[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 22

[cj at mb-soft.com]

Sorry if I came across poorly.  Sure, I would examine your paper.

On a separate point, it seems to me that whatever characteristics the aether might have, it MUST have some "effect", that is, some detectable result.  If the aether has NO detectable effects, how coulld it be said to exist?

I happen to have a similar issue with "neutrinos" which are described as having no characteristics, mo mass, no charge, etc.  

In both cases, if you can find any "detectable effect" THEN you have a shot at confirming that the entity exists.

I also note that some of you inn the Group DO understand such things, where my criticism was more against the members who do not have the needed education.  In some ways, you are following along Michelson's thinking where he intended to prove that the aether DID exist, but when his experiment never showed any evidence, Michelson came to conclude that the aether did not exist (because it has no detectable effects).

Anything which has extremely minimal effect to try to detect, and you wind up like Michelson-Morley, where they set up their experiment to "prove that the aether existed" but then they were surprised by the evidence (or lack thereof) which caused them to conclude exactly the opposite.

I strongly encourage ALL physicists to apply the most strict logic they can, to find whatever might be waiting for them.  What drives me crazy (very commonly in the "mainstream physics community") is that very sloppy logic is used, where little of value is possible.

Sorry that I had sounded like a jerk.  I just wish ALL Physicists would "massively research and examine historical records" where our communnity might have a chance of finding valuable insights.

Carl Johnson


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161229/8b487f2b/attachment.html>