[TheForge] YAK relativity- WAY OT, or not...

[Andy Vida]

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> 
> Actually I don't think Einstein was a player in determining that the
> speed of light is a constant.  I believe that experimental result was
> obtained before Einstein sat down to try to work it into the framework
> of physics, resulting in the Special Theory of Relativity.

	The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there was
	no measurable variance in the speed of light and because of
	the result of their experiment, they concluded that the aether
	could not exist.  Beyond that, as I recall, they didn't connect
	the dots.  Al did that.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm reasonably sure that nothing that Einstein did in any
> way disproved the existence of "the aether".

	The non-existence of an aether is implicit in the assertion
	that all inertial frames of reference are relative, Aether
	being a universal and absolute structure to be found in all
	places at all times.

> Rather, modern physics rejects the concept of the aether on the basis
> of Occam's Razor.

	Occam's Razor is utter baloney.  It is nothing more than
	an assertion for which there is support in some cases and
	absolute contradiction in others, with everything in between.

>  Since an aether isn't needed for the propagation of
> electromagnetic radiation, then there is no reason to assume that there
> is an aether.

	Nobody knows for certain what is "needed" for EM propagation.
	We observe things and make inferences and conclusions based
	on the combination of what we see and what we assume to be true.
	Making statements about the ultimate nature of the universe
	is like claiming to have successfully concluded that proctological
	exam on the Great Mystery... this is tantamount to saying
	you have God tied to your sleeve.  The Great Brains will have
	to do a hell of better dance than they have so far to convince
	me of this.  I firmly believe that the best we can do is come
	up with guesses such that their implications provide for
	real world results that we consider useful.  This is how it
	was done with the atomic bomb and every other useful thing
	people have ever concocted.

	I am in no way impugning the skill and intelligence of the
	Great Brains, mind you.  They are in fact great, but the all
	too human of frailty that causes men to think they are
	leading God around by the nuts consistently introduces very
	serious problems in the everyday lives of people such as us.  
	Loss of humility in the face of discoveries
	that make us think we are far larger and more clever than is
	in fact so, is a very dangerous thing; the saddest part being
	that we never seem to learn the lesson.

> BTW, who says the "expanding universe" HAS a border?

	This has been one of THE big areas of hot contention.
	Is it bounded or unbounded?  Finite or infinite?
	Bounded and finte?  Bounded but infinite?  Unbounded
	and finite? Unbounded and infinite?  I don't think
	any of us will live long enough to see the answer,
	which is a very good thing.
> 
> The problem with this discussion is that it is impossible to
> distinguish those who know what their talking about from those who
> don't.

	Well, at the bottom if it all, I believe nobody knows what
	the are talking about.  It's just that some people have
	more sophisticated theories and observations of a nature
	that allows, once again, for real world results to be
	obtained.  It's like imaginary numbers... a wholly unreal
	mathematical construct that nonetheless provides us with
	real world results in terms of technology.  The "unreal"
	is DESCRIBING something that is in fact real. I believe
	everything we know is based in this same truth.  We see
	and think and act based on it.  Sometimes our results
	are what we want and at others they ain't.  That's about
	all we can say about any of it.  Statements that go to the
	heart of the nature of reality are never anything more
	than pale reflections, homomorphisms, of that reality.
	They are the map and never the terrain, unless that's all
	wrong, too. :)

>  I am trying to contribute only when I'm fairly certain I
> know what I'm talking about. 

	If I waited for that, I'd never be able to say a word. :)