Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408189
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The constancy of light |
| Date | 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100 |
| Organization | Good company |
| Message-ID | <o7bne7$4mi$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <7c5d9bfa-9675-4249-b2f5-9e5a4dc08dfa@googlegroups.com> <efsm0fFjku7U1@mid.individual.net> <a3091d04-001b-41bf-b4ab-367589ccc5b2@googlegroups.com> |
Dne 07/02/2017 v 05:26 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v >>> (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c >>> (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the >>> source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth >>> (oblique c). >> >> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results >> were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected. >> >> Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false. What's >> the point? >> >> Sylvia. > > The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according to logic. Elementary. > It is rather the elementary flaw in your logic. You confuse the experiment and its outcome. Michelson expected c+v and c-v, according to the aether theory. He set the MMX experiment to confirm it or to refute it. The MMX experiment refuted it, showing c. The MMX outcome is in agreement with later created SR by Einstein and with LT. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:11 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt at it again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 17:16 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 12:38 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:25 +1100
Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0800
Peter Riedt eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 19:31 +1100
Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 00:39 -0800
Re: The constancy of light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:07 -0500
Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:22 -0600
Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:02 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:11 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:16 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:33 -0600
Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:53 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600
Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:36 -0800
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:07 -0800
Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 05:25 -0800
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:59 -0800
Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:14 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:15 +0100
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 03:44 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 04:51 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:36 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:12 +0100
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 08:52 -0600
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 10:20 -0800
Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:44 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:16 -0600
Re: The constancy of light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 11:01 -0800
Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-10 12:49 -0800
Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-10 14:47 +0100
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-10 07:48 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0600
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 14:16 -0600
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 14:31 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0600
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 08:18 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 12:24 -0600
Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 10:40 -0800
Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-13 21:16 +0100
Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:00 +0100
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 14:59 -0800
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 15:51 -0800
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:09 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:53 +1100
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:19 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:08 +1100
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:24 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:11 +1100
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:24 -0800
Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:10 -0800
Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:45 +1100
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0800
Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 14:56 -0800
Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-11 14:42 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:09 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:23 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:27 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:23 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:56 -0800
Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:44 -0800
csiph-web