Aer: You seem to like the idea of "local ether" theories. Maybe you could start a thread about that, and explain: - what a local ether theory is. - how it dispenses with the need for relativity. - how it explains the experiments usually considered to support relativity. I know very little about local ether theories, and I suspect that is true for most people here.
I cannot say that I like the local ether theory any more than I like special relativity theory. I don't think there is enough information on it nor do I know of any reasons why such a concept cannot exist.
To retain civility on this forum I will not state what I saw sticking in your mouth as I passed by at a relavistic speed.
You cannot say what you saw as you don't know what P-T rotation really does. You talking civility? i will climb on a tree that day.
This is an anti-climax. Independant experiments, if any by ether proponents, should be able to give proof for ether of any variety. If there is no such possibility, ether is a redundant baggage.
You might try Viagra for your problem. Funny you don't realize, proveable or not, the assumption of an ether (or any other theory) which can explain relavistic observations WITHOUT Einstien's Relativity baggage is a far better and logical assumption.
While we are establishing each others credentials, suppose you post: 1 - Any comment by me ever on all of modern physics. 2 - Any comment by me ever on cosmology in general. 3 - Any comment by me ever on physical chemistry. 4 - Any comment by me ever on high energy physics. 5 - Any comment by me ever on quantum mechanics. 6 - All comments by me on STR which you can, have or will, when you post, show irrefutably and clearly by basic physics or actual mathematics (not recitals of SRT) which show me in error. If you have forgotten some issues raised. a - The absence of any supporting data or observation of reciprocity advocated by and inherent in SRT. b - Justification for disregarding the emperically demonstrated fact that an accelerated clock in motion becomes dilated and has a slower tick rate; which if retained in physics calculations prohibits spatial contraction advocated by SRT in d = v * t. c - Also, I believe it was you (or everneo) that in another post had commented in a reply to me regarding my mention of GPS as supporting an absolute view vs a relative view, about T. VanFlanderan's write up on GPS and GR. Should we assume therefore since you are posting Tom's work as being of expert nature that you also subscribe to his "Exploding Planet Hypothesis" and that the speed of gravity is 10<sup>10</sup>c and "Pushing Gravity"?. There is much more but this would be a nice start for you to work on. But in the mean time you might try to at least keep your post partially accurate and knock off the innuendo nonsense. It makes you look even smaller and stupid.
MacM: But you have forgotton: a - The absence of any empirical data disproving reciprocity in SRT. b - You were wrong regarding d=vt, as I explained. c - Van Flandern has been consistently discredited, too.
You have forgotten that I don't forget. Wonderful. Keep your fingers crossed for another 100 years. I'm sure you will find your reciproicty. Stupid assinine resistance to the most obvious facts. Oh well, what else should we expect from this crowd huh? You only claim to have explained something. You have explained nothing. You merely recit theory and do not address the physical issue. So stop making flase claims. You have not rebutted the facts. He was the one that posted Tom's paper as in contrast to my statement. If he thinks Tom is an expert I merely asked appropriate questions. BTW: You aren't losing you have already lost.
What do you call a special type of pussy that can climb only on a certain tree called "crackpotree" and talk about civility?
You make about as much sense when you are trying to be cute as you do when you are trying to be serious - None. If you don't want sand kicked in your face then don't flex you puny muscles.
