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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382470 > unrolled thread

Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

Started byGSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com>
First post2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
Last post2016-05-04 11:12 -0700
Articles 5 on this page of 45 — 10 participants

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

Contents

  Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments GSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
    Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 09:51 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 03:57 +0200
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 19:53 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:48 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 00:04 -0500
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:24 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 09:59 +0200
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 04:59 +0200
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 20:26 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 21:08 -0700
              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 22:54 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:35 -0700
                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-02 21:47 +0200
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:43 -0500
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:30 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:21 -0500
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 09:16 -0500
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 07:41 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:48 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 15:01 -0700
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:14 -0500
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:16 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 22:13 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-06 06:47 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-05 22:20 -0700
                              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
                                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 06:44 -0700
                                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-30 18:15 +1000
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:05 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 15:50 +0200
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 06:58 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-30 19:56 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:49 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:02 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:25 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:12 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#382761

FromTom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
Message-ID<wd-dnfUZR7wJ77TKnZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#382739
On 5/3/16 5/3/16   4:25 PM, Carl Susumu wrote:
> Tom Roberts think there is an ether composed of matter.

You don't have a clue what I think. This is OUTRAGEOUSLY wrong.

Please stop posting lies and nonsense.


Tom Roberts

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

#382740

FromCarl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
Message-ID<20b090f2-65dd-4212-91a6-5f2f4b111fa8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382470
"The question to solve is not, whether of not the speed of light varies, 
but the original question of Michelson and Moreley: the so called 
'aether-flow hypothesis'. If there is a vertical effect, this would demand to rethink the postulates about the existence of something like 'aether'.
And if this turns out to be true, then physicists made a few mistakes 
for a little more than a century." (T. Heger).

____________________________________________________________


Vacuum proves that there is no ether composed of matter; consequently, Michelson's experiment is completely unnecessary. The reason for Michelson experiment is Einstein's GR and SR manipulates Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of the ether. Henceforth, all experiments valid or invalid can be verified by manipulation of the data using relativity.

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

#382742

FromCarl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
Message-ID<5040d3ed-db5a-4a15-89cd-2a9a756fea5b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382470
You've heard the saying that QM can explain everything which is in reality saying that QM explains nothing. Humanity is at the end of it's laurels normally great achievements occur during these break since humility is a great inspiration and produces insight to the intellectual community.  Example, the theory that the sun is the center of the Solar system occur during the dark ages which resulted in the golden ages (renaissance).  Since America is such a great country with great people, as a whole, not complete, but as a whole, we have achieved greatness before entering the next dark age since a certain person has sacrificed so much to bring peace and prosperity to the people he knows and loves. And to make sure all the little babies have plenty to eat and milk to drink.  Peace, love and may they find a natural cure for baldness.

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

#382855

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
Message-ID<dp2ob0Fla18U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#382742
On 4/05/2016 7:41 AM, Carl Susumu wrote:
> You've heard the saying that QM can explain everything which is in
> reality saying that QM explains nothing.

What gibberish is that?

Anyway, physics generally, and quantum mechanics specifically, 
describes. It does not explain, and does not purport to do so.

Sylvia.

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

#382778

FromCarl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com>
Date2016-05-04 11:12 -0700
Message-ID<6f8b2a36-b714-4c30-a8e8-dddf517362f5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#382470
"Professional physicists also know that GR does predict an effect, and more: how 
INCREDIBLY SMALL that prediction is." (Tom Roberts).

--------------------------------------------------------------


Einstein's GR is supporting the existence of Fresnel's ether composed of matter and you're citing Einstein's GR; therefore, you are justifying the existence of the ether composed of matter, yes?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web