Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-08 19:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-17 11:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 19:11 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 12:31 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 12:59 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:08 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 14:57 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 04:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 20:25 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:59 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 21:55 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-10 18:54 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-10 02:48 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 19:20 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 12:27 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 21:01 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 15:30 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-11 03:27 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 05:27 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-11 07:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-11 18:56 -0400
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 10:39 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-11 22:50 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 17:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 12:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:48 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 20:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 21:52 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 06:10 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-09 06:58 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 14:01 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 19:19 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 21:18 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-08 22:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 04:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-09 07:35 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:53 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-07-09 09:37 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:40 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-09 07:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 10:36 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 18:38 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 18:59 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-10 20:34 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 11:06 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-11 09:43 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 14:35 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2017-07-11 12:28 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:58 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:46 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 12:31 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-12 16:18 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 07:23 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 16:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 02:21 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 02:23 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 06:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 06:40 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 16:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-13 07:11 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 22:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 11:52 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 16:16 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 17:32 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-13 21:55 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 19:36 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 22:41 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-14 08:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 11:43 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-14 17:06 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 19:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:59 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 11:30 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 19:11 -0700 |
| Subject | The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX |
| Message-ID | <d59ce1a2-f437-4a14-afb7-f0364e77083b@googlegroups.com> |
The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 12:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esdis6Fdnn9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424319 |
On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43697cc0-0cd1-4c83-aa4e-349ac5aa5c4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424323 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > > > > Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > > Sylvia. If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 12:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esdkh9Fe1u8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424328 |
On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>> >>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>> >>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. >>> >> >> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. >> >> Sylvia. > > If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90da799e-b46a-4b47-ac8d-afc608e29a96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424331 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:59:56 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>> > >>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>> > >>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>> > >> > >> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > > > > An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > > Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > > Sylvia. Wave Speed in a Medium ....... The Universe Says, when Measured c will be measured to be c ... ((3.33333333333e-11 * 3 * (newtons / (meters^2))) / ((3.3333333333e+53 kg) / (3.0e+80 * (meter^3))))^0.5 = 3e+8 m / s Universe ... Volume 3.0e+80 m^3 Mass 3.333333e+53 kg Pressure 3.333333e-11 * 3 newtons / m^2 Wave Speed 3e+8 m/s Container Radius 1.4152126e+10 light years ((3.3333333333e+53 kg) / 3.7037037e-28) / 3 = 3.0e+80 kilograms (((6.666666666e-11 / 2) * (newtons / (meters^2))) / (3.7037037037037e-28 * (kg / (meter^3))))^0.5 = 300000000 m/s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 14:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esdrdcFfck8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424332 |
On 9/07/2017 1:08 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:59:56 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>>>> >>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>>>> >>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? >>> >> >> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. >> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable >> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. >> >> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX >> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it >> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. >> >> Sylvia. > > Wave Speed in a Medium ....... > > The Universe Says, when Measured c will be measured to be c ... Light travels more slowly through a medium. SR doesn't say otherwise. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 04:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c369520-a5f7-4309-97cc-8ae00b044e22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424340 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 2:57:18 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/07/2017 1:08 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > > On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 9:59:56 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>>>> > >>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>>>> > >>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > >>> > >> > >> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > >> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > >> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > >> > >> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > >> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > >> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Wave Speed in a Medium ....... > > > > The Universe Says, when Measured c will be measured to be c ... > > Light travels more slowly through a medium. SR doesn't say otherwise. > > Sylvia. Not the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 20:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86e95cba-5492-40b2-8268-562fb47b722a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424331 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>> > >>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>> > >>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>> > >> > >> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > > > > An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > > Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > > Sylvia. The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a82ff66-25f2-4545-9f08-1dfc44db3b4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424333 |
Peter Riedt - ull > > An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > > Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > > Sylvia. The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. LIGO is the biggest & Best interferometer & what does it measure ???? Physical Spatial Acceleration like Gravity LIGO is an AetherFerometer confirming a SuperFluid Aether Medium LIGO would not work at all if there was an Aether Wind changing every time the earth rotated
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 21:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34a29c89-f368-43e4-9442-00ee6ac54705@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424337 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 1:59:20 PM UTC+10, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > Peter Riedt > - ull > > > > An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > > However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > > expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > > > > Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > > experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > > in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > > > > Sylvia. > > The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > > The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > > LIGO is the biggest & Best interferometer & what does it measure ???? > Physical Spatial Acceleration like Gravity > > LIGO is an AetherFerometer confirming a SuperFluid Aether Medium > > LIGO would not work at all if there was an Aether Wind changing every time the earth rotated What is the evidence that LIGO works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 18:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esgtlpF6a18U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424333 |
On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>>>> >>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>>>> >>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? >>> >> >> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. >> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable >> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. >> >> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX >> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it >> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. >> >> Sylvia. > > The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > > The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > A fringe shift would refute SR. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55d0781d-fc4f-48a7-987c-993ca047c14e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424417 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 10 lipca 2017 10:54:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>>>> > >>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>>>> > >>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > >>> > >> > >> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > >> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > >> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > >> > >> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > >> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > >> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > > > > The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > > > > A fringe shift would refute SR. :) Your fanatic fellows would explain it somehow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25027cdd-b225-47dc-8783-f3db74b11d9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424417 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>>>> > >>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>>>> > >>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > >>> > >> > >> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > >> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > >> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > >> > >> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > >> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > >> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > > > > The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > > > > A fringe shift would refute SR. > > Sylvia. Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 12:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esircrFk77lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424470 |
On 11/07/2017 12:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? >>>>> >>>> >>>> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. >>>> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable >>>> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. >>>> >>>> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX >>>> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it >>>> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. >>> >>> The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. >>> >> >> A fringe shift would refute SR. >> >> Sylvia. > > Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary. > Since a fringe shift would refute SR, and since SR is abundantly verified, there's every reason to expect that MMX in space would not produce a fringe shift. Given the cost of such an experiment, it's not going to get done. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c666bbf-b36d-4840-8a15-8f42bc413595@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424471 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/07/2017 12:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > >>>> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > >>>> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > >>>> > >>>> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > >>>> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > >>>> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > >>> > >>> The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > >>> > >> > >> A fringe shift would refute SR. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary. > > > > Since a fringe shift would refute SR, and since SR is abundantly > verified, there's every reason to expect that MMX in space would not > produce a fringe shift. Given the cost of such an experiment, it's not > going to get done. > > Sylvia. The space programs of many countries waste resources on irrelevant projects. You are right, it's not going to get done as it would pull the rug from under the feet of thr science elite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 15:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <esj63lFmchhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424482 |
On 11/07/2017 2:01 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 11/07/2017 12:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. >>>>>> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable >>>>>> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. >>>>>> >>>>>> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX >>>>>> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it >>>>>> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. >>>>> >>>>> The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A fringe shift would refute SR. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary. >>> >> >> Since a fringe shift would refute SR, and since SR is abundantly >> verified, there's every reason to expect that MMX in space would not >> produce a fringe shift. Given the cost of such an experiment, it's not >> going to get done. >> >> Sylvia. > > The space programs of many countries waste resources on irrelevant projects. You are right, it's not going to get done as it would pull the rug from under the feet of thr science elite. > Well, no, it wouldn't. You have no rational basis for thinking that MMX in space would behave any differently from the way it does on Earth. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c457e3e2-f827-4e11-a950-8cdd44b87131@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424484 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:30:33 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/07/2017 2:01 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 11/07/2017 12:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other ways. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would refute SR. > >>>>>> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable > >>>>>> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null result. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX > >>>>>> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on trying it > >>>>>> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. > >>>>> > >>>>> The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and confirm Stokes. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> A fringe shift would refute SR. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary. > >>> > >> > >> Since a fringe shift would refute SR, and since SR is abundantly > >> verified, there's every reason to expect that MMX in space would not > >> produce a fringe shift. Given the cost of such an experiment, it's not > >> going to get done. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > The space programs of many countries waste resources on irrelevant projects. You are right, it's not going to get done as it would pull the rug from under the feet of thr science elite. > > > Well, no, it wouldn't. You have no rational basis for thinking that MMX > in space would behave any differently from the way it does on Earth. > > Sylvia. Stokes found the aether moves with the earth. Michelson after the null result agreed. In space the aether is at rest and produces an aether wind which is a prerequisite for the predicted fringe shift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f621d58e-4ec9-4f61-89db-c08f07bbb796@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424496 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 4:27:04 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:30:33 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > On 11/07/2017 2:01 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > The space programs of many countries waste resources on irrelevant > > > projects. You are right, it's not going to get done as it would pull > > > the rug from under the feet of thr science elite. > > > > Well, no, it wouldn't. You have no rational basis for thinking that MMX > > in space would behave any differently from the way it does on Earth. > > > > Sylvia. > > Stokes found the aether moves with the earth. No, he didn't. He explained a relativity effect as an entrainment. You use false logic in your assertion since there is more than one explanation for the data. > Michelson after the null result agreed. So you believe someone that lived a century ago knew more than hundreds of scientists who have studied the problem since then? How strange! > In space the aether is at rest "At rest" with respect to what? The sun is moving around the galaxy at a couple of hundred km/second, and certainly you can't just logically switch from an earth-centered universe to a galactic-centered one, can you? Why would you assert that the ether is "stationary"? That's completely irrational. > and produces an aether wind which is a prerequisite for the predicted > fringe shift. Yes, but they weren't found. Ergo, there is no ether wind. Ergo, either it is entrained or there is no ether. Many other experiments have refuted the entrainment theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bc088d5-6c4b-4803-869f-be3622fbe855@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424496 |
Peter Riedt Stokes found the aether moves with the earth. Michelson after the null result agreed. In space the aether is at rest and produces an aether wind which is a prerequisite for the predicted fringe shift. Motion of the Aether https://youtube.com/watch?v=NqDEaFjIXPw Aether fringe shift is an Imbalanced Vacuum Impedance causing acceleration
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 18:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59655784$0$53495$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #424484 |
On 7/11/2017 1:30 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 11/07/2017 2:01 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 11/07/2017 12:20 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 6:54:21 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 9/07/2017 1:25 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:59:56 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 12:31:37 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 9/07/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by >>>>>>>>>> Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and >>>>>>>>>> near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether >>>>>>>>>> wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a >>>>>>>>>> fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment >>>>>>>>>> in space. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why bother? Relativity has been abundantly confirmed in other >>>>>>>>> ways. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If MMX can be confirmed as a success where does SR stand? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An actual demonstration that the speed of light varies would >>>>>>> refute SR. >>>>>>> However, given the other verifications of SR, there is no reasonable >>>>>>> expectation that an MMX experiment in space would give a non-null >>>>>>> result. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Science progresses by testing theories at their limits. The MMX >>>>>>> experiment is done and dusted. Money is not going to spent on >>>>>>> trying it >>>>>>> in space, unless you have enough money to do it yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> The objective is not to prove or disprove SR. >>>>>> >>>>>> The objective is to obtain the fringe shift predicted by MMX and >>>>>> confirm Stokes. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A fringe shift would refute SR. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Absolutely correct. This is why MMX in space is necessary. >>>> >>> >>> Since a fringe shift would refute SR, and since SR is abundantly >>> verified, there's every reason to expect that MMX in space would not >>> produce a fringe shift. Given the cost of such an experiment, it's not >>> going to get done. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> The space programs of many countries waste resources on irrelevant >> projects. You are right, it's not going to get done as it would pull >> the rug from under the feet of thr science elite. >> > Well, no, it wouldn't. You have no rational basis for thinking that MMX > in space would behave any differently from the way it does on Earth. > > Sylvia. Actually you DO have a rational reason to think MMX would behave differently in space. The whole idea was space was fixed and the Earth was plowing through the aether. Move the experiment to fixed space and lo, you'd expect no "aether drift" And of course you'd measure none...making it a successful experiment. Right? Fist bump through a towel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web