The Great Ether Debate

[Higgsy]

Isn't it rather silly that most relativists are only capable of ad-hominem/personal attacks and not any reasonable logical discussion whatsoever when answering criticisms of a logical fallacy? This isn't a productive way to discuss anything.

See above, mate. He really doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[Cargo]

I guess if all you know is textbooks, then that's all you'll know. How can anything else exist or even be factual, if it's not taught in our Institutions and prescribed by our papers.

Granted that the words we use play a role in what we think. Unfortunately Higgs, I think you've taken the book, and just are slamming on the table and in peoples faces. Not really interested in what they are thinking or saying. Perhaps you've suffered from some abuse in the past.

[Higgsy]

I guess if all you know is textbooks, then that's all you'll know. How can anything else exist or even be factual, if it's not taught in our Institutions and prescribed by our papers.

Granted that the words we use play a role in what we think. Unfortunately Higgs, I think you've taken the book, and just are slamming on the table and in peoples faces. Not really interested in what they are thinking or saying. Perhaps you've suffered from some abuse in the past.

It seems that the forum rule against personal insult only seems to work in one direction.

[Cargo]

I don't think you really care about the forum rules. And that wasn't an insult at all, just a theory which may or may not be proven at some point in the future. Anyway, this is not providing any value to the debate, so we'll just look at each other funny and carry on our own ways.

[Higgsy]

I don't think you really care about the forum rules. And that wasn't an insult at all, just a theory which may or may not be proven at some point in the future. Anyway, this is not providing any value to the debate, so we'll just look at each other funny and carry on our own ways.

You have theories, I have facts. Ah well.

[EtherQuestions]

This is an ETHER DEBATE/DISCUSSION THREAD, it is not focused on the relativity debate (there is another thread for that by Zyxzen https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... &start=105)

It should be focused on arguments for and against the Ether model itself.

For example "a light wave model cannot explain xyz, or evidence xyz"
"an Ether has to be incompressible because xyz"
"xyz evidence shows an Ether model cannot explain this effect",
"an Ether model can explain this observation but its model would have to be changed"
"light wave vs light (wave)particle debates/evidences".

NOT "An Ether is impossible because Special/General Relativity are an undisputed fact (paste in the usual papers hailing evidences for SR/GR)"

Not posting arguments about people's intelligence or papers about General Relativity evidence (there is a thin line where this can be contributing though if the effects cannot ever be physically explained by ANY Ether model, but this should be the argument.).

Not posting HUGE quoted replies that clog up the board and make it a mess. Be concise, or delete the first quote.

Not posting insults or condescending personal replies. Or sliding the discussion entirely into a QM/Relativity Debate, it must stay on the Ether track.

Can any moderator quickly clean up and remove any irrelevant post so we can get back to the original discussion about the Ether? (including any irrelevant posts by myself).
I'll happily do this myself, as this discussion is most important to me.

[GaryN]

Ether and matter, by Carl Frederick Krafft.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up&seq=1

[crawler]

Ether and matter, by Carl Frederick Krafft.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up&seq=1

I found 12 references to Krafft in this forum, & another 3 in the old forum.
He has about 10 books.

[GaryN]

Thanks crawler, I thought I had seen the name before on TB but when I searched I got nothing. Even now I get only 2 results with
Carl Frederick Krafft site:http://thunderbolts.info
That was using Google search.