Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
You really want to propose that my yardstick grows longer (has no
relation to human body parts, I am sure! Hmm, could this be possibly
be desirable?) while my seconds grow shorter?

Both concepts are contained in Lorentz's
transformations.

Cecil:

I have wondered on some of your thoughts. Let me attempt to kludge
together an example to show how so:

For one example, the same amateurs which accept the notion of "eternity"
and therefore time--a method to measure it and know-of-it by, without
question, will also argue that a box in space contains ABSOLUTELY
nothing; yet, they claim time exists and the box which contains nothing
is being held subject to times qualities and laws. However, an argument
could be made, what sense would time make if it measured nothing,
indeed, how could time possibly exist as we think of it (can occur
without need for motion and/or distance?) If you were in that box time
itself would cease to exist and but obviously we have been there and our
notion of time does NOT stop, but then, that only proves movement and
distance...

The point being, time CANNOT exist AND a box in space be
TRULY/ABSOLUTELY empty. If you believe in time, you already have made
an argument for the ether. (However, no "proof" is absolutlely
established, as time could exist AND the box can contain ether, which is
the crux of it all...)

Imagine the "empty box" out in space, a VERY LONG time ago, and a bunch
of minds are around it arguing if it is truly empty or not. Then
imagine the big bang theory is not only possible, but it happens right
before your eyes in the space contained within the box (empty space),
would those minds still be arguing about the ether being impossible,
what "clock" would they have timed that bang with?

What say you?

JS