Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408533

Re: MMX violates the second postulate

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: MMX violates the second postulate
Date	2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
Message-ID	<eg2mntFqa3rU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<6c430c36-a4d0-4d38-8f5d-3f9e8621c30e@googlegroups.com> <eg2m89Fq739U1@mid.individual.net> <5e028fa2-64bf-4561-9df2-14bfcca296ca@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/02/2017 7:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:06:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> MMX violates the second postulate
>>>
>>> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of
>>> the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is
>>> c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent
>>> perpendicular to the motion it is c.
>>
>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>> science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the
>> postulate.
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
>>> 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
>>> postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
>>>
>>
>> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to
>> keep posting this stuff.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>

But not one's ever detected c+v. Yes, the way people thought light would 
behave would have violated the requirement that light travel at a 
constant velocity, but that requirement wasn't known then. It turned out 
that they were mistaken about the behaviour of light.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Sylvia.

Thread

MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:57 -0800
  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:06 +1100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 00:11 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:53 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:39 -0600
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:53 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:48 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:49 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:25 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 12:58 +0000
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:52 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:18 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 04:03 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0600
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 08:19 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:09 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 +0100
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:31 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:27 +0100
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:36 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:49 +0100
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:16 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 02:13 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:13 +0100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:32 +1100
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:41 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 20:00 +1100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:39 +1100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:09 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 22:25 +1100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:57 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 23:53 +1100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:38 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:29 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:17 -0500
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0800
  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:09 +0100
  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:37 -0600
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 08:16 -0800
  Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:07 -0800
  Re: MMX violates the second postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:11 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:46 -0800

csiph-web