Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: ETHER FILE Message-ID: <414@iham1.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:28:07 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.414 Posted: Sat Jul 13 12:28:07 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:44:06 EDT References: <371@sri-arpa.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 26 This is a brief comment on one of the points in Eric's hypothesis for a luminiferous aether. This proposal appears very similar to J. C. Maxwell's ideas on the properties of the ether. While the absence of an ether has not been conclusively demonstrated by experimentation, its properties cannot be similar to any known fluids. But, one statement in point 5 concerning the speed of light changing with the density of the ether cannot be correct. Though it is a postulate, both the Special Theory of Relativity and Einstein (General Relativity) theory consider the speed of light in a vacuum to be constant. With the overwhelming success of SR, the validity of the postulates must be taken seriously. According to GR, as light passes a gravitational source (dense ether), it is the frequency of light and not the speed that changes. This was precisely the point of one of the three classic tests of GR which used the Mossbauer effect. And, while Einstein theory has not been conclusively demonstrated, the various other tests performed have tended to support it. So, requiring that the speed of light vary with the density of the ether is not supported by present theory or experimentation. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw