On 6/2/2011 12:29 AM, Warhol wrote:

...
since a few NASA employees post here maybe they have something to sat
about this?

Also the opposite of what NASA says is the truth... They will have
egg on their faces again.

No one wishes to stick their neck out and call it "ether" (or aether)
for that matter ... even Einstein attempts to acknowledge "it" as the
"cosmological effect" (basically, but denied by many, to be equiv. to a
"cosmic ether.")

I find many high schools and colleges are even "unaware" (or in some
form of denial) to Einsteins admission of a "gravitational ether."

Like I say, there is relatively "handful" of people who come right out
and deal with ether as a substantial material, in academic and research
branches.

An example of what I am referring to is this abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhLA..152..458A

Or, this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608164

Investigating with search terms composed of "gravitational ether",
"cosmic ether", "cosmological effect", etc. will show the debate is far
from over ...

However, the "effect" which seems to go wanting for a proper name has
already been covered under the name of "ether." However, since many
have denied its' existence, but now are forced to admit "something is
there", attempt to hide their mistaken denial in a "name change
ploy/tactic." This has more to do with human nature and the refusal to
admit mistakes than anything else ...

Actually, quite funny to watch! Very smart people also suffer from such
ego worship ... and the fear of being ostracized by their peers ...

Simply put, you can still deny the "ether" if you just name "it"
something else, since then, you deny the "it" is ether! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS