On Oct 7, 2:46 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
50 years later they dumped a medium on Newton anyway as 'absolute
space' and then conveniently rejected it all over again and then you
have 100 years of relativistic junk,some hopeless cases still think it
is an achievement but they are the ones who jump in here and try to
make you look like an idiot even though it may be a fair question.

They were only confused about the nature of the "ether".

Again,the guys in the mid 19th century were inheriting a dilemma
Newton created when he rejected a medium.If you really have to believe
the cobblers of the last century where Albert rejects and aether by
attaching it to Newton's 'absolute space' then be my guest,it is an
incredible work of fiction but no more .

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton

So Cecil,if you read the article again and especially the top right
column you will see the distress of people who know they are stuck in
a rut but cannot find a way out of it.In the end they dumped aether on
Isaac as 'absolute space' and so began the relativistic junk. -

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert

Unless you have a severe reading disability,you will probably notice
Newton using explict terms like "utterly rejected" in regard to aether
hence the honest of the guys in the mid 19th century.



Now we know that empty space is indeed not empty and
is something (as opposed to absolute nothing) that some
physicists describe as a "quantum soup" outside of which
EM waves cannot propagate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Quantum soup no less !, created by the witches of Macbeth no doubt -

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble

The fiction Newton created is far more impressive than the one built
by the guys in the early 20th century but the fiction of Newton has a
very,very astrological slant and it began with the work of John
Flamsteed.I would love to fill you in with the details but you appear
content believing the guys in the mid 19th century were confused.They
were not,they were desperate.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425