Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408903

Re: MMX violates the second postulate

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: MMX violates the second postulate
Date	2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
Organization	Good company
Message-ID	<o7pcta$adn$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <eg2mntFqa3rU1@mid.individual.net> <2b46b11d-dba1-41e9-b9a6-eaf0498ccc0f@googlegroups.com> <o7huup$1942$3@gioia.aioe.org> <99130943.nniJfEyVGO@PointedEars.de> <5f06ba3d-0517-45a5-ab82-9d326197429a@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Dne 12/02/2017 v 10:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.

Question for Peter:
If MMX had confirmed the c+v, c-v aether wind idea,
would it have been a valid experiment or not ?
If it would have been, why not if it had refuted it ?

MMX shows the Michelson's idea
of speed addition c+v, c-v due aether wind
does not follow reality behaviour
and therefore it is a valid experiment.

Let you hold an apple and suppose
it will fly up when released.
If the experiment shows it falls instead,
is it valid experiment or not ?

Michelson, you, Thomas or I
can add velocities or speeds whatever we like.
If such a model follows the observed reality behaviour,
than good.  If not, it needs to be modified
or thrown out of the window.

In Michelson time supposing simple addition c+v
was considered a good model. MMX was to confirm it.
But disagreement with MMX sent it to history.


-- 
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