Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408557
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: MMX violates the second postulate |
| Date | 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eg2v5kFs11iU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <6c430c36-a4d0-4d38-8f5d-3f9e8621c30e@googlegroups.com> <eg2m89Fq739U1@mid.individual.net> <5e028fa2-64bf-4561-9df2-14bfcca296ca@googlegroups.com> <o7h920$nm2$1@dont-email.me> <70f375da-8f44-491d-9e2d-1aca208904f8@googlegroups.com> |
On 9/02/2017 8:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:27:25 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 09/02/2017 v 09:11 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >>> >>> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking. >>> >> c + v leads to c via v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1.v2/c^2 ) >> >> When an electron approaching you at v = 0.9999 c >> emits photon toward you, >> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c. >> >> When you approach the electron at v = 0.9999 c >> and it emits a photon toward you, >> the photon does not approach you at 1.9999 c, but just c. >> >> -- >> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) >> >> A wise man guards words he says, >> as they say about him more, >> than he says about the subject. > > According to Einstein Michelson's c+v equals 300000000m/sec and cannot be used to perform a valid experiment. > One can construct an apparatus, and examine its behaviour. Whatever the motivation for building an apparatus, once it is built, it exists, and will do something, whether that something is what its builder expected of it, or not. In the case of Michelson–Morley, that apparatus created observable fringes, which did not move even when the apparatus was rotated, and regardless of the position of the apparatus in space as the Earth moved in its orbit. A theory is required that describes that behaviour, and relativity does it very well. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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