Re: FTL, ether and wind

: Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnorkack@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: But why should inertial frames be equivalent when it comes to FTL? 

Because *all* the laws of physics we know of are lorentz invariant.
And the last time we had some laws of physics we thought were not
lorentz invariant, we turned out to be wrong.  And even when we thought
the laws of nature were galilean invariant, there was no prefered
inertial frame.

Basically, we've had nigh on 400 years of physics which shows us that
there's no inertial frame, ever since galileo invented relativity,
and there's no reason to suppose otherwise.

Now, if you *want* to suppose otherwise for SFnal purposes,
that's fine.  Shrug.  No biggie.  But if you're talking about
what's plausible, it seems a bit less than.

: Also, what happens if Earth turns out to be subject to strong, indeed
: relativistic ether wind? 

Then relativity would be wrong.  But it's not the way to bet.

: Is it possible to come up with a noncontradictory metrics where ether
: itself expands? 

Not sure what a "metric" would have to do with whether the "ether
expands".


Wayne Throop   throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://sheol.org/throopw