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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424697 > unrolled thread

Michelson 1881 and 1887

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

Contents

  Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 00:29 -0700
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 06:01 -0700
      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 06:17 -0700
        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 06:42 -0700
          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 16:18 -0700
            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 17:36 -0700
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-13 07:05 -0700
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-13 20:44 -0700
      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 20:55 -0700
        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-13 21:58 -0700
          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-14 08:15 -0700
          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 21:15 -0500
            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 19:27 -0700
              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 21:07 -0700
                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 23:47 -0700
                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 09:33 +0200
                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-15 01:20 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 10:42 +0200
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 20:05 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-15 20:27 -0700
                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-15 05:08 -0700
              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-17 11:54 -0500
                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-17 18:40 -0700
                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-17 21:58 -0700
                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 11:11 -0500
                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 09:26 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 19:54 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-18 23:25 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:22 -0700
                            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 06:18 -0700
                              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 12:43 -0700
                                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 16:22 -0500
                                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 22:51 -0700
                                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 04:12 -0700
                                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-26 22:50 -0700
                                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:29 -0700
                                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-27 23:10 -0700
                            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 18:34 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 18:20 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 21:08 -0700
                            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 11:24 -0700
                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 17:46 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 17:57 -0700
                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 23:31 -0700
            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-14 20:17 -0700
              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-14 20:35 -0700
                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-15 08:45 -0700
                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 17:52 +0200
                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-15 18:27 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-15 20:58 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-16 03:42 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-16 06:35 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-16 04:38 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-16 06:37 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-16 10:04 -0700
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 11:57 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 08:33 +0200
                        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-16 03:48 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-16 06:38 -0700
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 11:01 +0200
                          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-07-17 12:59 +0200
                            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-17 04:17 -0700
                            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-17 14:39 -0700
                              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-17 15:34 -0700
                                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-17 21:21 -0700
                                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-17 21:37 -0700
                                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 21:49 -0700
                                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-17 22:24 -0700
                                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-17 23:27 -0700
                              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-18 11:34 -0500
                                Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-22 22:57 -0700
                                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 18:14 -0700
                  Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-15 15:16 -0700
                    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-15 18:32 -0700
                      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-15 20:25 -0700
              Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-16 13:53 -0500
            Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 15:22 -0700
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-14 14:31 +1000
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 16:27 -0700
    Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 16:32 -0700
      Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 19:17 -0700
        Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:12 -0700
          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-21 05:29 -0700
          Re: Michelson 1881 and 1887 "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 17:56 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#425287

Dne 16.7.2017 v 12:48 Eckard B napsal(a):
> Am Sonntag, 16. Juli 2017 08:33:41 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik:
>> Dne 16/07/2017 v 03:27 Eckard B napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> There is not much ideal symmetry in nature. Leibniz argued, one may not find two absolutely identical leafs.
>>
>> There is much of ideal symmetry in nature,
>> but not where you search for it..
>>
>> As you [have] no idea what was meant by it.
> 
> I am curious. The function cos(t) exhibits exact mirror symmetry. However, I am not aware of a single counterpart in reality.
> 
Conservation of energy is consequence of time translation symmetry.
      For given same scenario,
      predictions and outcomes are time independent

Conservation of momentum is consequence of space translation symmetry.
      For given same scenario,
      predictions and outcomes are location independent


Conservation of angular momentum is consequence
of space rotations symmetry in x-y, x-z, y-z planes.
      For given same scenario,
      predictions and outcomes are rotational orientation independent


Conservation of spin is consequence
of spacetime rotations symmetry in x-ct, y-ct, z-ct planes.

Majority of nature follow C symmetry.
    Rules of nature behaviour do not change
    if particles are switched to the ones of the opposite signs.

Majority of nature follow P symmetry.
    Rules of nature behaviour do not change
    if the world is replace by its mirrored version.

Even bigger Majority of nature follow CP symmetry,
combination of C and P symmetry.

And all currently known nature follow CPT symmetry,
combination of C and P and T symmetry,
where T symmetry means reversed time flow.


-- 
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]

#425289

W dniu poniedziałek, 17 lipca 2017 12:59:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> Majority of nature follow C symmetry.
>     Rules of nature behaviour do not change
>     if particles are switched to the ones of the opposite signs.

Ask your fellow Tom. He is a poor idiot, 
but he can still explain you that physics
has nothing in common with any mystical
"rules of nature behaviour".

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

#425387

Am Montag, 17. Juli 2017 12:59:28 UTC+2 schrieb Poutnik:
> Dne 16.7.2017 v 12:48 Eckard B napsal(a):

> >>> There is not much ideal symmetry in nature. 

> And all currently known nature follow CPT symmetry,
> combination of C and P and T symmetry,
> where T symmetry means reversed time flow.

I didn't write "in abstract theory of nature" but just "in [real] nature".
BTW, I consider time something that elapses rather than it flows. 
Not even you may manage getting younger.

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

#425395

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:39:36 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
 
> Not even you may manage getting younger.

Actually, Vessot's experiment proves you wrong. But you are too ignorant to know. 

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

#425423

Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 00:34:22 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:39:36 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
>  
> > Not even you may manage getting younger.
> 
> Actually, Vessot's experiment proves you wrong. But you are too ignorant to know.

Vessot and Levine didn't make Poutnik managing getting younger.
Your further arguments so far are ignorant, Lorentz symmetry, natural antisemitism, natural imbecibility, and cretin. Impressive. 

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

#425427

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 00:34:22 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:39:36 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> >  
> > > Not even you may manage getting younger.
> > 
> > Actually, Vessot's experiment proves you wrong. But you are too ignorant to know.
> 
> Vessot and Levine didn't make Poutnik managing getting younger.

Cretin,

You missed the point. As expected. 


> Your further arguments so far are ignorant, Lorentz symmetry, natural antisemitism, natural imbecibility, and cretin. Impressive.

Natural imbecile motivated by anttisemitism. 

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

#425428

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:37:03 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 00:34:22 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> > > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:39:36 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Not even you may manage getting younger.
> > > 
> > > Actually, Vessot's experiment proves you wrong. But you are too ignorant to know.
> > 
> > Vessot and Levine didn't make Poutnik managing getting younger.
> 
> Cretin,
> 
> You missed the point. As expected. 
> 
> 
> > Your further arguments so far are ignorant, Lorentz symmetry, natural antisemitism, natural imbecibility, and cretin. Impressive.
> 
> Natural imbecile motivated by anttisemitism.

Semitism!  You can't bring Semitism into this!

You're as well off listening to whatever Dono says, 
he's amazing, Tom here is obviously very accurate 
in pretty much exactly what's set up in the system 
that most of high precision high energy physics 
that's pretty much relevant to a modern literature, 
who is that, Poutnik knows what he's talking about.

No point rubbing each others' noses in it.

The Pole guy, knows quite a bit what he's talking 
about.  Dave "Kronos Prime" Fuller, who even knows 
what that guy has figured out.  Harnagel.

Ross Finlayson

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

#425433

On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:50:00 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:37:03 PM UTC-7, Dono, wrote:
> > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 9:21:08 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 00:34:22 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> > > > On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:39:36 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > Not even you may manage getting younger.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, Vessot's experiment proves you wrong. But you are too ignorant to know.
> > > 
> > > Vessot and Levine didn't make Poutnik managing getting younger.
> > 
> > Cretin,
> > 
> > You missed the point. As expected. 
> > 
> > 
> > > Your further arguments so far are ignorant, Lorentz symmetry, natural antisemitism, natural imbecibility, and cretin. Impressive.
> > 
> > Natural imbecile motivated by anttisemitism.
> 
> Semitism!  You can't bring Semitism into this!
> 

Sure, I can, imbecile
The other imbecile is quite transparent in his motivation.

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

#425438

Ross A. Finlayson

Semitism!  You can't bring Semitism into this! 


No point rubbing each others' noses in it. 

It sounds like there are two types of Semites

Good Yahweh Semites 
& 
Evil Lucifarian Synagogue of Satan Semites. 


 

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

#425486

On 7/17/17 7/17/17 - 4:39 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> I didn't write "in abstract theory of nature" but just "in [real] nature".

But you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "real nature". Everything you THINK you 
know about it is actually about MODELS of nature that you have constructed.

	Your mind processes only thoughts, and the best possible
	relationship between a thought and a physical process is
	as a MODEL. You cannot even find your bed at night without
	a model of your domicile, which you mentally traverse, and
	then manipulate your body to follow the path you modeled.

Tom Roberts

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

#425880

Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 18:34:53 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> On 7/17/17 7/17/17 - 4:39 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> > I didn't write "in abstract theory of nature" but just "in [real] nature".
> 
> But you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "real nature". Everything you THINK you 
> know about it is actually about MODELS of nature that you have constructed.

You blamed me for I "do not understand the real issues". The issue we are discussing here is the model SR vs. Michelson's experiments.
Logical reasoning and causality are among the most basic models that I consider indispensible.
That's why I am ready to question LET and its outgrow SR.
Ross Finlayson reminded of the role of mathematics. See my attempt of a clarification in sci.math where I distinguished between the logical infinity and Leibniz/Bernoulli's relative infinity. In words by Katz A and B. 

By the way, is there a detailled critical comment available on
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ? 
 

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

#426018

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 10:57:07 PM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017 18:34:53 UTC+2 schrieb tjrob137:
> > On 7/17/17 7/17/17 - 4:39 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> > > I didn't write "in abstract theory of nature" but just "in [real] nature".
> > 
> > But you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about "real nature". Everything you THINK you 
> > know about it is actually about MODELS of nature that you have constructed.
> 
> You blamed me for I "do not understand the real issues". The issue we are discussing here is the model SR vs. Michelson's experiments.
> Logical reasoning and causality are among the most basic models that I consider indispensible.
> That's why I am ready to question LET and its outgrow SR.
> Ross Finlayson reminded of the role of mathematics. See my attempt of a clarification in sci.math where I distinguished between the logical infinity and Leibniz/Bernoulli's relative infinity. In words by Katz A and B. 
> 
> By the way, is there a detailled critical comment available on
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ?

Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" is a 
usual Platonic, Aristotlean notion that the universe 
really is a mathematical thing, framed for popular 
consumption in the jargon of the day.  While the 
concept of a Mathematical Universe Hypothesis 
is quite reasonable and even usual (since antiquity) 
there's a notion that the theory to be sufficient 
would be consistent and complete.  One can find 
that "modern mathematics" as it were as about 
Cantor, Russell, Zermelo-Fraenkel, Goedel et alia 
primarily with Goedel's incompleteness results has 
that it's some post-modern mathematics that finds 
a way to be a proper foundation of any "Theory of 
Everything" (constant, consistent, complete, and 
concrete).  As well then, it seems rather clear that 
the fields of physics are continuous (with the day's 
usual Standard Model as of tractable discrete events 
or particles as the usual simplification of the parallel 
transport of all the events vis-a-vis their solitons all 
together continuously in the fields).  Then, some proper 
"Complete Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" would 
demand mathematics of infinities and infinitesimals 
in the fields, instead of some incomplete digital model 
of some partial approximations of regions of otherwise 
un-modeled open systems.  

So, mathematics _owes_ physics the infinities it needs 
to model continuity in physics, describing the geometric 
mutations in the large and small as so reconcile all the 
inputs to the fields.  Mathematics (or mathematical logic) 
_owes_ physics a "complete and consistent" mathematics 
for that to be some "complete and consistent" foundation 
or self-same "Theory of Everything", "Ultimate Theory", 
and "Grand Unified Theory".

Then, where here in this thread there's discussion about 
how to revisit decisions in directions in theoretical physics, 
to reconcile the diverging directions, there's both unification 
of the fundamental forces, then toward their model, then a 
mathematics that also suffices to be a foundation and not 
just a platform for (some) computations, to be constant, 
consistent, complete, and concrete to be "A Theory".

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

#425087

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 8:45:32 AM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> 
> I am suggesting an explanation that is to be found in my FQXi essays: 

Your "essays" are pure crackpot crap. Live with it. 

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

#425096

Am Sonntag, 16. Juli 2017 00:17:00 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 8:45:32 AM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > 
> > I am suggesting an explanation that is to be found in my FQXi essays: 
> 
> Your "essays" are pure crackpot crap. 

I wonder if you know that "dono" means "I give" (at least one argument).  

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

#425104

On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 11:32:51 AM UTC+10, Eckard B wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. Juli 2017 00:17:00 UTC+2 schrieb Dono,:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 8:45:32 AM UTC-7, Eckard B wrote:
> > > 
> > > I am suggesting an explanation that is to be found in my FQXi essays: 
> > 
> > Your "essays" are pure crackpot crap. 
> 
> I wonder if you know that "dono" means "I give" (at least one argument).

He doesn't know anything and hides his ignorance by addressing posters as 'imbeciles'.

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

#425204

On 7/14/17 7/14/17   10:17 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> Why did perhaps nobody take the possibility seriously into consideration that
> em energy propagates like massless photons or equivalent waves without a
> material carrier?

What a silly question that really highlights your personal ignorance. Apparently 
you have never heard of QED, which is the quantum theory of electrodynamics in 
which light propagates [#] as massless photons, without any material carrier. 
But in QED light is not a wave, it just displays wavelike behavior in suitable 
experiments; light also displays decidedly non-wavelike behavior in other 
experiments.

	[#] Over macroscopic distances.

This is "serious" in that QED has been taught to every postgraduate student of 
physics since at least the 1960s.

> [...]

Fortunately, your personal inability to see possibilities does not inhibit other 
people who can.

You REALLY need to learn about the subject you attempt to write about.

Tom Roberts

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

#425088

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 7:15:59 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/13/17 7/13/17   11:58 PM, Eckard B wrote:
> > There is usually only one truth but the opposition is so far unable to reveal
> > which alternative is the correct one.
> 
> In physics, we certainly do NOT know "which is the correct one". But we DO know 
> which are not, and these include the theories of Stokes, Fresnel, Michelson, and 
> all others that involve any type of observable aether.
> 
> Tom Roberts

That seems strong.

You can at least excuse them for having quantitative, 
you know, systems in for example some "perfect" media, 
where the physical notion of aether for it's mathematical 
meaning, that it's a media or involved locally besides 
also globally, the systems that are an aether.

It's rather careful to explain why there is _not_ 
an aether about then _why_ it would otherwise surmise 
that there is.

Two explanations either one way for the other, 
aren't necessarily compatible , 
but they aren't necessarily aren't.

This is the "why aether <-> why not aether".

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

#424798

On 13/07/2017 5:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> Following Michelson’s work, science in the early 20th century accepted the ludicrous view that a physical body in motion is deformed and the duration of time experienced by it is changed (dilated) according to the velocity of the body.

That may have been how it was envisaged initially, but SR shows us that 
that is not what is happening - nothing happens to a physical body as a 
consequence of its unaccelerated motion. Instead, the appearance of a 
change is due to the projection of the space-time of the body onto the 
space-time of the observer.

Sylvia.

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

#425634

The glass Vacuum tube experiment (GVTE) prove Michelson's ether does not physically exist.

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

#425718

Dear Ross Finlayson,


I was wonder if you could write a little more clearer so that one can understand what you are say and produce an appropriate answer to your most stimulating post. I will try to interpret your post. 


I does not matter how much we disagree but what matters is how much we both agree that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is valid even if all the data does not agree. Physics needs a new classical model such as that envision in the wave theory of light which experimentally determined the velocity of light or Newton's gravitational physics that predicts the effect of gravity in the form the Newton's equation and Newton's gravity equation. In addition, Einstein's theory of special relativity and quantum mechanics support each other even if the mathematics is arbitrary and the physical reality imposes an incomplete projection of physical actuality which results in the contradiction pervasive in modern physics but as a whole a remarkable achievement of man.

____________________________________________________________________


First, Ross Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous nor is induction an ionization or particle effect. Furthermore, Newton's gravity equation does not function when describing the weight of the astronaut in the space station since Newton's gravity equation for a 50 kg astronaut at the space station produces a force of 44.5 kg yet a 50 kg astronaut in the space station is massless. Einstein special relativity uses Maxwell's equations to represent the structure of light which is physically invalid since Maxwell's equations are derived using Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Also, quantum mechanics is representing the structure atom using an atomic electron represented with Schrodinger's electric wave but an expanding and massless electric field cannot be used to represent the particle structure of an electron that has a mass. Furthermore, an electron probability waves' energies cannot be represented with Planck's energy element since Planck's energy element (hv) is representing the energies of a blackbody electromagnetic photons. Also, an electron's energy is represented with the kinetic energy (1/2 mv^2) which conflicts with the quantum theory that is representing the energy of an atomic electron with the frequency of a probability wave using Planck's energy element (hv). I hope this post will clear up any misconception regarding the nature of physics that is involved and enlighten and most importantly inspires the readers and especially Ross. It is not that the contradiction of modern physics are few and trivial but are pervasive and fundamental which I hope to convince you is the truth. So help me God.

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web