Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396486 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 04:47 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:46 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 21:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 21:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 06:34 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 22:55 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:23 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:51 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-25 08:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:39 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:50 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 07:56 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 19:41 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 05:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:47 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:58 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:13 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 18:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 19:59 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-09 08:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:46 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 22:08 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:49 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:57 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 05:05 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 01:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:59 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:42 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:17 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:19 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 16:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:08 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:51 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:33 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 19:11 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-02 22:05 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 04:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:09 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-08 10:54 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:51 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-01 12:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-14 06:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 21:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 03:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-23 12:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 16:00 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 21:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 16:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 20:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-24 14:45 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 14:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 06:49 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:04 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:32 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-03 06:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 10:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 01:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 02:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:24 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-23 11:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 11:42 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 12:46 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 14:24 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 22:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:02 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:42 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:53 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 03:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:09 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 04:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 04:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 22:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 23:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 04:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:54 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:38 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:36 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:25 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:57 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 06:28 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:35 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 23:13 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:27 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 05:06 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 22:53 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 23:16 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 17:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:21 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:24 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 08:28 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 05:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-27 14:21 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 23:16 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-28 04:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 06:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-30 05:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-16 07:26 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 23:07 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 03:44 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 07:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 14:36 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 18:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 19:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 20:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:10 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 04:43 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 06:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 07:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 07:45 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-16 20:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 08:45 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 14:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-18 09:29 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:01 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 09:47 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 06:36 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 17:38 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 19:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 19:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 21:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 07:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-29 00:57 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 04:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 07:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:40 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:54 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 01:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 02:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 03:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:20 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:28 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 05:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-28 15:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 13:46 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:41 -0500
Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:48 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:56 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:11 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89a74601-6c2a-4f92-b0a0-76ea317a31a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396486 |
W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 01:31:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Peter Riedt napisał: > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. > > The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. > > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. You are stupid babe. The standard rule for the angles under the reflection applies to the local frames only, thus you are unable to discover any deviations from this rule in any lab experiment!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 11:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e753n3FsariU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396486 |
On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer > apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and > orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established > under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth > and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South > and every compass point in between. > Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been tested. If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave propagating through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors follows directly from wave theory, and from the point of view of an observer moving through the aether, mirrors would not exactly obey that laws of reflection. In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage in - if you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz transformation, regardless of what you believe is the cause. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74d02e12-cae5-494d-a598-051c1afd5de1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396575 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:42:14 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer > > apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and > > orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established > > under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth > > and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South > > and every compass point in between. > > > Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been tested. > > If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave propagating > through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors follows directly from > wave theory, and from the point of view of an observer moving through > the aether, mirrors would not exactly obey that laws of reflection. > > In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage in - if > you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz transformation, > regardless of what you believe is the cause. > > Sylvia. But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99e2f34b-603c-400f-a3e7-56d6a3e6e841@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396577 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 6:06:50 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong? He said no such thing, you are compounding your imbecility with your outright lies. You are really despicable. Peter. Your only consolation is that you will die this way, a cretin liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 12:46 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e757fbFt2r5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396577 |
On 24/10/2016 12:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:42:14 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> >>> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer >>> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and >>> orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established >>> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth >>> and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South >>> and every compass point in between. >>> >> Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been tested. >> >> If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave propagating >> through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors follows directly from >> wave theory, and from the point of view of an observer moving through >> the aether, mirrors would not exactly obey that laws of reflection. >> >> In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage in - if >> you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz transformation, >> regardless of what you believe is the cause. >> >> Sylvia. > > But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong? > I'm sure this point has been made before - but I'll make it again. "Real" is a difficult word. You need a precise definition if you want to use it in such a question. But it's irrelevant here. You get the same mathematical result regardless. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 20:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <954ac900-f947-46a2-aede-e3af424b719a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396581 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 24/10/2016 12:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:42:14 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > >>> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer > >>> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and > >>> orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established > >>> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth > >>> and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South > >>> and every compass point in between. > >>> > >> Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been tested. > >> > >> If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave propagating > >> through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors follows directly from > >> wave theory, and from the point of view of an observer moving through > >> the aether, mirrors would not exactly obey that laws of reflection. > >> > >> In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage in - if > >> you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz transformation, > >> regardless of what you believe is the cause. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong? > > > > I'm sure this point has been made before - but I'll make it again. > "Real" is a difficult word. You need a precise definition if you want to > use it in such a question. > > But it's irrelevant here. You get the same mathematical result regardless. > > Sylvia. Yes, the usual defence of SR is that the term 'real' is not what it means in English. In English it means 'real/true/existing/present' and their opposites are 'not real/untrue/non existing/non present'. The former do not apply to LC but the latter do. A statement by Einstein in German is translated: In 1911, a critic of Einstein, Vladimir Varićak, declared that length contraction is "real" according to Lorentz, while it is "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein. Einstein rejected the criticism and replied: “The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.” Einstein made the distinction 'It does not "really" exist for a comoving observer but it does "really" exist for a non-comoving observer'. Michelson was a comoving observer. According to Einstein contraction was therefore not real in Michelson's experiment. According to Varicak Einstein's perception of LC was apparent (not real) or subjective (not real). According to Einstein's other comment 'it (LC) "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer'. Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist. His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 14:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <e75d80Fu7ocU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396584 |
On 24/10/2016 2:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:46:22 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 24/10/2016 12:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:42:14 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>> >>>>> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his >>>>> interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the >>>>> earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of >>>>> reflection have been established under these circumstances >>>>> and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of >>>>> their alignment with East, West, North and South and every >>>>> compass point in between. >>>>> >>>> Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been >>>> tested. >>>> >>>> If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave >>>> propagating through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors >>>> follows directly from wave theory, and from the point of view >>>> of an observer moving through the aether, mirrors would not >>>> exactly obey that laws of reflection. >>>> >>>> In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage >>>> in - if you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz >>>> transformation, regardless of what you believe is the cause. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. >>> Was he wrong? >>> >> >> I'm sure this point has been made before - but I'll make it again. >> "Real" is a difficult word. You need a precise definition if you >> want to use it in such a question. >> >> But it's irrelevant here. You get the same mathematical result >> regardless. >> >> Sylvia. > > Yes, the usual defence of SR is that the term 'real' is not what it > means in English. That's not the case, it's just that in everyday usage, people are not so fixated on having an exact single meaning. Is a mirage real? Well, the thing apparently seen does not exist, or at least not where it appears to be, so in that sense it's not. But the physical processes that cause a mirage are well understood, and in that sense a mirage is real. No one loses any sleep over the distinction. I will definitely measure the length of a moving object as being less than will a co-moving observer. So if by length contraction, one means the results of measurement, then length contraction is real. On the other hand, different observers moving at different speeds will get different results, and they can't all be the true contracted length of the object, and in that sense the length contraction is not real. So it's only when you refuse to qualify your meaning of real in situations where it needs qualifying do you run into problems. Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is intellectually dishonest. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 22:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bbd935a-c9b5-4be8-8731-12a847de5eeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396589 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:24:51 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely > pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one > meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is > intellectually dishonest. > > Sylvia. I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 22:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88cace54-3ca0-43f5-84cd-0717c20f880c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396596 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:24:51 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely > > pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one > > meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is > > intellectually dishonest. > > > > Sylvia. > > I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance. Only cretins like you did not get the memo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuk85h$ebg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396596 |
Dne 24/10/2016 v 07:12 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:24:51 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> >> Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely >> pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one >> meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is >> intellectually dishonest. >> >> Sylvia. > > I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance. > In fact not ambivalent. Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether, while refute moving aether. Other experiments are compliant with moving aether, while refute stationary aether. So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 23:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f255901e-b17d-49ad-9c1f-26a4869c1b94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396599 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:02:49 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 24/10/2016 v 07:12 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:24:51 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >> Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely > >> pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one > >> meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is > >> intellectually dishonest. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance. > > > In fact not ambivalent. > > Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether, > while refute moving aether. > > Other experiments are compliant with moving aether, > while refute stationary aether. > > So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nukagf$k2q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396603 |
Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:02:49 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>> >>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance. >>> >> In fact not ambivalent. >> >> Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether, >> while refute moving aether. >> >> Other experiments are compliant with moving aether, >> while refute stationary aether. >> >> So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist. >> > > Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong? You misinterpret him. What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether. His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading by later contributors to GR and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 23:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99e6b296-4697-45cc-a762-a57473544296@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396605 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:02:49 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > >>> > >>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance. > >>> > >> In fact not ambivalent. > >> > >> Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether, > >> while refute moving aether. > >> > >> Other experiments are compliant with moving aether, > >> while refute stationary aether. > >> > >> So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist. > >> > > > > Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong? > > You misinterpret him. > > What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether. > His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading > by later contributors to GR > and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 08:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nukb5d$lnt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396606 |
Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong? >> >> You misinterpret him. >> >> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether. >> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading >> by later contributors to GR >> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then. >> > > Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence. > Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it destroys creditability of the refuter. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93738ff7-6eb9-4449-b760-92186dd48fba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396607 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:53:56 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > >>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong? > >> > >> You misinterpret him. > >> > >> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether. > >> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading > >> by later contributors to GR > >> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then. > >> > > > > Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence. > > > Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it > destroys creditability of the refuter. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. I am not refuting it; I am questioning it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nukj11$eko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396609 |
On 10/24/2016 09:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:53:56 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a): >>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> >>>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong? >>>> >>>> You misinterpret him. >>>> >>>> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether. >>>> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading >>>> by later contributors to GR >>>> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then. >>>> >>> >>> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence. >>> >> Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it >> destroys creditability of the refuter. >> > > I am not refuting it; I am questioning it. You still skip the understanding step, so such questioning can be taken as way of learning only. The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy. This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX, either by many following experiments with increased accuracy, using various techniques. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments BTW, SR derivation was not based on MMX to explain its result, but on electrodynamics of moving bodies. In fact, Einstein wrote he was not aware of MMX. He independently derived the Lorentz transformation from different starting point than Lorentz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a14d7f9b-1098-4839-88be-9c458f8cdc98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396612 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:08:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy. > > This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX, > either by many following experiments with increased accuracy, > using various techniques. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments > Thanks for the reference. The numerous experiments in the report were mostly based on MMX which tried to find the aether but failed. Not surprising as Michelson got his mirrors at a wrong angle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nukq4n$540$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396613 |
On 10/24/2016 12:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:08:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy. >> >> This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX, >> either by many following experiments with increased accuracy, >> using various techniques. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments >> > Thanks for the reference. The numerous experiments in the report were mostly based on MMX which tried to find the aether but failed. Not surprising as Michelson got his mirrors at a wrong angle. You are too fast in interpreting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 04:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddf9a711-65f7-4cb9-9061-809b4631e889@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396613 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 4:17:26 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:08:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > > > The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy. > > > > This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX, > > either by many following experiments with increased accuracy, > > using various techniques. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments > > Thanks for the reference. The numerous experiments in the report were > mostly based on MMX which tried to find the aether but failed. Not > surprising as Michelson got his mirrors at a wrong angle. Irrelevant. "Mostly" does not equal "all." And if you would look at the very next heading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_experiments you will find experiments that do not use mirrors at all (Mossbauer rotor experiments, for one) and that carry the accuracy down to meters/second. There is NO way to detect the presence of an undetectable "substance." You are riding a dead horse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 16:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7413019-502f-4948-a6a8-b90197e64155@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396616 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:13:06 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 4:17:26 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:08:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > > > > > The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy. > > > > > > This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX, > > > either by many following experiments with increased accuracy, > > > using various techniques. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments > > > > Thanks for the reference. The numerous experiments in the report were > > mostly based on MMX which tried to find the aether but failed. Not > > surprising as Michelson got his mirrors at a wrong angle. > > Irrelevant. "Mostly" does not equal "all." And if you would look at the > very next heading: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_experiments > > you will find experiments that do not use mirrors at all (Mossbauer rotor > experiments, for one) and that carry the accuracy down to meters/second. > There is NO way to detect the presence of an undetectable "substance." > You are riding a dead horse. Read Paul's response further down. Einstein, Michelson, Paul and I believed/ believe in the aether and the literature does accept in places Lorentz's LC which depends on the existence of the aether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web