Comments on: Dissident Physics http://www.kinsellalaw.com/2007/05/03/11/ Norman S. Kinsella: Intellectual Property Law and More Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:52:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Elly Indriawati http://www.kinsellalaw.com/2007/05/03/11/comment-page-1/#comment-923 Elly Indriawati Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:10:09 +0000 http://kinsellalaw.com/wordpress/?p=11#comment-923 Dear Sir, The above mentioned website promotes a dragged ether that exactly predicts stellar aberration! The gravitational pull, because of the continious presence of ether, doesn't need to be faster than light. I understand that the SRT was developed because stellar aberration could not be reconciled with ether. In other words science was not able to explain stellar aberration with ether. It appears that the omission is that science unjustified denied the possibility of dragged ether. Should science not just simply adopt dragged ether now there is a valid explanation. Regards, Elly Dear Sir,

The above mentioned website promotes a dragged ether that exactly predicts stellar aberration!

The gravitational pull, because of the continious presence of ether, doesn’t need to be faster than light.

I understand that the SRT was developed because stellar aberration could not be reconciled with ether. In other words science was not able to explain stellar aberration with ether.

It appears that the omission is that science unjustified denied the possibility of dragged ether.

Should science not just simply adopt dragged ether now there is a valid explanation.

Regards,

Elly

]]>