On 6/4/2011 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Actually, that's what nearly every scientist names it;
"ether" was shown to be nonexistent (or to have zero effect
on anything measurable, which is the same thing) over a
century ago,

... yes,
there is precedent for calling "ether", "space", an error which has been
repeated countless times, and you supply absolute evidence of.

Regards,
JS

Indeed, let me get a smaller and finer spoon to feed you with:

The Michelson-Morley Experiment assumes their is a "physical flow" to
ether (or, that it even exists in a static but detectable state), that
this physical flow can be detected on waves, photons or other particles
-- I say, this is ALREADY FAR TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS!

The "physical" characteristics of ether may have little, or NO,
relationship to its' properties of conducting/transporting/etc. waves
and/or particles of light and radio frequencies.

The "particles of ether" could simply lack the mass/energy or ability to
impede or accellerate photons and/or waves, and this is the base
reason(s) the Michelson-Morley Experiment failed ... for just one
example ... another quick reason, just off the top of my head, the
simple rotation of the earth, which the Michelson-Morley Experiment is
utilizing, could throw off the ability to detect -- and actually be
moving in the same directions, as what the experiments orientation and
direction are attempting to use as a measure!

I am sure, given any time, a myriad of errors could be thrown in for
consideration ...

The shallowness of your questions, answers and arguments are your
biggest obstacle(s!)

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry