« on: 20/02/2010 15:52:09 »
Okay, bored chemist, what I am saying is not supported by fact? Let me reiterate: the main reason why aether is conceived different from spacetime is that aether had been, has been conceived, as luminiferous while spacetime is not. I have explained that it is light that is luminiferous and visible from its source and matter it comes in contact with. Outer space has make up of NO-mass, supra-supra thin skein that light is simply passing through with no particle to contact with…but when light comes in contact with particle water- tail of comet, several million miles long, such tail is made visible/luminiferous. Why? because light impact on contact on such tail is CONCENTRATED 186,000 miles length per sec.. Thus, the old concept that aether is luminiferous is wrong. Aether is non-luminiferous,as a FACT, non-luminiferous aether is one and same banana with spacetime of Dr. Einstein. Not supported? Dr. Einstein himself, changed mind, revived aether, in a speech of 1920, if you can read between the line: he means impliedly aether and spacetime are one and same banana.
The posted: “Unifying aether, spacetime, superstring, cosmological constant dark energy” can give further clarification.
jsaldea12, you do have to make a distinction between what is your opinion and what is a fact.
If you could provide me the link that proves what you said the evidence for frame-dragging effect was conclusively found in space through ten years of observation, then that could lead to a scientific fact of significance. Else, the speculation by those relativists were merely their opinions, although it might be construed in their best educated guess that could be based on a most probable hypothesis agreed by all those scientists who did that experiment.