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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408527 > unrolled thread

MMX violates the second postulate

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

Contents

  MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:57 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:06 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 00:11 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:53 +0100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:39 -0600
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:53 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:48 +0100
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:49 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:25 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 12:58 +0000
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:52 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:18 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 04:03 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0600
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 08:19 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:09 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:31 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:27 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:36 +1100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:49 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:16 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 02:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:13 +0100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:32 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:41 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 20:00 +1100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:39 +1100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:09 -0800
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 22:25 +1100
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:57 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 23:53 +1100
                          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:38 -0800
                            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100
                              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:29 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:17 -0500
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:09 +0100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:37 -0600
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 08:16 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:07 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:11 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:46 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#408563

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 12:25:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my 
> profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer 
> Science from Manchester University, UK.
> 
> Now that that's established, what were you saying about my 
> qualifications to say how science is done?

That You're totally incompetent.

Two more things more needs establishing. 
1)Does Your theory of "how a theory should look"
look like a theory should look (according to its 
own rules)?
2)Where did You get it from? Was it  the Computer 
Science Department of Manchester University, UK?
Or maybe was it some other source?

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

#408567

On 9/02/2017 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 12:25:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>
>> Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my
>> profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer
>> Science from Manchester University, UK.
>>
>> Now that that's established, what were you saying about my
>> qualifications to say how science is done?
>
> That You're totally incompetent.

Ok, so a Computer Science degree doesn't necessarily indicate a 
competence to say how science is done. That, or course, applied to you 
as much as it does to me (unless you're saying that you don't have a 
degree).

>
> Two more things more needs establishing.
> 1)Does Your theory of "how a theory should look"
> look like a theory should look (according to its
> own rules)?

I didn't say anything about how a theory should look, despite your quotes.

> 2)Where did You get it from? Was it  the Computer
> Science Department of Manchester University, UK?
> Or maybe was it some other source?
>

Comp Sci Dept. Sorry, but I really do have that degree. Not sure about 
you, though.

Sylvia.

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

#408574

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 13:54:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 9/02/2017 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 12:25:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >
> >> Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my
> >> profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer
> >> Science from Manchester University, UK.
> >>
> >> Now that that's established, what were you saying about my
> >> qualifications to say how science is done?
> >
> > That You're totally incompetent.
> 
> Ok, so a Computer Science degree doesn't necessarily indicate a 
> competence to say how science is done.

Right.
And You have no. Don't You agree? We can discuss. 
As You have a CS degree, You should have
enough basics to make it possible, in opposition
to Jan or Tom...

> > Two more things more needs establishing.
> > 1)Does Your theory of "how a theory should look"
> > look like a theory should look (according to its
> > own rules)?
> 
> I didn't say anything about how a theory should look, despite your quotes.

OK, so let's ask it differently:
is Your (theory of how science is done)
done the way described in it?


> > 2)Where did You get it from? Was it  the Computer
> > Science Department of Manchester University, UK?
> > Or maybe was it some other source?
> >
> 
> Comp Sci Dept. Sorry, but I really do have that degree. Not sure about 
> you, though.

I surely don't have a degree of Comp Sci Dept of Manchester
University. And I was asking, where You got Your theory
of how science works, not Your degree.

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

#408677

On 10/02/2017 12:38 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 13:54:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>> On 9/02/2017 10:57 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 12:25:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
>>>
>>>> Well, that's fortunate, because physics is an interest of mine, but my
>>>> profession is that of software engineer, and I hold a degree in Computer
>>>> Science from Manchester University, UK.
>>>>
>>>> Now that that's established, what were you saying about my
>>>> qualifications to say how science is done?
>>>
>>> That You're totally incompetent.
>>
>> Ok, so a Computer Science degree doesn't necessarily indicate a
>> competence to say how science is done.
>
> Right.
> And You have no. Don't You agree? We can discuss.
> As You have a CS degree, You should have
> enough basics to make it possible, in opposition
> to Jan or Tom...
>
>>> Two more things more needs establishing.
>>> 1)Does Your theory of "how a theory should look"
>>> look like a theory should look (according to its
>>> own rules)?
>>
>> I didn't say anything about how a theory should look, despite your quotes.
>
> OK, so let's ask it differently:
> is Your (theory of how science is done)
> done the way described in it?
>

What I observe about how science is done is that people make 
observations of the results of experiments, and then form theories to 
describe those observations. Those theories are then used to predict 
other results of experiments that have not been performed, and those 
experiments are done to see whether the results match the predictions. 
If not, the theory is modified or replaced. If yes, then further 
predictions are made.

I have no theory about how science is done, because it would have to 
make additional predictions, and I have no way of doing experiments on 
how science is done. I never claimed to have such a theory.


>
>>> 2)Where did You get it from? Was it  the Computer
>>> Science Department of Manchester University, UK?
>>> Or maybe was it some other source?
>>>
>>
>> Comp Sci Dept. Sorry, but I really do have that degree. Not sure about
>> you, though.
>
> I surely don't have a degree of Comp Sci Dept of Manchester
> University. And I was asking, where You got Your theory
> of how science works, not Your degree.
>

You made a false assumption.

Sylvia.

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

#408696

W dniu piątek, 10 lutego 2017 00:52:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:



> What I observe about how science is done is that people make
> observations of the results of experiments, and then form theories to
> describe those observations. 

Did You also observe, where they get their definitions 
and standards?
And what "2+2=4" has in common with it?

> I have no theory about how science is done, because it would have to 
> make additional predictions, and I have no way of doing experiments on 
> how science is done.

You see - I was right: You're totally incompetent
to say "That's how science works".

> You made a false assumption.

No, I didn't. I assumed You have no real knowledge
of the subject, and You have no real knowledge of the
subject.
I'm glad You've abandoned Your pathetic tries to
pretend otherwise. I hope You won't try again.

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

#408662

On 2/9/2017 3:32 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else
>> napisał:
>>
>>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>>> science works.
>>
>> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
>> in the subject "how science works".
>>
>
> How do you think science works?
>
> Sylvia.
He uses the Journalist school of science: "If I can imagine it, then 
that is reality" Facts are just what you say they are.

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

#408825

benj wrote:
> 
> On 2/9/2017 3:32 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 9/02/2017 7:30 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 09:06:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else
> >> napisał:
> >>
> >>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> >>> science works.
> >>
> >> No, lady; I'm afraid You're totally incompetent
> >> in the subject "how science works".
> >>
> >
> > How do you think science works?
> >
> > Sylvia.
> He uses the Journalist school of science: "If I can imagine it, then
> that is reality" Facts are just what you say they are.


Or, according to Today's scientist, "If it is on the Internet, it must
be true."

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

#408530

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:57 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> MMX violates the second postulate

It does not, you just repeatedly violate the rule
to learn enough about the subjects of your statements.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408582

On 2/9/2017 1:57 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> MMX violates the second postulate
>
> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target.

You are making the mistake of mixing up the hypothesis that Michelson 
was testing and the experiment itself. The experiment itself does not 
take a stance about whether a hypothesis is true or not.

The hypothesis turned out to be wrong. This has NO impact on the value 
of the experiment.

You do not understand what experiments do in science.


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

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

#408619

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 15:37:25 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 2/9/2017 1:57 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > MMX violates the second postulate
> >
> > According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target.
> 
> You are making the mistake of mixing up the hypothesis that Michelson 
> was testing and the experiment itself. The experiment itself does not 
> take a stance about whether a hypothesis is true or not.
> 
> The hypothesis turned out to be wrong. This has NO impact on the value 
> of the experiment.

Or rather, a bunch of idiots were convinced 
the hyphotesis was wrong.
 
> You do not understand what experiments do in science.

You surely do, because you're making fine toys!
And tables! And you're wise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

#408590

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:58:00 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.

Cretin,

An experiment cannot "violate" a postulate. 

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

#408883

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:58:00 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> MMX violates the second postulate
> 
> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent perpendicular to the motion it is c. 
> 
> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.

___________________________________________________________


You do not understand Michelson experiment and Lorentz theory. First, Michelson's experiment is based only on c+v not c-v since the ether drift is constant according to Michelson.  Since c >> v (ether wind), the ether wind V = 30,000 m/s would not affect the interference effect; consequently, Lorentz saves Michelson's experiment using a contraction in the x direction to alter the dimension of the interferometer using px.

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

#408901

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 7:11:23 AM UTC+8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:58:00 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > MMX violates the second postulate
> > 
> > According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent perpendicular to the motion it is c. 
> > 
> > Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> You do not understand Michelson experiment and Lorentz theory. First, Michelson's experiment is based only on c+v not c-v since the ether drift is constant according to Michelson.  Since c >> v (ether wind), the ether wind V = 30,000 m/s would not affect the interference effect; consequently, Lorentz saves Michelson's experiment using a contraction in the x direction to alter the dimension of the interferometer using px.

According to Michelson the light beam moves to the mirror at the end of the parallel arm at c-v, is reflected by this mirror and travels back to the beamspliter at c+v. Read Michelson's papers of 1881 and 1887.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web