Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408565
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The constancy of light |
| Date | 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o7hnkd$fls$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <29c76655-f43e-4574-8d45-2887d883a222@googlegroups.com> <3b7673ad-0968-4363-95e4-8d70a7aae8ae@googlegroups.com> <5230a1af-9882-4553-bbe0-4d16370c8bef@googlegroups.com> <o7fu6g$4de$1@dont-email.me> <a22fffdc-eb24-4640-a990-312123230646@googlegroups.com> |
On 02/09/2017 12:44 PM, matt.rush200@outlook.com wrote: > Poutnik >>> They imagined that if you couldn't measure any isotropic change in >>> light speed in MMX, light couldn't be a wave in MMX. > >> Who are they ? It is definitely not >> the standard MMX nor SR interpretation. > > Are you suggesting that you think a classical model of > light where it *is a wave* isn't ruled out by MMX? No, it is not. It is ruled out by later experiments. What is rule out by MMX is the classical EM wave theory considering stationary aether. >>> Despite the fact that >>> the measurement process in MMX involved looking for any offset in the >>> interference pattern observed in the experimental setup. > >>> Obviously waves can't cause interference patterns in SR. > >> Obviously they can and they do. >> The point is, the patterns did not change, >> while it had been expected they would have. > > This doesn't prove that light isnt a wave. It only proves > that the aether/vacuum medium is not measureable. I did not say otherwise. If you think I did, you have misinterpreted what I said. > > How do you explain the interference pattern with waves, > while at the same time saying the experiment rules out > a wave model of light? You have said MMX ruled a wave model of light, not me. -- 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