|
Post by Jamison McElroy on Jul 5, 2018 14:12:57 GMT
You're a loon. You're arguments are entirely theoretical and have no definitive proof. Aether was founded by medieval and ancient sciences that have no scientific founding in the modern world. To say that aether exists is entirely based on belief and has no scientific proof of it's existence. However, RET has scientific backing and observable proof. The way your theory works, I could also claim there was some made up energy and because I believe it, then it must be true.
In conclusion, I think you're quite bloody mad.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Jul 5, 2018 20:17:33 GMT
If you are going to post on this site, do me the courtesy of actually reading the model. Yes, the term aether was originally used in medieval times to refer to a strictly hypothetical, and by now disproven concept. That is irrelevant. The notion of atoms dates back to Ancient Greece, yet their model had very little in common with what we now know to be the case today. Like 'atom,' 'aether' is a word and one whose precise definition is going to change with time and with increased knowledge. Einstein himself proposed using the word 'aether' to refer to what we now call 'spacetime,' because that is simply how science develops. We should not start using brand new words every time there is some small refinement to a theory. The atoms of the Ancient Greek 'atomism' have no scientific foundation in the modern world, but only a fool would claim that means atoms in the modern theory are just as unjustified.
I give my definition of aether, I give the evidence for it and demonstrate that it is based on more than belief, I give the observable proof. But by your post, it would appear you failed to even read the first part of the model overview. If you had you would know that the aether of DET has as much in common with the medieval definition as the atoms of modern science do with atomism.
|
|