Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-04 22:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-17 09:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu7p8n$460$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396049 |
On 10/18/2016 2:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2016 8:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> Your argument "LC must be true otherwise SR would be false" sums up the >>>>> level of your defence of an otiose theory. >>>> >>>> No, LC is true because MEASUREMENTS show that it is true. >>> >>> No such measurement.\ >> >> Flat wrong. Your ignorance of experimental measurements is no excuse. > > No.... such experimental measurements for LC is not feasible. You are wrong. You just pick nonfeasible ways to measure it and note that those ways aren't easy to do. But there are certainly documented ways to do it that ARE feasible, and you are ignorant of them. You could fix that if you chose. > > >>> .. .LC is predicted and it is an apparent effect (geometric projection) >>> based on constant c. A better interpretation of the SR (LT) math is >>> that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by >>> a factor of 1/gamma.This prediction is based on the assumption that the >>> light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >> >> Measurements do not need to be interpreted. They are numbers with units. > > So geometric projection is not an interpretation of the LC equation? > Gee You are so stupid. Geometric projection is not the measurement. The LC equation is not a measurement. Measurements do not need to be interpreted. I don't care if X is an interpretation of Y, when neither X or Y is a measurement. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edc40493-c01a-4d38-8721-2d6460586db5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396112 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:34:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/18/2016 2:10 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/18/2016 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 10/9/2016 8:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> Your argument "LC must be true otherwise SR would be false" sums up the > >>>>> level of your defence of an otiose theory. > >>>> > >>>> No, LC is true because MEASUREMENTS show that it is true. > >>> > >>> No such measurement.\ > >> > >> Flat wrong. Your ignorance of experimental measurements is no excuse. > > > > No.... such experimental measurements for LC is not feasible. > > You are wrong. You just pick nonfeasible ways to measure it and note > that those ways aren't easy to do. But there are certainly documented > ways to do it that ARE feasible, and you are ignorant of them. You could > fix that if you chose. Direct measurement is the only way that contains no assumptions. You other ways are based on bogus assumptions such as that the speed of light is c. > > > > > > >>> .. .LC is predicted and it is an apparent effect (geometric projection) > >>> based on constant c. A better interpretation of the SR (LT) math is > >>> that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by > >>> a factor of 1/gamma.This prediction is based on the assumption that the > >>> light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. > >> > >> Measurements do not need to be interpreted. They are numbers with units. > > > > So geometric projection is not an interpretation of the LC equation? > > Gee You are so stupid. > > Geometric projection is not the measurement. The LC equation is not a > measurement. Measurements do not need to be interpreted. I don't care if > X is an interpretation of Y, when neither X or Y is a measurement. > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nu7unr$ffs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396121 |
On 10/19/2016 8:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:34:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/18/2016 2:10 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:46:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2016 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:56:14 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 10/9/2016 8:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> Your argument "LC must be true otherwise SR would be false" sums up the >>>>>>> level of your defence of an otiose theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, LC is true because MEASUREMENTS show that it is true. >>>>> >>>>> No such measurement.\ >>>> >>>> Flat wrong. Your ignorance of experimental measurements is no excuse. >>> >>> No.... such experimental measurements for LC is not feasible. >> >> You are wrong. You just pick nonfeasible ways to measure it and note >> that those ways aren't easy to do. But there are certainly documented >> ways to do it that ARE feasible, and you are ignorant of them. You could >> fix that if you chose. > > Direct measurement is the only way that contains no assumptions. That's simply not true, Ken. I know you personally prefer direct measurement, which is often not feasible. This is why scientists use experimental designs that are feasible. > You other ways are based on bogus assumptions such as that the speed > of light is c. Nope. No such assumption is made for length contraction measurement. Not in the documented experiments. > >> >>> >>> >>>>> .. .LC is predicted and it is an apparent effect (geometric projection) >>>>> based on constant c. A better interpretation of the SR (LT) math is >>>>> that the light-path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by >>>>> a factor of 1/gamma.This prediction is based on the assumption that the >>>>> light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length. >>>> >>>> Measurements do not need to be interpreted. They are numbers with units. >>> >>> So geometric projection is not an interpretation of the LC equation? >>> Gee You are so stupid. >> >> Geometric projection is not the measurement. The LC equation is not a >> measurement. Measurements do not need to be interpreted. I don't care if >> X is an interpretation of Y, when neither X or Y is a measurement. >> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b060732-4c35-44b8-8553-13c187acc930@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395264 |
W dniu niedziela, 9 października 2016 16:20:11 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most > obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without "time dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- That is the standard slow-down efect. No any time dilation! > their speed is measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no pions would survive a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as predicted by SR. Relly? How the speed has been measured? After all, You are still unable to measur the one-way speeds! > While there are no direct measurements of "length contraction", it MUST be valid for consistency: from the pions' frame without "length contraction", the end of the beam line would not reach the pions before they decay; in fact > 90% of them see the end arrive. What? A simple test: rocket start a journey to the Sirius star; a speed is 0.99c (gamma = 7). After about 1.2 year of the journey a captain notices: the Sirius is reached. 8.6/7 = 1.23; So, do You claim, that the captain of the spaceship, should now to believe the real distance to the Sirius is not 8.6 ly, but only the 1.23 ly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 14:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Du6dnVM79apZ3mDKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395408 |
On 10/11/16 10/11/16 11:30 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 9 października 2016 16:20:11 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137
>> "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most
>> obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without
>> "time dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns --
>
> That is the standard slow-down efect. No any time dilation!
"Time dilation" is what this is called. I have no idea what you mean by
"standard slow-down effect" (unless you mean "time dilation").
>> their speed is measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no
>> pions would survive a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as
>> predicted by SR.
>
> Relly? How the speed has been measured?
Put a charged-particle detector (aka counter) at the start of the beamline and
another at the end, so they detect the pions' passage but don't disturb them
significantly. Bring their signals by equal-length cables to a time-to-digital
converter that measures the time-interval between signals into it. Measure the
distance between the counters and compute the pions' speed speed by
distance/time-interval.
This is a standard technique in elementary particle physics. I have participated
in experiments that use > 1,000 channels of time-of-flight counters like this.
> After all, You are still unable to
> measur the one-way speeds!
You mean YOU are unable to measure them.
It certainly is possible to measure one-way speeds, it's just that a) the result
depends directly on how the clocks are synchronized, and b) the systematic
errors due to clock drift make them not as useful as might be wished, especially
for speeds approaching c.
The above measurement is the standard way in particle physics to make a
"one-way" measurement. But it is not sensitive to an anisotropic one-way speed,
and strictly speaking is a type of round-trip measurement in that the signals go
around a closed path.
> rocket start a journey to the Sirius star; a speed is 0.99c (gamma = 7).
> After about 1.2 year of the journey a captain notices: the Sirius is
> reached.
> 8.6/7 = 1.23;
>
> So, do You claim, that the captain of the spaceship, should now to believe
> the real distance to the Sirius is not 8.6 ly, but only the 1.23 ly?
You are VERY confused, primarily due to your almost complete lack of precision
in your thinking and writing. In particular, you mention several values without
specifying IN WHICH FRAME they hold.
In this situation, in the frame of the rocket the distance from earth to Sirius
IS MEASURED TO BE 1.23 light years -- it is measured by using the known speed of
earth+Sirius relative to the rocket (0.99 c), and the time it took for Sirius to
reach the rocket (1.23 years). In the rest frame of earth and Sirius, the
distance from earth to Sirius is 8.6 ly. Since in the rocket frame earth and
Sirius are MOVING, the distance between them is subject to "length contraction",
and your values confirm it. Note that in the earth&Sirius frame this journey
took 8.7 years ("time dilation" is the other side of the coin from "length
contraction").
There is no such thing as your "real distance", there are only
distances measured in various inertial frames.
Physics is SUBTLE. You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you
learn to be much more precise in your thoughts and words.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntjikg$1qao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395418 |
Tom Roberts wrote: >> That is the standard slow-down efect. No any time dilation! > > "Time dilation" is what this is called. I have no idea what you mean by > "standard slow-down effect" (unless you mean "time dilation"). Well, slow-down does not necessary implies Time. No evidences for doing that. But Steven, my answer to you is, that you should try first to anderstand on what Time really represents. Thank you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a78a158f-6292-4bc8-a9ec-2cec82b1de39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395418 |
W dniu wtorek, 11 października 2016 21:55:54 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> > That is the standard slow-down efect. No any time dilation!
>
> "Time dilation" is what this is called. I have no idea what you mean by
> "standard slow-down effect" (unless you mean "time dilation").
The standard slow-down effect is
a typical and real slow down of a process...
due to concrete physical reasons.
> You mean YOU are unable to measure them.
>
> It certainly is possible to measure one-way speeds, it's just that a) the result
> depends directly on how the clocks are synchronized, and b) the systematic
> errors due to clock drift make them not as useful as might be wished, especially
> for speeds approaching c.
You described a standard two-way speed measurement.
Additonaly: the one-way speed can approach c-v, rather than c;
for v = 300 km/s the difference is quite big: 0.001 = 0.1% !
> The above measurement is the standard way in particle physics to make a
> "one-way" measurement. But it is not sensitive to an anisotropic one-way speed,
> and strictly speaking is a type of round-trip measurement in that the signals go
> around a closed path.
Indeed. On a closed loop You can measure the one-way,
what Sangac discovered, measuring just the c - v, exactly.
> > So, do You claim, that the captain of the spaceship, should now to believe
> > the real distance to the Sirius is not 8.6 ly, but only the 1.23 ly?
>
> You are VERY confused, primarily due to your almost complete lack of precision
> in your thinking and writing. In particular, you mention several values without specifying IN WHICH FRAME they hold.
>
> In this situation, in the frame of the rocket the distance from earth to Sirius
> IS MEASURED TO BE 1.23 light years -- it is measured by using the known speed of
Nonsense.
That is the same like the c = const, namely: a math convention,
not any actual thing.
> earth+Sirius relative to the rocket (0.99 c), and the time it took for Sirius to
> reach the rocket (1.23 years). In the rest frame of earth and Sirius, the
> distance from earth to Sirius is 8.6 ly. Since in the rocket frame earth and
> Sirius are MOVING, the distance between them is subject to "length contraction",
> and your values confirm it. Note that in the earth&Sirius frame this journey
> took 8.7 years ("time dilation" is the other side of the coin from "length
> contraction").
>
> There is no such thing as your "real distance", there are only
> distances measured in various inertial frames.
>
>
> Physics is SUBTLE. You have no hope of understanding modern physics until you
> learn to be much more precise in your thoughts and words.
funny serie of naked stupidities..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5bf22c8-1ecf-4f41-ad57-1a4a084b9f11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395418 |
W dniu wtorek, 11 października 2016 21:55:54 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 10/11/16 10/11/16 11:30 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 9 października 2016 16:20:11 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 > >> "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most > >> obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without > >> "time dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- > > > > That is the standard slow-down efect. No any time dilation! > > "Time dilation" is what this is called. Wrong, poor idiot. If clocks unsynchronize and require a correction, it's called "clock error". It is called "time dilation" when clocks unsynchronize and it's fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beb8b238-5a51-4a19-9008-df77424891f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395264 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 10:20:11 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/8/16 10/8/16 6:50 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >LC and TD are the mainstay of SR but are illusions. Period. > > Why do you make stuff up and pretend it is true? > > "Time dilation" is SOLIDLY established by zillions of experiments. The most > obvious is the fact that pion beams exist over a kilometer long. Without "time > dilation" the pions would decay with a lifetime of 26 ns -- their speed is > measured to be indistinguishable from c, which means that no pions would survive > a trip of 1 km; in fact > 90% of them survive -- as predicted by SR. Time dilation as defined by current physics requires the existence a universal unit of clock TIME. Unfortunately no such universal unit of clock TIME (including a clock second) exists.....an SR observer predicts that a moving clock second is worth gamma clock seconds on the observer's clock and thus a clock second is not a universal interval of time and thus no clock time dilation as asserted by SR. What you observed with the longer decay length of the moving pion is NOT due to time dilation......it is due to that a clock second does not represent the same amount of TIME in different frames (Different states of absolute motion). The higher state of absolute motion of the moving pion compared to the Lab pion enable it to travel a longer distance (1 km) before it decays. > > While there are no direct measurements of "length contraction", it MUST be valid > for consistency: from the pions' frame without "length contraction", the end of > the beam line would not reach the pions before they decay; in fact > 90% of them > see the end arrive. > > These are most definitely NOT "illusions". But you are too ignorant and stupid > to understand what they actually are. Some STUDY would go a long way to > alleviating your ignorance. But just making stuff up and pretending it is true > is USELESS. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 16:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e661ogFg5emU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #394886 |
On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > In the corrected version of the > experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, > impacts on the mirror at B and leaves it at a small acute angle > towards C on the parallel arm. Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e326693-344a-4116-9356-5c4cba2fb64a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395452 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:58:43 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > In the corrected version of the > > experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, > > impacts on the mirror at B and leaves it at a small acute angle > > towards C on the parallel arm. > > Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. > > Sylvia. Light is emitted by a source 360 degrees (in a full sphere) except by a laser source and reflected by a mirror 180 degrees (in a half sphere). Michelson choose the wrong angles and suffered a null result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 18:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e668pnFhor0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395455 |
On 12/10/2016 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:58:43 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> >>> In the corrected version of the experiment a light ray leaves the >>> beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts on the mirror at B and >>> leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. >> >> Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. >> >> Sylvia. > Light is emitted by a source 360 degrees (in a full sphere) except by > a laser source and reflected by a mirror 180 degrees (in a half > sphere). Michelson choose the wrong angles and suffered a null > result. > Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 01:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8714ffa4-aa9a-4fb6-8a49-c2496479389a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395460 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:58:51 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 12/10/2016 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:58:43 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > >>> In the corrected version of the experiment a light ray leaves the > >>> beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts on the mirror at B and > >>> leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. > >> > >> Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > Light is emitted by a source 360 degrees (in a full sphere) except by > > a laser source and reflected by a mirror 180 degrees (in a half > > sphere). Michelson choose the wrong angles and suffered a null > > result. > > > > Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you looked > into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the rule that > the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. > > Sylvia. Correct. If I stand in front of a mirror and have a person on my right and left, both can see me in the mirror. There is an infinite number of angle of incidences all showing what is reflected by the mirror from a different angle. Michelson however assumed the mirror at B was a point moving from the left to the right. It is an area and the ray from A impacted on the left side of the point Michelson thought it would.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 20:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e66dbuFiterU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395463 |
On 12/10/2016 7:32 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:58:51 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 12/10/2016 5:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:58:43 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 5/10/2016 4:35 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the corrected version of the experiment a light ray leaves >>>>> the beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts on the mirror >>>>> at B and leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the >>>>> parallel arm. >>>> >>>> Why would it do that? That's not how mirrors behave. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> Light is emitted by a source 360 degrees (in a full sphere) >>> except by a laser source and reflected by a mirror 180 degrees >>> (in a half sphere). Michelson choose the wrong angles and >>> suffered a null result. >>> >> >> Mirrors are not retro-reflectors. If they were, then when you >> looked into one, you wouldn't see anything. Instead, they obey the >> rule that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. >> >> Sylvia. > > Correct. If I stand in front of a mirror and have a person on my > right and left, both can see me in the mirror. There is an infinite > number of angle of incidences all showing what is reflected by the > mirror from a different angle. > > Michelson however assumed the mirror at B was a point moving from the > left to the right. It is an area and the ray from A impacted on the > left side of the point Michelson thought it would. > If the mirror is parallel to AD, then the only way the angle of incidence can equal the angle of reflection is if B lies on the perpendicular midway between A and C. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 18:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2febe131-e476-4577-bfe2-da975496358b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395466 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:16:49 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > If the mirror is parallel to AD, then the only way the angle of > incidence can equal the angle of reflection is if B lies on the > perpendicular midway between A and C. > > Sylvia. We can argue forever but I only consider facts: 1. Michelson used a logic which assumed unequal lightpaths over the perpendicular and parallel arms. 2. His logic led to a null result and he claimed the aether nonexistent. 3. Lorentz tried to rescue the aether and suggested with Fitzgerald that the parallel arm contracted proportional to v. 4. The contraction could not be verified as real. 5. SR changed Lorentz' contraction from physically real to observed by a non-comoving observer. 6. I demonstrated that the lightpaths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer are equal by a mathematical formula. Michelson light ray on the perpendicular arm traveled aba1 in his 1881 and 1887 papers but the adjusted path is ab1a1. 7. My logic is consistent with the outcome of MMX and does not need a length contraction. Michelson's logic is not valid and cannot be corrected by Lorentz' length contraction. SR still uses a theoretical length contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 12:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e686adF1nbbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395526 |
On 13/10/2016 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:16:49 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> If the mirror is parallel to AD, then the only way the angle of >> incidence can equal the angle of reflection is if B lies on the >> perpendicular midway between A and C. >> >> Sylvia. > > We can argue forever but I only consider facts: > > 1. Michelson used a logic which assumed unequal lightpaths over the perpendicular and parallel arms. He didn't assume it. It follows directly from geometry. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <151fd6a6-dc79-4f70-b1e6-11a9fe0a3488@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395526 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 6:12:09 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 5:16:49 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > If the mirror is parallel to AD, then the only way the angle of > > incidence can equal the angle of reflection is if B lies on the > > perpendicular midway between A and C. > > > > Sylvia. > > We can argue forever but I only consider facts: > > 1. Michelson used a logic which assumed unequal lightpaths over the perpendicular and parallel arms. > No, he didn't.That came much later. You are an imbecile. > 2. His logic led to a null result and he claimed the aether nonexistent. > No, he didn't. Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment. You are an imbecile. > 3. Lorentz tried to rescue the aether and suggested with Fitzgerald that the parallel arm contracted proportional to v. > Yes, you got one right. > 4. The contraction could not be verified as real. > It is real, I gave you examples but you are too much of a dishonest imbecile. > 5. SR changed Lorentz' contraction from physically real to observed by a non-comoving observer. > No. Cretin. You can't get anything right. > 6. I demonstrated that the lightpaths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer are equal by a mathematical formula. While it is true that the paths are equal, you haven't demonstrated anything because you are too much of an incompetent idiot. . > > 7. My logic is consistent with the outcome of MMX and does not need a length contraction. Cretin, length contraction is necessary for explaining the result in the frames in motion wrt the interferometer. You were born a cretin, you will die a cretin. > Michelson's logic is not valid and cannot be corrected by Lorentz' length contraction. SR still uses a theoretical length contraction. Michelson's expectations were wrong. Lorentz. and later, SRT, corrected his expectations and explained the null result. You were born an imbecile, your only consolation is that you'll die one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ba5f1f6-f2e2-4b9e-8ee4-25c2d587d2f8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395530 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > No, he didn't. Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for > another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment. Actually, no. I believe that you are confusing Michelson with Dayton Miller. Michelson went on to measure the speed of light, to devise novel interferometric techniques to measure the diameter of Betelgeuse and the satellites of Jupiter, measured the length of the international prototype meter to an accuracy of 1/10 of the wavelength of the red line of cadmium, weighed the Earth with an interferometrically monitored torsion balance, measured the thickness of surface films, devised techniques to improve the precision of diffraction gratings, and so on. Had Michelson been obsessed with looking for the aether wind, he would not have accomplished as much. Michelson's measurement of the meter received special mention in the Award Ceremony Speech at the 1907 Nobel Prize ceremony. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1907/press.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 20:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <313d0a0e-4c92-438d-8f3f-34e40f7f845c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395598 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > > No, he didn't. Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for > > another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment. > > Actually, no. I believe that you are confusing Michelson with Dayton Miller. > No, I am not. I understand the experiments very well. > > Had Michelson been obsessed with looking for the aether wind, he would not have > accomplished as much. > He wasn't "obsessed" with detecting aether wind. He spent a lot of time trying to detect the "absolute" speed of the Earth from within his laboratory. > Michelson's measurement of the meter received special mention in the Award > Ceremony Speech at the 1907 Nobel Prize ceremony. > https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1907/press.html Yes, so? What does it have to do with the subject?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 04:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95b9278e-ca2c-4a96-be01-426d2cfd3778@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395605 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 8:40:12 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > > > > No, he didn't. Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for > > > another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment. > > > > Actually, no. I believe that you are confusing Michelson with Dayton Miller. > > > > No, I am not. I understand the experiments very well. > > > > > > Had Michelson been obsessed with looking for the aether wind, he would not have > > accomplished as much. > > > > He wasn't "obsessed" with detecting aether wind. He spent a lot of time trying to detect the "absolute" speed of the Earth from within his laboratory. Please cite a source for your claim that 'Actually he continued looking for the "aether wind" for another 30 years in many repetitions of his experiment.' What do mean by "many"? Does the number two correspond to "many"? Here is one of my sources for *my* statements concerning Michelson: http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/michelson-a-a.pdf > > Michelson's measurement of the meter received special mention in the Award > > Ceremony Speech at the 1907 Nobel Prize ceremony. > > https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1907/press.html > > Yes, so? What does it have to do with the subject? To help illustrate the diversity of projects that Michelson was involved with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web