Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408553

Re: MMX violates the second postulate

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: MMX violates the second postulate
Date	2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o7hecm$8dn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<6c430c36-a4d0-4d38-8f5d-3f9e8621c30e@googlegroups.com> <eg2m89Fq739U1@mid.individual.net> <5e028fa2-64bf-4561-9df2-14bfcca296ca@googlegroups.com> <o7h920$nm2$1@dont-email.me> <70f375da-8f44-491d-9e2d-1aca208904f8@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/09/2017 10:16 AM, 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.
>>

> According to Einstein Michelson's c+v equals 300000000m/sec and cannot be used to perform a valid experiment.

You may think so while you do not understand SR yet.

The huge evidence set since 1887 disagrees with your conclusions.

As it is experimentally confirmed velocities are not additive,
adding 2 velocities related to speeds c and v
produces a velocity related to speed c.

BTW, if you do not want to use c,
then stop using a wrong c value.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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