Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408377
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The constancy of light |
| Date | 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <o7fa5c$1111$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <7c5d9bfa-9675-4249-b2f5-9e5a4dc08dfa@googlegroups.com> <efsm0fFjku7U1@mid.individual.net> <a3091d04-001b-41bf-b4ab-367589ccc5b2@googlegroups.com> <o7chn1$1lq3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a6b36c9d-3a43-4a5f-b93a-f08d2f21a90a@googlegroups.com> |
On 2/7/2017 6:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:44 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/6/2017 10:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Peter, you have this mistaken idea that an experimental result can only >> be used to tell you something about one and only one hypothesis. That is >> not true. An experimental result can be used to test a thousand >> hypotheses, even if the hypothesis that was originally considered for >> the test ends up being falsified by the experimental result. >> >> Here, Michelson built the experiment to test a particular hypothesis, >> which ended up being falsified by the experimental result. This does not >> make the experiment in any way a failure, and in fact the result tells >> you something about the remaining 999 hypotheses other than the original >> one considered. >> >> This is the main point that you miss over and over and over again. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Correct, I missed that point because it is irrelevant. I disagree that it is irrelevant. I think you misunderstand the role of experiment in physics. > My point was and is: > > Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contrdiction > that SR is not able to resolve. > The experiment is NOT based on "c+v and c-v logic" or "c" logic. The experiment can deal with BOTH possibilities and distinguish between the two, providing an answer for BOTH. This is what you do not seem to see. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
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