Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #409164 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-14 01:09 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-16 15:04 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 01:09 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 10:33 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:12 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 04:05 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-02-14 13:24 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 22:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:46 +0100
Cretin Peter Riedt insists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 11:32 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:01 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:39 -0600
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 04:48 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 16:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:34 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 22:59 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-15 11:06 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:18 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-15 16:35 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:04 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:13 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:46 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Cretin Peter Riedt keeps repeating the same cretinisms "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 06:13 -0800
MMX c+v NE SR c+v "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:12 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 12:04 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 21:59 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 17:09 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:24 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 13:12 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:02 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 14:25 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 22:06 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:32 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 18:12 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:32 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-16 18:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:37 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-16 18:16 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:47 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 23:20 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:54 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-17 00:36 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:36 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:14 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:33 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-17 19:11 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:22 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-17 20:35 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:39 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:02 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 02:11 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-16 10:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 10:54 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-16 12:50 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 18:44 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 11:29 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-17 12:26 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 19:28 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 21:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 21:40 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:58 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:44 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:16 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:29 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:14 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:27 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:55 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 13:29 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 15:10 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 15:22 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 16:52 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 18:03 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 21:10 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-19 09:46 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:48 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:41 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 23:02 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 15:04 +1100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o86v8d$53b$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409289 |
On 2/14/2017 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/14/2017 3:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v >>> >>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. >>> >>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment >>> >> >> SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist >> on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Please read Michelon's 1881 and 1887 papers and tell me why his c+v does not apply as he described it. Please remember that just because Michelson's HYPOTHESIS ended up being wrong does not make the experiment INVALID. That's the mistake you are making. You somehow believe that if you have a hypothesis, and you design an experiment to test the hypothesis, and then the experiment shows that the hypothesis is wrong, then the conclusion should be that the experiment that produced that answer is now invalid. THAT IS INCORRECT. The experiment is still valid. It's the hypothesis that is wrong. > > I did not address predictions but the difference between Michelson's and Einstein's > additions of velocities. Improve your level of comprehension. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:13 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Peter Riedt keeps repeating the same cretinisms |
| Message-ID | <e9719632-cd90-4d5e-a3e3-3e8cced7912e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409164 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:09:42 AM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment Ever tire of repeating your imbecilities, Peter?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 07:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f5c03c7e-a823-4393-805f-264588b5f1c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409164 |
Peter Riedt MMX c+v NE SR c+v Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment Is adding a SPEED TO A VELOCITY even allowed ??? The speed is through a Heterodyne Medium The Medium absorbs the v of ( c + v ) Black body radiation you know... absorbs the v https://goo.gl/photos/YjW27sueU8BZzwnr9 https://goo.gl/photos/hjGaP1jjRg3Fwm7p8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 12:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eghnpaFrvqpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #409164 |
On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The task of the physicist is to model the behaviour. SR models it well. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 21:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed8b6be5-66a7-4355-a9d0-8496769fd075@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409290 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > > > > MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The > motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The task of the > physicist is to model the behaviour. > > SR models it well. > > Sylvia. SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 17:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egi9lfFhm5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #409306 |
On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v >>> >>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. >>> >>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment >>> >> >> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The >> motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The task of the >> physicist is to model the behaviour. >> >> SR models it well. >> >> Sylvia. > > SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. > So what? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d6ea249a-956b-4fd0-a23e-d58ee861827e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409307 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:09:54 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v > >>> > >>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > >>> > >>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > >>> > >> > >> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The > >> motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The task of the > >> physicist is to model the behaviour. > >> > >> SR models it well. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. > > > > So what? > > Sylvia. The speed of light varies according to the speed of the target and the angle between the target and the angle of motion and can be c+v, c-v, c (parallel) or c subject to angle. I have outlined it in a previous post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 13:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egkg55FeekcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #409408 |
On 16/02/2017 11:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:09:54 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v >>>>> >>>>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = >>>>> 300000000m/sec. >>>>> >>>>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If >>>>> Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment >>>>> >>>> >>>> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The >>>> motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The >>>> task of the physicist is to model the behaviour. >>>> >>>> SR models it well. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. >>> >> >> So what? >> >> Sylvia. > > The speed of light varies according to the speed of the target and > the angle between the target and the angle of motion and can be c+v, > c-v, c (parallel) or c subject to angle. I have outlined it in a > previous post. > So you assert, but that model does not properly describe the result of the MMX experiment. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 19:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94023fca-5650-4743-bd36-993a29a7afd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409411 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:12:55 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/02/2017 11:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:09:54 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v > >>>>> > >>>>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = > >>>>> 300000000m/sec. > >>>>> > >>>>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If > >>>>> Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. The > >>>> motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. The > >>>> task of the physicist is to model the behaviour. > >>>> > >>>> SR models it well. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. > >>> > >> > >> So what? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The speed of light varies according to the speed of the target and > > the angle between the target and the angle of motion and can be c+v, > > c-v, c (parallel) or c subject to angle. I have outlined it in a > > previous post. > > > > So you assert, but that model does not properly describe the result of > the MMX experiment. > > Sylvia. I am not describing the model of MMX. I was using c+v, c-v, c and oblique c to describe the possible variations of the speed of light in another post. In this post I am referring to the differences of the additions of the speed of light as used by Michelson and Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 14:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egkkd0Ff5b6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #409414 |
On 16/02/2017 2:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:12:55 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 16/02/2017 11:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:09:54 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = >>>>>>> 300000000m/sec. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. >>>>>>> If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid >>>>>>> experiment >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. >>>>>> The motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. >>>>>> The task of the physicist is to model the behaviour. >>>>>> >>>>>> SR models it well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The speed of light varies according to the speed of the target >>> and the angle between the target and the angle of motion and can >>> be c+v, c-v, c (parallel) or c subject to angle. I have outlined >>> it in a previous post. >>> >> >> So you assert, but that model does not properly describe the result >> of the MMX experiment. >> >> Sylvia. > > I am not describing the model of MMX. I was using c+v, c-v, c and > oblique c to describe the possible variations of the speed of light > in another post. In this post I am referring to the differences of > the additions of the speed of light as used by Michelson and > Einstein. > Your original posting in this thread claims that if SR is correct, then MMX is not a valid experiment. Your argument appears to be that if SR is correct, then since Michelson and Morley were mistaken in their ideas, the null result of their experiment cannot be used to support SR. I am questioning the concept of an "invalid experiment". I am saying that all experiments are valid, in as much as they physically exist, and produce results, and any misconceptions on the part of the experimenters are irrelevant. Thus the null result of the experiment supports SR. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 22:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2195f667-cab1-40ba-9ced-6e5d76e64cf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409417 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:25:22 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/02/2017 2:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:12:55 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 16/02/2017 11:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:09:54 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 15/02/2017 4:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:04:44 AM UTC+8, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 14/02/2017 8:09 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>>>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = > >>>>>>> 300000000m/sec. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. > >>>>>>> If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid > >>>>>>> experiment > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> MMX is a piece of apparatus that exhibits some behaviour. > >>>>>> The motivations and beliefs of its builders are irrelevant. > >>>>>> The task of the physicist is to model the behaviour. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> SR models it well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> SR and MMX differ in respect of the constancy of light. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So what? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The speed of light varies according to the speed of the target > >>> and the angle between the target and the angle of motion and can > >>> be c+v, c-v, c (parallel) or c subject to angle. I have outlined > >>> it in a previous post. > >>> > >> > >> So you assert, but that model does not properly describe the result > >> of the MMX experiment. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I am not describing the model of MMX. I was using c+v, c-v, c and > > oblique c to describe the possible variations of the speed of light > > in another post. In this post I am referring to the differences of > > the additions of the speed of light as used by Michelson and > > Einstein. > > > > Your original posting in this thread claims that if SR is correct, then > MMX is not a valid experiment. Your argument appears to be that if SR is > correct, then since Michelson and Morley were mistaken in their ideas, > the null result of their experiment cannot be used to support SR. > > I am questioning the concept of an "invalid experiment". I am saying > that all experiments are valid, in as much as they physically exist, and > produce results, and any misconceptions on the part of the experimenters > are irrelevant. Thus the null result of the experiment supports SR. > > Sylvia. The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 07:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o83gu0$pcn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409426 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 07:06 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* .... Experiments are not valid or invalid for a theory. Experiments are either valid or invalid. Experiments may confirm or refute a theory, or stay indecisive. MMX confirms SR, as the outcome is as SR predicts. > Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. But as it does not, anisotropy wrt aether wind is refuted. -- 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]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 18:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <egl1n7Fhe61U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #409426 |
On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its > hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the > constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and > c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds > 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. > The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what it does. In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 08:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o83ked$2em$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409428 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 08:12 Sylvia Else napsal(a): > On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> >> The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its >> hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the >> constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and >> c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds >> 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. >> > > The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. > How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective > result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in > the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or > doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what > it does. > > In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? > The only reasons that come in my mind: For instrumental part: An error or mistake in device arrangement or a flaw in the experiment design, manifesting deviated behaviour that may lead to false conclusion. For evaluation part: An error or mistake in evaluation that may lead to false conclusion. Peter, what from the above, according to you, invalidates the MMX experiment, and why ? -- 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]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <47c5772c-a4d5-43f1-b980-2aff8b7c3cb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409429 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:32:13 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/02/2017 v 08:12 Sylvia Else napsal(a): > > On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > >> The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its > >> hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the > >> constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and > >> c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds > >> 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. > >> > > > > The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. > > How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective > > result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in > > the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or > > doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what > > it does. > > > > In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? > > > > The only reasons that come in my mind: > > For instrumental part: > An error or mistake in device arrangement > or a flaw in the experiment design, > manifesting deviated behaviour > that may lead to false conclusion. > > For evaluation part: > An error or mistake in evaluation > that may lead to false conclusion. > > Peter, what from the above, according to you, > invalidates the MMX experiment, and why ? > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. The differences ith SR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 07:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o865k3$fq5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409570 |
Dne 17/02/2017 v 03:17 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:32:13 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 16/02/2017 v 08:12 Sylvia Else napsal(a): >>> On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>> >>>> The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its >>>> hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the >>>> constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and >>>> c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds >>>> 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. >>>> >>> >>> The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. >>> How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective >>> result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in >>> the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or >>> doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what >>> it does. >>> >>> In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? >>> >> >> The only reasons that come in my mind: >> >> For instrumental part: >> An error or mistake in device arrangement >> or a flaw in the experiment design, >> manifesting deviated behaviour >> that may lead to false conclusion. >> >> For evaluation part: >> An error or mistake in evaluation >> that may lead to false conclusion. >> >> Peter, what from the above, according to you, >> invalidates the MMX experiment, and why ? > The differences ith SR. > Elaborate. -- 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]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 18:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50503f2a-8684-4c80-a83d-9ec468c5bf58@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409428 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:12:41 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its > > hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the > > constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and > > c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds > > 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. > > > > The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. > How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective > result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in > the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or > doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what > it does. > > In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? > > Sylvia. It should be invalid for SR because it uses algorithms that are invalid in the theory of SR: the speed of light cannot vary and it cannot exceed 300000000m/sec. Michelson uses c+v (variation and excess) and c-v (variation).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o86676$hhp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409569 |
Dne 17/02/2017 v 03:16 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:12:41 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 16/02/2017 5:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> >>> The experiment cannot be valid *for SR* or it must change its >>> hypothesis about the addition of velocities and the postulate of the >>> constancy of light. Light is anisotropic if it transmits as c+v and >>> c-v according to Michelson or if the speed limit of light exceeds >>> 300000000m/sec as per Michelson's c+v. >>> >> >> The experiment is a piece of equipment that behaves in a particular way. >> How it behaves is something that can be observed, and is an objective >> result that is independent of any theory or postulates. It behaves in >> the same way regardless of what you, I, or anyone else, knows, or >> doesn't know, about why it was built. It just sits there are does what >> it does. >> >> In what sense can the experiment be said to be invalid? >> >> Sylvia. > > It should be invalid for SR because it uses algorithms that are invalid in the theory of SR: the speed of light cannot vary and it cannot exceed 300000000m/sec. Michelson uses c+v (variation and excess) and c-v (variation). > It is a flawed logic. By this logic, if I have a equation the apple flies up if my hand releases it, but experiment shows it falls instead, then the experiment is invalid for the Newton gravity model, as I have used an equation invalid in the Newton gravity. The MMX outcome does not depend on what Michelson thought and is valid for all hypothesis or theories. -- 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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 23:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1c866bc-6766-4019-a149-7122f20e3a08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409604 |
W dniu piątek, 17 lutego 2017 07:47:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > The MMX outcome does not depend on what Michelson thought > and is valid for all hypothesis or theories. It doesn't depend on Michelson thoughts, but it depends greatly on the thoughts of a guy interpreting MMX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 08:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o86a4a$rdu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409604 |
Dne 17/02/2017 v 07:47 Poutnik napsal(a): > > The MMX outcome does not depend on what Michelson thought > and is valid for all hypothesis or theories. > IF Michelson had wanted to check the light speed IS isotropic, the experiment outcome would have been the same, but this time would have confirmed his idea. -- 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]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web