Jones Beene wrote: > Stephen > >> If I can judge by Jones's rather strong denial of the validity of >> these classic experiments.... > > Whoa. I am not denying their validity for the limited scope which > they encompass- but why extend that further ? They do have historical > meaning and purpose, but it can be easily exaggerated.
<g> OK, sorry, I tend to come on a little strong sometimes. The comments about the Wiki article still stand, tho; it can be helpful in obtaining a clear historical perspective on the MMX. > > This is more of a case of semantics and broadened perspectives, or > maybe semantics plus a personal agenda. That goes both ways of course > <g> but the definition of 'aether' has moved clearly away (possibly > due to these experiments) from a medium which photons 'must have' in > order to propagate - to something more akin to the epo field of > Dirac/Wheeler etc. as best explained by Don Hotson. There may never > be a firm definition which can be agreed-to by everyone. > > IOW - photons may require some sort of a 'medium' - true, but that > may end up being simply gravity, or gravity in conjunction with an > epo field. Similarly, if we go back to Maxwell's paper 'On Physical > Lines of Force' - magnetic lines of force can be reinterpreted in an > analogous way - with rotating electron-positron dipoles as the > "hidden" structure. These dipoles will comprise of an electron and a > positron in mutual orbit - and in an underlying dimension which may > correspond to Dirac's reciprocal space, and from which 'quantum foam' > was imagined - which is what Wheeler thought that space-time would > reduce-to on the Planck scale. > > Jones >
