Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394886 > unrolled thread

On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 22:35 -0700
    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:52 +0200
      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-04 23:12 -0700
        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 10:42 +0200
          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 02:04 -0700
    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:35 -0700
    Cretin P G Riedt at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-06 08:11 -0700
    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 16:32 -0700
      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-06 18:21 -0700
        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 04:32 -0700
          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-07 18:10 -0700
            Cretin P G Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-07 18:27 -0700
            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 21:12 -0500
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-07 19:52 -0700
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-16 06:30 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-16 18:29 +0000
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-16 12:34 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 11:46 -0500
            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 11:03 -0700
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 16:50 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 17:22 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 17:29 -0700
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 17:38 -0700
                    Imbecile P G Riedt persists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 19:22 -0700
                      Re: Imbecile P G Riedt persists Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 20:28 -0700
                        Re: Imbecile P G Riedt persists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-08 20:33 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-09 09:20 -0500
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-09 18:27 -0700
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:53 -0700
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 00:53 -0700
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:45 -0700
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 05:13 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 06:03 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 06:13 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 06:20 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 07:20 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 23:25 -0700
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 18:16 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-10 23:07 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 05:19 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 05:39 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:56 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 20:45 +0000
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 18:05 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 20:24 -0700
                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 22:06 -0700
                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-12 05:00 -0700
                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:47 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-12 20:02 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-12 08:45 -0700
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-10 07:31 -0500
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 05:37 -0700
                        Cretin P G Riedt inserts foot in mouth "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-10 07:00 -0700
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:35 -0500
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-24 07:22 +0100
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:33 -0500
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-24 17:27 +0100
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 07:46 -0500
                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-25 18:44 -0400
                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 09:18 -0500
                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-31 14:19 -0500
                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:50 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-31 18:14 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-31 18:57 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-31 19:39 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 08:48 -0500
                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-02 08:36 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-02 09:12 -0700
                                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 16:24 +0000
                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-01 12:53 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-24 06:56 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 15:48 +0000
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 15:54 +0000
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 05:35 -0700
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-10 07:26 -0500
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 14:56 -0500
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 07:59 -0700
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:46 -0500
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 17:01 +0000
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-18 12:10 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:34 -0500
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-19 06:53 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 09:07 -0500
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-11 09:30 -0700
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 14:55 -0500
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 20:38 +0000
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-11 15:57 -0700
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 23:27 -0700
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-14 06:16 -0700
    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 16:58 +1100
      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:25 -0700
        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 18:58 +1100
          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 01:32 -0700
            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-12 20:16 +1100
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:11 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-13 12:28 +1100
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 18:40 -0700
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 17:05 -0700
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-13 20:38 -0700
                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 04:28 -0700
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 05:15 -0700
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 06:52 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 07:35 -0700
                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:57 -0700
                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 09:14 -0700
                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:52 -0700
                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 22:36 -0700
                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 02:52 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:04 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 06:50 -0700
                                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:58 -0700
                                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 08:15 -0700
                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 07:13 -0700
                                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-15 08:17 -0700
                                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 08:47 -0700
                                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 03:26 -0700
                                                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0500
                                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 09:57 -0700
                                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 17:42 -0700
                                                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-17 19:16 -0700
                                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 19:56 -0700
                                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 08:19 -0700
                                                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 18:19 -0700
                                                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-18 19:12 -0700
                                                      Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 10:25 -0700
                                                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 18:34 +0000
                                                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 12:42 -0700
                                                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 19:51 +0000
                                                              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 14:00 -0700
                                                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 22:39 +0000
                        Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 06:44 -0700
                          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:16 -0700
                            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-14 07:33 -0700
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:59 -0500
          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-12 08:51 -0700
          Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 20:46 -0700
            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-14 14:51 +1100
            Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-16 22:45 +0200
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:21 -0500
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 09:57 +0000
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-17 17:02 +0200
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 15:33 +0000
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-17 12:25 -0700
                    Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-17 22:20 +0200
                Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-17 10:27 -0700
                  Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-17 10:29 -0700
              Re: On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies by P G Riedt ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 09:53 +0000

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#395395

W dniu wtorek, 11 października 2016 14:19:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> I did NOT state that.  Your illogical baloney is deeply flawed.  TD is
> CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY every day in particle accelerators, in the GPS
> and in muons that reach the earth.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. GPS shows it
clearly - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
is not dilating. While muons and accelerators are 
irrelevant to time (as defined by your idiot guru 
himself).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395397

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:39:49 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 11 października 2016 14:19:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > I did NOT state that.  Your illogical baloney is deeply flawed.  TD is
> > CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY every day in particle accelerators, in the GPS
> > and in muons that reach the earth.
> 
> A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. GPS shows it
> clearly - time (as defined by your idiot guru himself)
> is not dilating. While muons and accelerators are 
> irrelevant to time (as defined by your idiot guru 
> himself).

Do not feed the troll...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395421

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> LC is not real, it is believed, claimed, assumed etc. If LC is not
>> real,
>> TD, as you stated, cannot be real either.
> 
> I did NOT state that.  Your illogical baloney is deeply flawed.  TD is
> CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY every day in particle accelerators, in the GPS
> and in muons that reach the earth.

No. TD is a fictive "confirmed observation", which between us, makes no 
sense. Sort of Fictive Force, but much worse. Since you can't define Time 
properly. Since trying to define Time, would reveal Oximoronity in 
Relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395436

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> 

Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the expected fringe shift but instead got zero. He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the aether nonexistent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395446

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> > the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> > perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> > 
> 
> Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the
> expected fringe shift

Complete, made-up bullshit.  You have NO clue whatsoever.

> but instead got zero.

Wrong.  He got a value about 30% of what he expected, but his errors
were greater than that value.
 
> He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the
> aether nonexistent.

When are you going to admit you don't have any logic nor any clue
about physics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395450

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> > > the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> > > perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> > > 
> > 
> > Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the
> > expected fringe shift
> 
> Complete, made-up bullshit.  You have NO clue whatsoever.
> 
> > but instead got zero.
> 
> Wrong.  He got a value about 30% of what he expected, but his errors
> were greater than that value.
>  
> > He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the
> > aether nonexistent.
> 
> When are you going to admit you don't have any logic nor any clue
> about physics?

The bullshit is not mine; it is Michelson's as per 

American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129
The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether
by Albert A. Michelson. Master, U. S. Navy:

If, now, the apparatus be revolved through 90° so that the second pencil is brought into the direction of the earth's motion, its path will have lengthened 4/100 wave-lengths. The total change in the position of the interference bands would be 8/100 of the distance between the bands, a quantity easily measurable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395471

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:06:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> > > > the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> > > > perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the
> > > expected fringe shift
> > 
> > Complete, made-up bullshit.  You have NO clue whatsoever.
> > 
> > > but instead got zero.
> > 
> > Wrong.  He got a value about 30% of what he expected, but his errors
> > were greater than that value.
> >  
> > > He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the
> > > aether nonexistent.
> > 
> > When are you going to admit you don't have any logic nor any clue
> > about physics?
> 
> The bullshit is not mine;

Yes, it is.

> it is Michelson's as per 
> American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129
> The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether
> by Albert A. Michelson. Master, U. S. Navy:
> 
> If, now, the apparatus be revolved through 90° so that the second pencil
> is brought into the direction of the earth's motion, its path will have
> lengthened 4/100 wave-lengths. The total change in the position of the
> interference bands would be 8/100 of the distance between the bands, a
> quantity easily measurable.

Why do you delusionally believe that's wrong based upon motion through the
classical aether?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395525

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:06:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 11:25:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:05:12 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> > > > > the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> > > > > perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the
> > > > expected fringe shift
> > > 
> > > Complete, made-up bullshit.  You have NO clue whatsoever.
> > > 
> > > > but instead got zero.
> > > 
> > > Wrong.  He got a value about 30% of what he expected, but his errors
> > > were greater than that value.
> > >  
> > > > He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the
> > > > aether nonexistent.
> > > 
> > > When are you going to admit you don't have any logic nor any clue
> > > about physics?
> > 
> > The bullshit is not mine;
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> > it is Michelson's as per 
> > American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129
> > The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether
> > by Albert A. Michelson. Master, U. S. Navy:
> > 
> > If, now, the apparatus be revolved through 90° so that the second pencil
> > is brought into the direction of the earth's motion, its path will have
> > lengthened 4/100 wave-lengths. The total change in the position of the
> > interference bands would be 8/100 of the distance between the bands, a
> > quantity easily measurable.
> 
> Why do you delusionally believe that's wrong based upon motion through the
> classical aether?

It is wrong because it was not observed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395539

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:47:31 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:01:07 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Why do you delusionally believe that's wrong based upon motion through the
> > classical aether?
> 
> It is wrong because it was not observed.

YOU are the one that is wrong.  EVERY experiment comes out right.  A null
result tells something VERY important.

> We can argue forever but I only consider facts: 

No, you don't.

> 1. Michelson used a logic which assumed unequal lightpaths over the
> perpendicular and parallel arms.

This is TOTALLY irrelevant and COMPLETELY wrong-headed.  The light paths
were of such a length as to cancel out the beams at the detector.

If the two light paths were exactly the same length, the beams would have
INTENSIFIED, not subtracted.  You demonstrate that you don't understand
physics.

> 2. His logic led to a null result and he claimed the aether nonexistent. 

He claimed the CLASSICAL aether nonexistent.

> 3. Lorentz tried to rescue the aether and suggested with Fitzgerald that
> the parallel arm contracted proportional to v. 

True.  So what?

> 4. The contraction could not be verified as real. 

Once more you fail to define what you mean by "real."

> 5. SR changed Lorentz' contraction from physically real to observed by
> a non-comoving observer. 

So what?

> 6. I demonstrated that the lightpaths of the perpendicular and parallel
> arms of the interferometer are equal by a mathematical formula.

Then you made a stupid mistake since they CAN'T be equal.

> Michelson light ray on the perpendicular arm traveled aba1 in his 1881
> and 1887 papers but the adjusted path is ab1a1. 

Says someone who doesn't understand physics.

> 7. My logic is consistent with the outcome of MMX and does not need a
> length contraction.

SR is consistent with the outcome of the MMX and doesn't need length
contraction.  So what?

> Michelson's logic is not valid

Says the dunce who doesn't understand physics.

> and cannot be corrected by Lorentz' length contraction.

Sure it can IF such an aether existed.

> SR still uses a theoretical length contraction. 

So what?  It has NOTHING to do with the outcome of the MMX.  SR says
no length contraction occurred in the MMX, physical, theoretical or
existential.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395493

W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 03:05:12 UTC+2 użytkownik Peter Riedt napisał:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:19:54 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > all this demonstrates is that you do NOT understand the thought behind
> > the MMX.  The whole instrument ROTATED, so the parallel arm becomes the
> > perpendicular arm and vice versa.  Your whole argument is null and void.
> > 
> 
> Michelson rotated the apparatus to double the predicted value of the expected fringe shift but instead got zero. He should have admitted his logic was wrong but instead proclaimed the aether nonexistent.

Do not lie, stupid!

Michelson has measured a speed: 12-8 km/s to the north-south direction.
sqrt(n^2-1) = 1/40 for the air index: n = ...

so, he measured ~400 km/s in fact, what is a quite correct speed of the Sol sys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395335

On 10/10/16 10/10/16   2:53 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Numerous
> experiments are cited to suggest that SR is a proven theory.

No. They are cited to show that SR is a VALID theory. No physical theory can 
ever be "proven", because physics is not math. Only in the abstract world of 
mathematics is any proof possible.


> I apologise for
> taking a stance to the contrary.

An "apology" cannot cover up the fact that your "argument" is based purely on 
IGNORANCE.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395337

W dniu poniedziałek, 10 października 2016 14:31:23 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> No. They are cited to show that SR is a VALID theory. No physical theory can 
> ever be "proven", because physics is not math. Only in the abstract world of 
> mathematics is any proof possible.

And how many proven mathematical theories do you
know, poor idiot?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395342 — Cretin P G Riedt inserts foot in mouth

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 12:53:59 AM UTC-7, Imbecile Peter Riedt wrote:
>  It could only be 'measured' by an observer comoving with the observed object 

No, cretin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#395944

On 10/10/2016 2:53 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The initial basis of LC and TD was MMX. Michelson's logic was
> flawed and his experiment a failure but the outcome was the
> death of the aether. Lorentz tried to rescue the aether but
> his LC was transformed by SR into a phenomenon not real. It
> could only be 'measured' by an observer comoving with the observed
> object but a physical contraction of the object could not be
> confirmed ever. TD without LC is not possible; they complement
> each other to ensure that the value of c is constant as is
> claimed by SR. Numerous experiments are cited to suggest that
> SR is a proven theory. I apologise for taking a stance to the
> contrary.

Peter, a number of things where you have made some general mistakes.
1. First of all, MMX was NOT in fact the basis for LC and TD. Maxwell's 
laws of electrodynamics were the basis for relativity.

2. MMX was the basis for Lorentz's efforts in this direction, which was 
NOT relativity. Maxwell simply noted that IF length contraction held (he 
offered no mechanism by which this contraction held), then MMX could be 
explained. But Einstein took a different approach entirely and offered a 
rationale for LC that Michelson did not.

3. You are misjudging Michelson's experiment to be a success if it 
detected the ether and a failure if it did not. That's wrong. The 
mission of the experiment was to be able to answer EITHER WAY whether 
the ether was there or not. It did answer that question. It answered 
that the ether was not there, and so the experiment SUCCEEDED in its 
mission because it was able to answer the question. Michelson's 
experiment was a SUCCESS, because it provided an answer with a null result.

4. Lorentz also made it clear that length contraction is not visible to 
any observer moving along with the object, exactly the same as with 
relativity. It is NOT true that contraction was physical in Lorentz's 
theory and apparent in relativity.

On the other hand, you are right that experimental results support 
relativity. Since experimental agreement is the SOLE reason to decide a 
theory is right or not, at least in science, then that pretty well 
settles things. If you want to disagree with relativity even though 
experiments say it is right, then you are really not thinking 
scientifically.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396600

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 1. First of all, MMX was NOT in fact the basis for LC and TD. Maxwell's
> laws of electrodynamics were the basis for relativity.

Wrong.  The introduction of Albert Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of 
Moving  Bodies” (translated into English in 1922/1923 from the 1905 German 
original, „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“) states:

,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
| 
| […]
|
| It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the 
| present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do 
| not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. […]
| Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover 
                         ^^^^^^^^
| any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”

– by which Einstein *was/is* referring to the Michelson–Morley experiment 
(MMX) and similar, subsequent experiments (up to 1905) that all yielded a 
null result –

| suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
| possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
| They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of 
| small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be 
| valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics 
| hold good.¹ We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will 
| hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a 
| postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently 
| irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in 
| empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state 
| of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the 
| attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of 
| moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. […]

Also, see below regarding length/Lorentz contraction (LC).
 
> 2. MMX was the basis for Lorentz's efforts in this direction, which was
> NOT relativity. Maxwell simply noted that IF length contraction held (he
> offered no mechanism by which this contraction held), then MMX could be
> explained.

Utter nonsense.  The MMX took place in the summer of *1887*.  Hendrik Antoon 
Lorentz (1853–1928) offered length contraction, later also called Lorentz 
contraction, as an explanation for the null results, in *1892*.  James Clerk 
Maxwell, whom we have to thank for "Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics" (by 
which you improperly refer to Maxwell’s _equations_), died in *1879*.

> But Einstein took a different approach entirely and offered a
> rationale for LC that Michelson did not.

Michelson could not offer a rationale for length contraction because it was 
not conceived of yet at the time (see above).  He wrote to Lord Rayleigh in 
August 1887:

,-
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_.22failed.22_experiment>
| 
| […]
| 
|   The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been 
|   completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of 
|   the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a
|   fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less
|   than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is 
|   proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if 
|   the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of
|   the earth’s velocity.
| 
|     — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887

Wikipedia further notes, referring to Jansen & Stachel (2010) [A 5], that

| From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental 
| results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by 
| Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with 
| partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the 
| other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) 
| apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary 
| aether.[A 5]

Lorentz then came up with what is now called Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) 
which included length contraction inasfar as that the "light ether" would 
contract.

Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption that 
there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.  It turned 
out that by combining geometry with the experimentally verified frame-
invariant constant speed of light as the maximum speed for the propagation 
of information, one would arrive at the Lorentz transform (instead of the 
Galilean transform) and LC *naturally* without *needing* Lorentz’s 
contractible ether to explain the results.  Time dilation (TD) then followed 
*naturally* from length contraction (and was experimentally confirmed 
afterwards).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396630

On 10/24/2016 1:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> 1. First of all, MMX was NOT in fact the basis for LC and TD. Maxwell's
>> laws of electrodynamics were the basis for relativity.
>
> Wrong.  The introduction of Albert Einstein’s “On the Electrodynamics of
> Moving  Bodies” (translated into English in 1922/1923 from the 1905 German
> original, „Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“) states:
>
> ,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
> |
> | […]
> |
> | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
> | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
> | not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. […]
> | Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
>                          ^^^^^^^^
> | any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
>
> – by which Einstein *was/is* referring to the Michelson–Morley experiment
> (MMX) and similar, subsequent experiments (up to 1905) that all yielded a
> null result –

This is not historically validated. Einstein maintained himself that he 
was unaware of the MMX at the time he wrote the paper.

>
> | suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
> | possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
> | They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
> | small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
> | valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
> | hold good.¹ We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
> | hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a
> | postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
> | irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in
> | empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state
> | of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the
> | attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of
> | moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. […]
>
> Also, see below regarding length/Lorentz contraction (LC).
>
>> 2. MMX was the basis for Lorentz's efforts in this direction, which was
>> NOT relativity. Maxwell simply noted that IF length contraction held (he
>> offered no mechanism by which this contraction held), then MMX could be
>> explained.
>
> Utter nonsense.  The MMX took place in the summer of *1887*.  Hendrik Antoon
> Lorentz (1853–1928) offered length contraction, later also called Lorentz
> contraction, as an explanation for the null results, in *1892*.  James Clerk
> Maxwell, whom we have to thank for "Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics" (by
> which you improperly refer to Maxwell’s _equations_), died in *1879*.

Yes, I misstated. Where I said "Maxwell", I meant "Lorentz". Thanks for 
catching the error.

>
>> But Einstein took a different approach entirely and offered a
>> rationale for LC that Michelson did not.
>
> Michelson could not offer a rationale for length contraction because it was
> not conceived of yet at the time (see above).

That's correct.

> He wrote to Lord Rayleigh in
> August 1887:
>
> ,-
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_.22failed.22_experiment>
> |
> | […]
> |
> |   The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been
> |   completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of
> |   the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a
> |   fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less
> |   than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is
> |   proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if
> |   the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of
> |   the earth’s velocity.
> |
> |     — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887
>
> Wikipedia further notes, referring to Jansen & Stachel (2010) [A 5], that
>
> | From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental
> | results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by
> | Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with
> | partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the
> | other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887)
> | apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary
> | aether.[A 5]
>
> Lorentz then came up with what is now called Lorentz Ether Theory (LET)
> which included length contraction inasfar as that the "light ether" would
> contract.
>
> Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption that
> there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.

I would dispute that claim. Einstein did not start from a premise of no 
ether. What he started from was the principle of relativity as applied 
to electrodynamics. What he arrived at was an explanation of a great 
number of observed things that nowhere relied on an ether, and so as 
fare as he was concerned it was a spurious notion.

>  It turned
> out that by combining geometry with the experimentally verified frame-
> invariant constant speed of light as the maximum speed for the propagation
> of information, one would arrive at the Lorentz transform (instead of the
> Galilean transform) and LC *naturally* without *needing* Lorentz’s
> contractible ether to explain the results.  Time dilation (TD) then followed
> *naturally* from length contraction (and was experimentally confirmed
> afterwards).
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396652

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 10/24/2016 1:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> ,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
>> |
>> | […]
>> |
>> | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
>> | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which
>> | do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. […]
>> | Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
>> | discover
>>                          ^^^^^^^^
>> | any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
>>
>> – by which Einstein *was/is* referring to the Michelson–Morley experiment
>> (MMX) and similar, subsequent experiments (up to 1905) that all yielded a
>> null result –
> 
> This is not historically validated. Einstein maintained himself that he
> was unaware of the MMX at the time he wrote the paper.

Cite evidence.

>> Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption
>> that there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.
> 
> I would dispute that claim. Einstein did not start from a premise of no
> ether.

He says it in the very paper I have been quoting from.

> What he started from was the principle of relativity as applied
> to electrodynamics.

*Obviously*, not only that.

And next time, trim your quotes.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396738

On 10/24/2016 11:27 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 10/24/2016 1:22 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> ,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
>>> |
>>> | […]
>>> |
>>> | It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
>>> | present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which
>>> | do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. […]
>>> | Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
>>> | discover
>>>                          ^^^^^^^^
>>> | any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,”
>>>
>>> – by which Einstein *was/is* referring to the Michelson–Morley experiment
>>> (MMX) and similar, subsequent experiments (up to 1905) that all yielded a
>>> null result –
>>
>> This is not historically validated. Einstein maintained himself that he
>> was unaware of the MMX at the time he wrote the paper.
>
> Cite evidence.

Holton, Gerald (1969/1995) “Einstein, Mich
elson, and the ‘crucial’ experiment”, Isis, 60,
1969,  pp.  133-197;  see  also  pp.  279-370  in
Thematic  Origins  of  Scientific  Thought,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

>
>>> Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption
>>> that there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.
>>
>> I would dispute that claim. Einstein did not start from a premise of no
>> ether.
>
> He says it in the very paper I have been quoting from.

He stated two postulates, neither of which was the absence of an ether.

>
>> What he started from was the principle of relativity as applied
>> to electrodynamics.
>
> *Obviously*, not only that.

That's all that's sufficient, as he showed in that same paper.

>
> And next time, trim your quotes.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396798

On 10/25/2016 8:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 11:27 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
.
>>>> Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption
>>>> that there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.
>>>
>>> I would dispute that claim. Einstein did not start from a premise of no
>>> ether.
>>
>> He says it in the very paper I have been quoting from.
>
> He stated two postulates, neither of which was the absence of an ether.
>
>>
>>> What he started from was the principle of relativity as applied
>>> to electrodynamics.
>>
>> *Obviously*, not only that.
>
> That's all that's sufficient, as he showed in that same paper.

Odd, it's a losing battle the religious faithful. They all believe with 
all their hearts there is no aether. And on the other side are the 
fundies who swear that the aether is "classical" and the speed of light 
= c+v. It's ALL bullshit.

1. MM did not show the absence of aether but only the absence of "aether 
drift" That absence is not explained. (though some tried like the 
Lorentz contraction)

2. Michelson did many experiments (well confirmed since then) that 
proved the speed of light does not depend on the velocity of it's source.

3. Einstein did not say there is no aether. In fact he said the opposite 
(Odd is good with books he will give you the quote) Einstein gave the 
definitive argument that an aether MUST exist. Namely that the universe 
(space, space-time etc.) had PROPERTIES. Properties cannot exist in 
"nothing at all". (no matter what Odd says it's a stupid argument to say 
that properties exist independent of something that possesses the 
properties) Hence, since space and space-time DO have properties there 
must exist an aether.

Anyone (like all the "theorists" here) arguing against 1,2 or 3 are 
clearly kooks and wrong.

1. There is no measured "aether drift" (at least so far)

2. The speed of light in vacuum always measures c no matter the velocity 
of the light source.

3. Because space has properties there must exist something we can term 
"aether". "Modern" Physicists love to play word games and just change 
the name of aether to try to justify their belief that their is no 
aether. They pull all manner of fantasies (like Quantum foam) out of 
their asses to try to "win" the argument. It's like changing your name 
from John to Jim and then arguing for all you are worth that "John" does 
not exist.

Odd let me tell you again. Science is NOT about word games and 
rhetorical warfare.

And lastly let me note that Einstein assumed the speed of light being 
constant as an axiom to develop his theory. But it can be shown that 
such an assumption is NOT needed. However that in no way changes the 
measurements of Michelson and so many others the the speed of light does 
NOT depend on the velocity of it's source.

And yes, like Einstein I believe in an aether. But it is NOT the 
classical pre-Michelson aether of that age. That aether is debunked.

Allow me to point out to the fringies here that it is the very proven 
absence of "aether drift" that has allowed the old meter stick in Paris 
to be replaced by a definition of so many wavelengths of a certain kind 
of light. Without MM to do such a standard would mean you'd have to 
specify the location, the time of day, the time of year, direction of 
the measurement, and so one for every length measurement. Not very handy.

OK?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396833

On 10/25/2016 5:44 PM, benj wrote:
> On 10/25/2016 8:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 11:27 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> .
>>>>> Einstein took it one step further, making the Occam’s razor assumption
>>>>> that there is no ether and considering what would follow from that.
>>>>
>>>> I would dispute that claim. Einstein did not start from a premise of no
>>>> ether.
>>>
>>> He says it in the very paper I have been quoting from.
>>
>> He stated two postulates, neither of which was the absence of an ether.
>>
>>>
>>>> What he started from was the principle of relativity as applied
>>>> to electrodynamics.
>>>
>>> *Obviously*, not only that.
>>
>> That's all that's sufficient, as he showed in that same paper.
>
> Odd, it's a losing battle the religious faithful. They all believe with
> all their hearts there is no aether. And on the other side are the
> fundies who swear that the aether is "classical" and the speed of light
> = c+v. It's ALL bullshit.
>
> 1. MM did not show the absence of aether but only the absence of "aether
> drift" That absence is not explained. (though some tried like the
> Lorentz contraction)
>
> 2. Michelson did many experiments (well confirmed since then) that
> proved the speed of light does not depend on the velocity of it's source.
>
> 3. Einstein did not say there is no aether. In fact he said the opposite
> (Odd is good with books he will give you the quote) Einstein gave the
> definitive argument that an aether MUST exist. Namely that the universe
> (space, space-time etc.) had PROPERTIES. Properties cannot exist in
> "nothing at all". (no matter what Odd says it's a stupid argument to say
> that properties exist independent of something that possesses the
> properties) Hence, since space and space-time DO have properties there
> must exist an aether.

I agree with everything you say here, except that you position the 
choices as being polarized between "nothing at all" and "aether". As 
we've discussed, though Einstein did talk about this revised concept of 
an aether at some point, he also about the same time stated that this 
remaining aether concept is what is referred to as space-time. Now, I 
know you have general conniptions about jargon and changes in language, 
as though scientists are committing some sin in doing so. Whatever. I'm 
using the language that scientists today are using, regardless whether 
you are fully intent on using the language of a century ago.

>
> Anyone (like all the "theorists" here) arguing against 1,2 or 3 are
> clearly kooks and wrong.
>
> 1. There is no measured "aether drift" (at least so far)
>
> 2. The speed of light in vacuum always measures c no matter the velocity
> of the light source.
>
> 3. Because space has properties there must exist something we can term
> "aether". "Modern" Physicists love to play word games and just change
> the name of aether to try to justify their belief that their is no
> aether. They pull all manner of fantasies (like Quantum foam) out of
> their asses to try to "win" the argument. It's like changing your name
> from John to Jim and then arguing for all you are worth that "John" does
> not exist.
>
> Odd let me tell you again. Science is NOT about word games and
> rhetorical warfare.
>
> And lastly let me note that Einstein assumed the speed of light being
> constant as an axiom to develop his theory. But it can be shown that
> such an assumption is NOT needed. However that in no way changes the
> measurements of Michelson and so many others the the speed of light does
> NOT depend on the velocity of it's source.
>
> And yes, like Einstein I believe in an aether. But it is NOT the
> classical pre-Michelson aether of that age. That aether is debunked.
>
> Allow me to point out to the fringies here that it is the very proven
> absence of "aether drift" that has allowed the old meter stick in Paris
> to be replaced by a definition of so many wavelengths of a certain kind
> of light. Without MM to do such a standard would mean you'd have to
> specify the location, the time of day, the time of year, direction of
> the measurement, and so one for every length measurement. Not very handy.
>
> OK?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web