what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
cheers
beda

On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 3:43:21 PM UTC-7, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
> if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> cheers
> beda

Anti-cretin light

beda pietanza wrote:
> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
> if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> cheers
> beda

Feeling desperate about your fantasies being doomed, Beda?

On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
> if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> cheers
> beda
>

It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.

Sylvia.

Den 09.05.2021 00:43, skrev beda pietanza:
> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
> if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> cheers
> beda
>

https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
>> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar
>> light? if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be
>> make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
>> cheers beda
>
> It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.

that's the problem I think. To observe that you need close to monochrome
coherent fringes. The shifts in white light might be displayed fringes
internally, so you don't observe anything pattern outside.

Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 05:19:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
> On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> > what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar light?
> > if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> > cheers
> > beda
> >
> It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
>
> Sylvia.
beda
how can white light being made of many different frequencies make clear definitive finges.
I didn't find a explanation to this
cheers
beda

Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 11:39:49 UTC+2 Walker Huckabee ha scritto:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> > On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> >> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic, solar
> >> light? if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used, would it be
> >> make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the expected fringes???
> >> cheers beda
> >
> > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
> that's the problem I think. To observe that you need close to monochrome
> coherent fringes. The shifts in white light might be displayed fringes
> internally, so you don't observe anything pattern outside.
beda
what do you mean?? can you be more clear?
cheers

beda pietanza wrote:

> Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 11:39:49 UTC+2 Walker Huckabee ha
> scritto:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> > On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
>> >> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic,
>> >> solar light? if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used,
>> >> would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the
>> >> expected fringes??? cheers beda
>> >
>> > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
>> > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
>> that's the problem I think. To observe that you need close to
>> monochrome coherent fringes. The shifts in white light might be
>> displayed fringes internally, so you don't observe anything pattern
>> outside.
> beda what do you mean?? can you be more clear?

I meant the monochrome shifts inside that intensity spectrum, ie a red
goes into blue, then a blue goes into red. The intensity of white will
remain the same and the position unchanged. But I am not very sure, just
guessing.

Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 21:49:23 UTC+2 Walker Huckabee ha scritto:
> beda pietanza wrote:
>
> > Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 11:39:49 UTC+2 Walker Huckabee ha
> > scritto:
> >> Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 09-May-21 8:43 am, beda pietanza wrote:
> >> >> what kind of light was used for the MMX, coherent?, monocromatic,
> >> >> solar light? if not coherent solar light or light bulb was used,
> >> >> would it be make of lots of frequencies that would mess up the
> >> >> expected fringes??? cheers beda
> >> >
> >> > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> >> > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
> >> that's the problem I think. To observe that you need close to
> >> monochrome coherent fringes. The shifts in white light might be
> >> displayed fringes internally, so you don't observe anything pattern
> >> outside.
> > beda what do you mean?? can you be more clear?
> I meant the monochrome shifts inside that intensity spectrum, ie a red
> goes into blue, then a blue goes into red. The intensity of white will
> remain the same and the position unchanged. But I am not very sure, just
> guessing.
beda
it is not matter of the color of the light in to the apparatus, but how the fringes
forms on the target,.
one is induced to think that the light must be monochromatic to a clear and best result,

I have been thinking on this on my own, (I didn't have any significant contribution),
now I am considering that the spectrum of white light, sees all different monochromatic
components of different intensities, finally the fringes are the result of the interference of the dominant
component of the spectrum of the white light.
this could explain the existence of fringes, eventhough there are different frequencies
still hoping for a better explanation from goodwiller,

cheers
beda

On 5/10/21 11:22 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> one is induced to think that the light must be monochromatic to a
> clear and best result,

Only by people who are not familiar with optical interferometers.

The problem with monochromatic light is that all fringes look alike, so
you cannot determine where you are in a long series of fringes.

With white light, one must align the two arms so they are equal to
within a wavelength or so (~ 0.5 microns). When that is so, all
wavelengths will have a fringe at one specific place in the visual
field, but on each side of the central fringe there is a "rainbow"
because the interval between fringes depends on wavelength. The rainbows
are symmetrically placed, so the central fringe can be unambiguously
identified.

That is for an optical interferometer observed by the human eye (or
equivalent camera). But much greater sensitivity can be obtained using
monochromatic light and photodetectors that look at the phase of the
interference. Note that it does not make sense to do this unless the
interferometer itself is stable to much better than a fringe, and that
essentially requires the light paths be in vacuum with exceptional
mechanical stability -- most of the interferometers of the 1920s-30s
were nowhere close to such stability.

Tom Roberts

Il giorno martedì 11 maggio 2021 alle 02:42:51 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> On 5/10/21 11:22 AM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > one is induced to think that the light must be monochromatic to a
> > clear and best result,
> Only by people who are not familiar with optical interferometers.
>
> The problem with monochromatic light is that all fringes look alike, so
> you cannot determine where you are in a long series of fringes.
>
> With white light, one must align the two arms so they are equal to
> within a wavelength or so (~ 0.5 microns). When that is so, all
> wavelengths will have a fringe at one specific place in the visual
> field, but on each side of the central fringe there is a "rainbow"
> because the interval between fringes depends on wavelength. The rainbows
> are symmetrically placed, so the central fringe can be unambiguously
> identified.
>
> That is for an optical interferometer observed by the human eye (or
> equivalent camera). But much greater sensitivity can be obtained using
> monochromatic light and photodetectors that look at the phase of the
> interference. Note that it does not make sense to do this unless the
> interferometer itself is stable to much better than a fringe, and that
> essentially requires the light paths be in vacuum with exceptional
> mechanical stability -- most of the interferometers of the 1920s-30s
> were nowhere close to such stability.
>
> Tom Roberts
beda
thank you, I have some reflections to do upon what you wrote,
can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and
the ad och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???

cheers
beda

On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 05:19:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:

> > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> beda
> how can white light being made of many different frequencies make clear definitive finges.
> I didn't find a explanation to this
> cheers
> beda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:MichelsonCoinAirLumiereBlanche.JPG

Michelson and Morley saw a central black fringe rather than a central white fringe because of the difference in phase inversions of the light being reflected longitudinally versus transversely. As I wrote in a footnote (under a former user name that I abandoned for various reasons):
"If one uses a half-silvered mirror as the beam splitter, the reflected beam will undergo a different number of front-surface reflections than the transmitted beam. At each front-surface reflection, the light will undergo a phase inversion. Because the two beams undergo a different number of phase inversions, when the path lengths of the two beams match or differ by an integral number of wavelengths (e.g. 0, 1, 2 ...), there will be destructive interference and a weak signal at the detector. If the path lengths of the beams differ by a half-integral number of wavelengths (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 ....), constructive interference will yield a strong signal. The results are opposite if a cube beam-splitter is used, because a cube beam-splitter makes no distinction between a front- and rear-surface reflection."

To be more precise, metallic reflection is not the same as reflection from a dielectric surface, and light reflecting off a metallic surface undergoes a complex phase change rather than a phase inversion, but I didn't want to go into all of those details in a FOOTNOTE. There are other subtleties that even my corrections to what I wrote in the footnote are not quite right....

Tom Roberts wrote:

> With white light, one must align the two arms so they are equal to
> within a wavelength or so (~ 0.5 microns). When that is so, all
> wavelengths will have a fringe at one specific place in the visual
> field, but on each side of the central fringe there is a "rainbow"
> because the interval between fringes depends on wavelength. The rainbows
> are symmetrically placed, so the central fringe can be unambiguously
> identified.

this is bullshit entirely, or you are not familiar in optics. That 0.5 um
is not white light wavelength, but monochrome. Are you guys so stupid not
knowing white light?? If a 0.7 um shifts position with a 0.4 um, what you
gonna do, in capitalist america? Waiting for Nuremberg 2 and expect
mercy?

On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???

No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
but undetectable thing.

Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.

Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
should spend your time STUDYING.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 20:46:49 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> > och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> > conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> but undetectable thing.

An idiot said! An idiot can't be wrong!
The idiot's way is THE BEST WAY, and you're FORCED to it.
Remember.

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
>> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
>> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
>
> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> but undetectable thing.
>
> Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
> phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
> useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
> merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
> experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.
>
> Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
> should spend your time STUDYING.
>
> Tom Roberts
>

Put a slightly different way, it is unscientific to make a hypothesis whose
correctness or existence cannot be verified through an experimental test.
It simply does not matter whether it feels intuitive or consistent with a
particular world-view or is less of a leap from a prior perspective. For
some people, a monotheist deity feels completely intuitive and is
consistent with their world view, but evidence for the deity consistently
lies beyond the edge — the so-called God of the Gaps. This is why such
hypotheses are compared to “invisible fairies who cover their footprints” —
there is functionally and philosophically no difference between such a
hypothesis and those fairies.

The key here is that *subjective* appeal is inconsequential. The only thing
that is compelling in science is *objective* appeal, based on corroborated
evidence, which the scientific community agrees shall be considered
compelling enough to change people’s minds.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 12:57:43 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> >> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> >> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> >> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
> >
> > No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> > but undetectable thing.
> >
> > Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
> > phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
> > useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
> > merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
> > experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.
> >
> > Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
> > should spend your time STUDYING.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> >
> Put a slightly different way, it is unscientific to make a hypothesis whose
> correctness or existence cannot be verified through an experimental test.
> It simply does not matter whether it feels intuitive or consistent with a
> particular world-view or is less of a leap from a prior perspective. For
> some people, a monotheist deity feels completely intuitive and is
> consistent with their world view, but evidence for the deity consistently
> lies beyond the edge — the so-called God of the Gaps. This is why such
> hypotheses are compared to “invisible fairies who cover their footprints” —
> there is functionally and philosophically no difference between such a
> hypothesis and those fairies.
>
> The key here is that *subjective* appeal is inconsequential. The only thing
> that is compelling in science is *objective* appeal, based on corroborated
> evidence, which the scientific community agrees shall be considered
> compelling enough to change people’s minds.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
The same exact thing can be said about tachyons. Looks like after 50 years of papers there is no interest (and no capability) for experimental detection.

On 5/12/2021 3:55 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 20:46:49 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
>>> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
>>> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
>>> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
>> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
>> but undetectable thing.
>
> An idiot said! An idiot can't be wrong!
> The idiot's way is THE BEST WAY, and you're FORCED to it.
> Remember.
>

At least you realize that you're the idiot here.

Anyway, what about the invisible pink fairy theory? Both Newton and
Einstein were wrong, the planets' orbits are all caused by invisible
pink fairies who push the planets around. Asteroids and comets, too.
Because they're invisible, they are undetectable. Prove me wrong!

Il giorno mercoledì 12 maggio 2021 alle 21:57:43 UTC+2 bodk...@gmail.com ha scritto:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> >> can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> >> och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> >> conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
> >
> > No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> > but undetectable thing.
> >
> > Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
> > phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
> > useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
> > merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
> > experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.
> >
> > Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
> > should spend your time STUDYING.
> >
> > Tom Roberts
> >
> Put a slightly different way, it is unscientific to make a hypothesis whose
> correctness or existence cannot be verified through an experimental test.
> It simply does not matter whether it feels intuitive or consistent with a
> particular world-view or is less of a leap from a prior perspective. For
> some people, a monotheist deity feels completely intuitive and is
> consistent with their world view, but evidence for the deity consistently
> lies beyond the edge — the so-called God of the Gaps. This is why such
> hypotheses are compared to “invisible fairies who cover their footprints” —
> there is functionally and philosophically no difference between such a
> hypothesis and those fairies.
>
> The key here is that *subjective* appeal is inconsequential. The only thing
> that is compelling in science is *objective* appeal, based on corroborated
> evidence, which the scientific community agrees shall be considered
> compelling enough to change people’s minds.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

beda
the indirect evidence of the presence of the ether is still the best guess up to now,
also, to explain the SR procedure itself:
SR is conceived and uses the ether presence and its effects
(fixing the local speed of light and the local speed of objects), resulting in rendering the
ether itself superfluous:
no ether no SR possible.
the very Lorentz contraction, on which SR is based, takes place versus the ether interaction

the empirical evidences as base of a theory is a greater error
than basing a theory on a erroneous basis
because errors can be corrected
theoretic empiricism not

cheers
beda

Il giorno mercoledì 12 maggio 2021 alle 20:46:49 UTC+2 tjrob137 ha scritto:
> On 5/11/21 1:51 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> > can we say that taken for granted the null result of MMX, and the ad
> > och explanation of it with the Lorentz contraction, it suffice to
> > conclude that the ether is there, but is undetectable???
> No. One can NEVER make any positive statement about some hypothetical
> but undetectable thing.
beda
inferring the existence of the ether comes indirectely from the trivial
analogy with sound: both are (light and sound) independent from the movement of the source.

how do you explain two sources at different speeds, when passing by, emit two light pulses:
these two pulses go together in all directions at same speed???
cheers
beda

>
> Nobody has ever presented an aether theory that agrees with quantum
> phenomena. Until and unless someone does, the aether is completely
> useless. That you attempt to advocate some ill-defined aether theory
> merely shows that you do not understand very basic physics and
> experiments -- your IGNORANCE is pervasive.
>
> Rather than wasting so much time posting nonsense to the 'net, you
> should spend your time STUDYING.
>
> Tom Roberts

Il giorno mercoledì 12 maggio 2021 alle 19:26:46 UTC+2 prokaryotic.c....@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 05:19:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>
> > > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> > > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> > beda
> > how can white light being made of many different frequencies make clear definitive finges.
> > I didn't find a explanation to this
> > cheers
> > beda
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:MichelsonCoinAirLumiereBlanche.JPG
>
> Michelson and Morley saw a central black fringe rather than a central white fringe because of the difference in phase inversions of the light being reflected longitudinally versus transversely. As I wrote in a footnote (under a former user name that I abandoned for various reasons):
> "If one uses a half-silvered mirror as the beam splitter, the reflected beam will undergo a different number of front-surface reflections than the transmitted beam. At each front-surface reflection, the light will undergo a phase inversion. Because the two beams undergo a different number of phase inversions, when the path lengths of the two beams match or differ by an integral number of wavelengths (e.g. 0, 1, 2 ...), there will be destructive interference and a weak signal at the detector. If the path lengths of the beams differ by a half-integral number of wavelengths (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 ...), constructive interference will yield a strong signal. The results are opposite if a cube beam-splitter is used, because a cube beam-splitter makes no distinction between a front- and rear-surface reflection."
>
> To be more precise, metallic reflection is not the same as reflection from a dielectric surface, and light reflecting off a metallic surface undergoes a complex phase change rather than a phase inversion, but I didn't want to go into all of those details in a FOOTNOTE. There are other subtleties that even my corrections to what I wrote in the footnote are not quite right....
beda
thanks for the link, the picture of the fringes is very instructive, though I am surprised of such fringes obtained from incoherent white light spectrum,
let me ask, if you ever heard of an experiment about two clocks, one posit on the pole and one on the equator, and their eventual wobbling???, or any of the kind

cheers
beda

Il giorno mercoledì 12 maggio 2021 alle 19:26:46 UTC+2 prokaryotic.c....@gmail.com ha scritto:
> On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-5, beda-p...@libero.it wrote:
> > Il giorno domenica 9 maggio 2021 alle 05:19:49 UTC+2 Sylvia Else ha scritto:
>
> > > It used white light, for reasons that are explained in the Wikipedia
> > > article. You would know this if you'd bothered to look.
> > >
> > > Sylvia.
> > beda
> > how can white light being made of many different frequencies make clear definitive finges.
> > I didn't find a explanation to this
> > cheers
> > beda
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:MichelsonCoinAirLumiereBlanche.JPG
>
> Michelson and Morley saw a central black fringe rather than a central white fringe because of the difference in phase inversions of the light being reflected longitudinally versus transversely. As I wrote in a footnote (under a former user name that I abandoned for various reasons):
> "If one uses a half-silvered mirror as the beam splitter, the reflected beam will undergo a different number of front-surface reflections than the transmitted beam. At each front-surface reflection, the light will undergo a phase inversion. Because the two beams undergo a different number of phase inversions, when the path lengths of the two beams match or differ by an integral number of wavelengths (e.g. 0, 1, 2 ...), there will be destructive interference and a weak signal at the detector. If the path lengths of the beams differ by a half-integral number of wavelengths (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 ...), constructive interference will yield a strong signal. The results are opposite if a cube beam-splitter is used, because a cube beam-splitter makes no distinction between a front- and rear-surface reflection."
>
> To be more precise, metallic reflection is not the same as reflection from a dielectric surface, and light reflecting off a metallic surface undergoes a complex phase change rather than a phase inversion, but I didn't want to go into all of those details in a FOOTNOTE. There are other subtleties that even my corrections to what I wrote in the footnote are not quite right....
beda
a minute later I send the previous post I ran into this:
https://thatsmaths.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-clocks1.pdf
cheers

On 5/12/21 3:42 PM, Dono. wrote:
> The same exact thing can be said about tachyons. Looks like after 50
> years of papers there is no interest (and no capability) for
> experimental detection.

Hmmm. Say, rather, that there are zillions of experiments that could
have detected tachyons, and MANY physicists have looked for them, with
many different types of detectors; none have been observed.

Tom Roberts

On 5/12/21 5:01 PM, beda pietanza wrote:
> the indirect evidence of the presence of the ether is still the best guess up to now,
> also, to explain the SR procedure itself:

Nonsense! There is no evidence of any ether, direct or indirect, that
does not equally well provide evidence of the validity of SR.

Essentially all physicists today prefer the geometry of SR to any of the
ancient "essences" that have proven to be completely and utterly
undetectable: caloric, phlogiston, elan vital, orgone, or aether.

Tom Roberts