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