities in the coordinate space of the source.
Now the question is what happens when such velocities are added or
subtracted as inline-components of vectors?
The wavelength is an immaterial invariant but it is defined by both,
the fluctuation frequency at the source and the constants of
propagation of the medium. However, the number of quantum actions from
wave onto the observer is counted as a frequency. Therefore a frequency
shift between source and observer is precisely an expression of the
relative inline-component of velocities between light and observer.
Imagine a tiny surfer to ride a wave in a bond caused by a pebble. The
frequency depends on the acceleration of the pebble and its velocity on
entering the surface of the water, but the wave speed is a property of
water and the wavelength is the ratio between the surface speed of the
wave and its frequency. Then the tiny surfer will experience one
continuous force in the radial direction as long as he rides a single
wave and will move with the speed of the wave. On the other hand, if a
tiny motorboat moved fast to the centre of the wave then the tiny
rider of the tiny motorboat will experience more waves per second than
frequently generated.
Since the device used by Michelson had co-moving parts then no relative
velocities existed between the light and the device parts other than
_c_, hence the NULL result.
Now that you know that Aether exists, and that standard units of time
and length are invariant while the inline component of relative
velocity between light and observers as not a constant, what shall you
do?


EL

[Steve Ralph wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
[EL]
Hobba, would you please record your barking in mpg format and E-mail it
to me.
I shall look for a rabid dog to translate it to a cat then maybe it
could meow it to me.
I snipped what you did not understand, oops, all what I wrote, and left
some lonely barking behind.
If someone could point to me any logical reasoning that countered mine
please post comments.

And how can logical reasoning counter the illogical?

sr

[EL]
I am doing my best to demonstrate how logical reasoning can counter the
illogical.
That is why I was verbose and argumentative with every logical reason I
could give to counter a century of common hallucinations.
it happened before, you know, when everyone believed the earth to be at
the centre of the universe and the solar system. Some one even claimed
at the beginning of the 20th Century that the century before was in
error.
It is a dept that must be paid.
Now that is reason.

EL

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:49:36 +0100, "Steve Ralph"
wrote:


"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]
Hobba, would you please record your barking in mpg format and E-mail
it to me. I shall look for a rabid dog to translate it to a cat then
maybe it could meow it to me. I snipped what you did not understand,
oops, all what I wrote, and left some lonely barking behind. If
someone could point to me any logical reasoning that countered mine
please post comments.

And how can logical reasoning counter the illogical?

Can youcite specific examples of EL's illogic? Otherwise,
let's get back to physics and away from the ad homimens...

Let's summarize EL's points, shall we...

It seems to me that EL arguement centers around the issue of what
is measureable, verses what can be 'logically' inferred from said
measurements. He discusses the MMX as an example of this. Now
I'll agree that he rambles on but the core arguement remains,
limitations on measurements does not, and should not, limit our
ability ot understand.

Points of fact. The myopic around here claim:

- that the aether had only one detectable property, a rest frame.
- that an aether must be 'material' in nature
- that an aether must have consitute components that can be
identified and their positions defined...
- that an aether is incompatible with modern understanding

None of these is actually true and can be shown to be false,
logically. When so should, it also shows that those that
argue in opposition do so in part from ignorance and in part
from a religious metaphysical basis.

Now we can discuss each objective point mentioned above and
see where the so-called illogic lies.

Paul Stowe

On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:14 -0700, "EL" wrote:

[Steve Ralph wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
[EL]
Hobba, would you please record your barking in mpg format and E-mail it
to me.
I shall look for a rabid dog to translate it to a cat then maybe it
could meow it to me.
I snipped what you did not understand, oops, all what I wrote, and left
some lonely barking behind.
If someone could point to me any logical reasoning that countered mine
please post comments.

And how can logical reasoning counter the illogical?

sr

[EL]
I am doing my best to demonstrate how logical reasoning can counter the
illogical.
That is why I was verbose and argumentative with every logical reason I
could give to counter a century of common hallucinations.
it happened before, you know, when everyone believed the earth to be at
the centre of the universe and the solar system. Some one even claimed
at the beginning of the 20th Century that the century before was in
error.
It is a dept that must be paid.
Now that is reason.

I'm sorry but it comes across as rambling & unclear. Focus like a
laser beam on specific points in the simplest manner possible.

Paul Stowe