🚀 go-pugleaf

PD wrote: > > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 2 Feb 2006 06:00:11 -0800,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Henri Wilson wrote: On
1 Feb 2006 14:44:31 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -=- [snip] John Kennaugh has summed this up most beautifully.
> >
> >            SR simply assumes that every observer has
> >                  its own 'personal aether'.
>
> Exactly. And because each "personal ether" is just as convincing
> as any other's, there is no single, preferred ether that can be
> physically distinguished. Because there is no single ether that
> is physically distinguishable, -=-

$$            "Personal æther" ..Ambiance for GR-dummys.
$$ You are mixing and/or alternately dropping "preferred" ..implying
   that BECAUSE there are SO many DiFFERENT æther (to each an æther)
   "no single ether .. is physically distinguishable". EVERYbody's
   æther is DiSTiNGUiSHABLE in your 1st sentence, But, *NONE* AT ALL
   DiSTiNGUiSHABLE in your own 2nd sentence (SAME paragraph), Dimwit.
    ```Brian.

> -=- and since the mechanism of *any* ether is not required to
> explain the effects observed (unlike LET), then the entire notion
> of the ether can be safely abandoned. > > PD
Re: (Personal æther) Ambiance for GR-dummys.