Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396486 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 16:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 04:47 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 08:46 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-23 21:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 21:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 06:34 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-24 22:55 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:23 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:51 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-25 08:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:39 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 09:50 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-26 07:56 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 19:41 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 05:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:47 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:58 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 08:13 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 18:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 19:59 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-09 08:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:46 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 22:08 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:49 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 22:57 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 05:05 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 01:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong brightontoyandmodelmuseum@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 13:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:59 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:42 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:17 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:35 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 13:39 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 17:06 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:19 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 16:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 22:08 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:51 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 04:33 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 19:11 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 20:03 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Nick <nick@nick.nick> - 2016-11-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-02 22:05 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 04:40 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 10:27 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:09 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-08 10:54 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> - 2016-11-26 10:58 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:51 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 21:53 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-11-01 12:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-14 06:42 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 20:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 21:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 22:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 03:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-23 12:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 16:00 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-23 21:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 16:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 20:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-24 14:45 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 14:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 06:49 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-25 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 17:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-22 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:04 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:32 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-29 09:33 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 07:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-29 13:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-03 06:54 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-04 18:23 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 10:31 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 01:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 02:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:24 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-10-23 11:59 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 11:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 11:42 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 18:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 18:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 12:46 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 14:24 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 22:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:02 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:35 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:42 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 23:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:53 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 00:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:08 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 03:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:09 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 04:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 04:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 19:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 22:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 23:37 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:47 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 04:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:16 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:54 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:39 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:38 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:36 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:25 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 08:57 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-31 06:28 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:35 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:19 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-10-24 23:13 +1100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:27 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 05:06 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-31 22:53 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 11:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-01 23:16 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 16:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 17:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:21 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:24 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 16:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 08:28 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 05:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-27 14:21 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-27 23:16 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 14:52 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-28 04:54 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-30 06:55 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-30 05:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-16 07:26 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 23:07 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 03:44 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 07:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 14:36 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 18:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 19:23 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 19:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-16 20:09 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:25 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-16 20:10 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 04:43 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 06:21 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 06:57 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-17 07:03 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-17 07:45 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-16 20:26 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 08:45 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 14:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-18 09:29 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:01 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-19 09:47 -0600
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:52 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-11-20 06:36 +0100
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 17:38 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-30 06:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:55 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 17:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 18:50 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 19:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 19:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-27 20:07 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 21:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 07:45 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:00 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:34 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 08:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:11 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 09:19 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:31 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:39 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:36 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:10 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:22 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-29 00:57 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:17 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 02:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 04:18 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:42 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 07:14 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:40 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 10:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:54 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:30 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 01:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:41 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 02:24 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 03:55 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 11:33 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:20 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 15:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 15:46 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:27 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 23:04 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:13 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 01:28 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 05:06 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-10-28 15:10 +0200
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 06:43 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 13:46 +0000
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 16:12 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-23 20:01 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 07:41 -0500
Michelson got his mirrors wrong "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-10-31 11:48 -0700
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 12:48 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:56 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:11 -0800
Re: Michelson got his mirrors wrong numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:12 -0800
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 18:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e83tlnF70a2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397675 |
Am 04.11.2016 10:27, schrieb Poutnik: > > Hmm, we have a saying in Czech like > "Do not say you can jump this height, unless you did". > > The posts below reminds me the saying it very much. > > I am afraid you are fooling yourself. Actually about what? I have written kind of 'book' as a hobby and posted a link to it. See here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 It is technically a google.doc presentation of 155 pages. The text was started as a collection of messages to the UseNet and to Web-based forums, which circled around a certain idea about how to connect GR to QM. The concept is actually quite simple and goes like this: The connection is assumed to exist, but unknown is where it is and how that might look like. Only the 'end-points ' are known (GR and QM). So I assumed the imaginary mid-point between GR and QM and searched in the environment for something what might look like a path. This 'mid-point' I found in a formula for quaternions, which describe a rotation. (Not easy to explain, why I had chosen this.) Then I tried to extend this 'path' as far as to QM on one side and to GR on the other. (Both GR and QM are not part of my project.) Then I found quaternions not good enough and changed to bi-quaternions. For reasons of simplicity I left the math part to the author Jonathan Scott, who wrote several articles about this kind of math: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242079685_Complex_four-vectors_and_the_Dirac_equation Then I have tried to convince a few people about the validity of the idea. But actually nobody paid any attention. So I have changed my hobby a bit and do other stuff now. But my text is still existing and occasionally I like to promote it. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <edb38fdf-9ec9-44fa-8c7e-d5fc9a703d66@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397573 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 08:38:04 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Dne 02/11/2016 v 22:05 Thomas Heger napsal(a): > > Am 02.11.2016 16:14, schrieb Nick: > > > > > >>> The masterpiece of the verification will be prediction of the electron > >>> magnetic momentum anomaly. > > > > No. It does not work that way. > > It does. > As QED is SR aware QM, predicting the value with 11 digit accuracy, 11 digits of what? Of the fresh stupid shit, of course. i propose pi = 3.1415; good, no? So, what provides the stupid SR-QM bombo combo? pi = 2.718 = e; :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marion Vanriper <Marion@Vanriper.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 10:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1bpsj$p2s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #397573 |
Poutnik wrote: >> So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated >> from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. >> > Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity manifest rather a kind of > "anti-mathematism". You just hate them because they are black.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 21:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1csii$dnv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399757 |
Dne 26/11/2016 v 11:58 Marion Vanriper napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>> So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated >>> from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. >>> >> Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity manifest rather a kind of >> "anti-mathematism". > > You just hate them because they are black. > What logic has lead you to such a funny conclusion ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 21:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1cslc$dnv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399757 |
Dne 26/11/2016 v 11:58 Marion Vanriper napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>> So they believe, that simply every effect must possibly be calculated >>> from any other theory, if that is worth a penny. >>> >> Well, most people at sci.physics.relativity manifest rather a kind of >> "anti-mathematism". > > You just hate them because they are black. > Mathematics does not care about the skin colour. -- 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 | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-01 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2972984e-0f92-48a7-b87d-8f95bf996946@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #397413 |
W dniu wtorek, 1 listopada 2016 19:12:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał: > Am 01.11.2016 07:23, schrieb Poutnik: > > >> You could imagine to 'fly parallel' with a beam at variable velocity. > >> > >> At the end you fly together with the beam and the waves stands still. > > > > As there is no rest frame for plane wave of light in vacuum, > > how would you manage that ? > > > > ( putting for now aside your infinite energy > > and the zero universe size in light propagation direction..) > > > I think, that SRT is wrong. So I use a different version of relativity, > which is more like the one of Herman Minkowski. > > Actually I have created my own version and have redefined certain > relations. > > The term 'space' is conceptually similar to what is called 'past light > cone'. So 'space' is observer dependent. > > This is a little unusual, but I think, this assumption is correct. > > So: the observer does not move in space, but in time. He can move along > any timeline, (as far as he has sufficient means). > > To every timeline belongs a different universe. And the observer can > actually reach different ones (at least in principle). > > (Such different universes are not 'parallel universes', but are more > like 'universe around the corner'.) > > To make the axis of time point sideways, we need certain means. One is > rapid motion. > > But there is no need to assume, there are no other possibilities. > > For now we assume, that we could turn the axis of time by cranking > something by hand. > > (To fly together with a beam would be easy: > > you just turn the axis of time by 45° and the ray is at rest. ) > > > TH You are a fantasier... Simply: the oryginal Lorentz Ether LET is a correct theory. All the rest is an improvised stupidity, due to in the math incompetence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 06:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e8t160F698aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #397419 |
Am 01.11.2016 20:14, schrieb alsor@interia.pl: > > You are a fantasier... > > Simply: the oryginal Lorentz Ether LET is a correct theory. > All the rest is an improvised stupidity, due to in the math incompetence. > Fantasy is not bad at all, if you want to do something in theoretical physics. And actually I'm quite good in mathematics. The problem for me is, that I'm not good enough in certain unusual realms, like quaternion multiplication and complex functions as would be necessary. But I can draw and paint quite well. So I transferred the mathematical problems into a realm, where I have more experience and this the creation of illustrations. To draw pictures is actually a valid method to express concepts. Certainly that is not the final word, but a good start. Most physicists say, that mathematics would be the language of physics. But speaking in equations can cause serious problems, since physics is a science about nature. So you need to express somehow, what natural phenomenon your equation should represent. For this you need words and to find such words, you need to understand, how this natural system functions. And math can't tell you that. Essentially an equation in physics is a quantitative description of an assumed relation in nature. But without a description you can't use the equation. I would make an illustration first, which shows in symbolic form, what is the subject of that particular study. Then a discussion should follow, where the meaning of the used terms and symbols is explained. Also necessary is an explanation, how the author came to his conclusions and what those actually are. And finally he may derive a quantitative description of the observed phenomenon. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65c33b2a-c4b0-4cc6-b8e9-555ecc7d1274@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396486 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:31:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. > In a frame co=moving with the mirror, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. In a frame in motion wrt. the mirror, the angle of reflection may or may not be equal to the angle of incidence, depending on the angle between the plane of the mirror and its direction of motion. There are some very good papers on the subject but you are too much of an imbecile to read them, let alone to understand the, > Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. No need to keep confirming you are acretin, you convinced everybody.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7c36dd5-b70f-4f94-94df-43fb679f654e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396486 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:31:18 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. > > The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. > > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. ...and so you blithely discard the Principle of Least Action, which is an even more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at small scales. If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity). ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc433840-504b-4e31-ace0-daa972856512@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396497 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:03:02 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:31:18 PM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Michelson got his mirrors wrong > > > > In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection". > > > > He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected. > > > > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between. > > > > The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is. > > > > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation. > > ...and so you blithely discard the Principle of Least Action, which is an even > more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold > regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at > small scales. > > If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a > stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity). > > ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore. Michelson said mirrors in motion do not follow the laws of reflection. He was wrong because the laws of reflection were derived from mirrors that were moving just like his mirrors in MMX
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 03:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9bfd428-da4e-4a49-ac0e-28356a7c02f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396499 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:14:35 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:03:02 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > ...and so you blithely discard the Principle of Least Action, which is an even > > more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold > > regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at > > small scales. > > > > If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a > > stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity). > > > > ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore. > > Michelson said mirrors in motion do not follow the laws of reflection. He was wrong because the laws of reflection were derived from mirrors that were moving just like his mirrors in MMX What Michelson meant is this: If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at an angle of 90° from the horizontal. If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action. Please examine the following illustration: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOccmJBUDVRcUxod1k The plane wave illustrated in red travels from left to right at speed c in the direction shown by the red arrow. At time 0, it strikes the lower corner of a 45° diagonal mirror at point O. From the lower corner of the mirror, spherical wavelets of light expand in all directions at a speed of c (Huyghen's principle). The 45° mirror is moving to the right at speed v. After time t, the plane wave catches up with the top corner of the mirror at point A. During this time, the wavelet of light radiating from point O has been expanding at a speed of c as illustrated by the blue circle. Between time 0 and time t, the plane wave has been striking the mirror at intermediate points, also emitting wavelets of light (not illustrated). By superposition of waves, the sum of all these wavelets emitted from the mirror along the line from point O to point A form a plane wave whose "front" follows the tangent line which I have drawn from point A to point P. As illustrated, the direction of the reflected ray is *not* precisely 90°. The direction of the reflected ray is *as if* it were being reflected from a stationary mirror oriented along the dotted line OA. Angle ∠BOA is easily calculated. AB = ct - vt tan(∠BOA) = AB/ct = (ct - vt)/ct = 1 - v/c ∠BOA = arctan(1 - v/c) The direction of the reflected wave ∠BOP is twice ∠BOA. We can make a table: v ∠BOP -------------------- 0.0000 c 90° 0.0001 c 89.9943° (speed of the Earth in its orbit) 0.1000 c 83.9744° SUMMARY: At 0.0001 c, light reflects from the beam splitter in the MMX at an angle of 89.9943°, and bounces off the lateral mirror at a reflected angle equal to the incident angle. Your diagram is wrong, Peter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 12:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nui3ml$agh$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396511 |
Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:f9bfd428-da4e-4a49-ac0e-28356a7c02f7@googlegroups.com... > Michelson said mirrors in motion do not follow the laws of reflection. He > was wrong because the laws of reflection were derived from mirrors that > were moving just like his mirrors in MMX |What Michelson meant is this: And you know what he meant, because you are a relativistic moron and you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuifq2$dd5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396511 |
On 23.10.2016 12:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:14:35 AM UTC-5, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:03:02 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
>>> ...and so you blithely discard the Principle of Least Action, which is an even
>>> more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold
>>> regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at
>>> small scales.
>>>
>>> If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a
>>> stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity).
>>>
>>> ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore.
>>
>> Michelson said mirrors in motion do not follow the laws of reflection. He was wrong because the laws of reflection were derived from mirrors that were moving just like his mirrors in MMX
>
> What Michelson meant is this:
>
> If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
> *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
> an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
>
> If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
> reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
> calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
> essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
>
> Please examine the following illustration:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOccmJBUDVRcUxod1k
>
> The plane wave illustrated in red travels from left to right at speed c in the
> direction shown by the red arrow. At time 0, it strikes the lower corner of a
> 45° diagonal mirror at point O. From the lower corner of the mirror, spherical
> wavelets of light expand in all directions at a speed of c (Huyghen's principle).
>
> The 45° mirror is moving to the right at speed v.
>
> After time t, the plane wave catches up with the top corner of the mirror at
> point A. During this time, the wavelet of light radiating from point O has
> been expanding at a speed of c as illustrated by the blue circle. Between time 0
> and time t, the plane wave has been striking the mirror at intermediate points,
> also emitting wavelets of light (not illustrated).
>
> By superposition of waves, the sum of all these wavelets emitted from the mirror
> along the line from point O to point A form a plane wave whose "front" follows
> the tangent line which I have drawn from point A to point P. As illustrated, the
> direction of the reflected ray is *not* precisely 90°.
>
> The direction of the reflected ray is *as if* it were being reflected from a
> stationary mirror oriented along the dotted line OA.
>
> Angle ∠BOA is easily calculated.
> AB = ct - vt
> tan(∠BOA) = AB/ct = (ct - vt)/ct = 1 - v/c
> ∠BOA = arctan(1 - v/c)
>
> The direction of the reflected wave ∠BOP is twice ∠BOA.
>
> We can make a table:
>
> v ∠BOP
> --------------------
> 0.0000 c 90°
> 0.0001 c 89.9943° (speed of the Earth in its orbit)
> 0.1000 c 83.9744°
>
> SUMMARY:
> At 0.0001 c, light reflects from the beam splitter in the MMX at an angle of
> 89.9943°, and bounces off the lateral mirror at a reflected angle equal to the
> incident angle.
>
> Your diagram is wrong, Peter.
I am not convinced that your calculation is correct,
even if it may be a good approximation.
Your calculation seems reasonable, and I must admit
that I couldn't find any error in it.
I am pretty sure the below is correct, though.
The calculation is quite simple:
. (t,0,ct) the coordinates of an arbitrary
| event on the reflected ray
|
|
--------->/
"stationary frame" (ether frame)
We use the Galilean transform to transform
the coordinates of the event to the "moving frame"
. (t,vt,ct)
/
/
/
--------->/ -> v
"moving frame"
Angle of reflected ray from horizontal: arctan(c/v)
Angle of reflected ray from vertical: arctan(v/c)
This is the angle Michelson used in his paper:
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
"The length of the other path is evidently 2Dsqrt(1+v^2/c^2)"
/| tan(a) = v/c
d /a| cos(a) = 1/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2)
/ |D
/---| d = D/cos(a)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <505058f5-25ad-47b7-bbdb-d0998a5cb803@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396525 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:00:35 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 23.10.2016 12:18, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > What Michelson meant is this: > > > > If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a > > *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at > > an angle of 90° from the horizontal. > > > > If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be > > reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be > > calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in > > essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action. > > > > Please examine the following illustration: > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOccmJBUDVRcUxod1k > > > > The plane wave illustrated in red travels from left to right at speed c in the > > direction shown by the red arrow. At time 0, it strikes the lower corner of a > > 45° diagonal mirror at point O. From the lower corner of the mirror, spherical > > wavelets of light expand in all directions at a speed of c (Huyghen's principle). > > > > The 45° mirror is moving to the right at speed v. > > > > After time t, the plane wave catches up with the top corner of the mirror at > > point A. During this time, the wavelet of light radiating from point O has > > been expanding at a speed of c as illustrated by the blue circle. Between time 0 > > and time t, the plane wave has been striking the mirror at intermediate points, > > also emitting wavelets of light (not illustrated). > > > > By superposition of waves, the sum of all these wavelets emitted from the mirror > > along the line from point O to point A form a plane wave whose "front" follows > > the tangent line which I have drawn from point A to point P. As illustrated, the > > direction of the reflected ray is *not* precisely 90°. > > > > The direction of the reflected ray is *as if* it were being reflected from a > > stationary mirror oriented along the dotted line OA. > > > > Angle ∠BOA is easily calculated. > > AB = ct - vt > > tan(∠BOA) = AB/ct = (ct - vt)/ct = 1 - v/c > > ∠BOA = arctan(1 - v/c) > > > > The direction of the reflected wave ∠BOP is twice ∠BOA. > > > > We can make a table: > > > > v ∠BOP > > -------------------- > > 0.0000 c 90° > > 0.0001 c 89.9943° (speed of the Earth in its orbit) > > 0.1000 c 83.9744° > > > > SUMMARY: > > At 0.0001 c, light reflects from the beam splitter in the MMX at an angle of > > 89.9943°, and bounces off the lateral mirror at a reflected angle equal to the > > incident angle. > > > > Your diagram is wrong, Peter. > > I am not convinced that your calculation is correct, > even if it may be a good approximation. > Your calculation seems reasonable, and I must admit > that I couldn't find any error in it. > > I am pretty sure the below is correct, though. > > The calculation is quite simple: > > . (t,0,ct) the coordinates of an arbitrary > | event on the reflected ray > | > | > --------->/ > "stationary frame" (ether frame) > > We use the Galilean transform to transform > the coordinates of the event to the "moving frame" > > . (t,vt,ct) > / > / > / > --------->/ -> v > "moving frame" > > > Angle of reflected ray from horizontal: arctan(c/v) > Angle of reflected ray from vertical: arctan(v/c) > > > This is the angle Michelson used in his paper: > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > > "The length of the other path is evidently 2Dsqrt(1+v^2/c^2)" > > /| tan(a) = v/c > d /a| cos(a) = 1/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2) > / |D > /---| d = D/cos(a) You are correct, I intentionally left out something since I didn't want to overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle. If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small amount. What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation. When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50382869-d757-4025-9253-a0e95faa59ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396526 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:18:53 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > You are correct, I intentionally left out something since I didn't want to > overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that > the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle. > > If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my > calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the > center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small > amount. > > What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being > tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation. > When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the > beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR. > > :-) Discussion of this point goes back a long ways. To the best of my knowledge, the first *published* discussion of this was in a paper by W.M. Hicks (1902). Philosophical Magazine sixth series, vol III, p 9 https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh631902lond#page/10/mode/2up Morley and Miller discussed this issue in Phil. Mag. sixth series, vol 9, p 669 https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh691905lond#page/668/mode/2up The first fully relativistic treatment of this issue appears to have been by Harry Bateman: https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6181909lond#page/890/mode/2up A modern treatment is given by Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). American Journal of Physics. 62: 609.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 21:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuj4hk$6o3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396528 |
On 23.10.2016 16:58, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:18:53 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >> You are correct, I intentionally left out something since I didn't want to >> overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that >> the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle. >> >> If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my >> calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the >> center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small >> amount. >> >> What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being >> tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation. >> When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the >> beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR. >> >> :-) > > Discussion of this point goes back a long ways. > > To the best of my knowledge, the first *published* discussion of this was in a > paper by W.M. Hicks (1902). Philosophical Magazine sixth series, vol III, p 9 > https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh631902lond#page/10/mode/2up > > Morley and Miller discussed this issue in Phil. Mag. sixth series, vol 9, p 669 > https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh691905lond#page/668/mode/2up > > The first fully relativistic treatment of this issue appears to have been by > Harry Bateman: > https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6181909lond#page/890/mode/2up > > A modern treatment is given by > Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). American Journal of Physics. 62: 609. > Interesting. But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is: y | / | / | / |/ a ------------------> x "stationary frame" y' | / | / | / |/ a' ------------------> x' "moving frame" SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a)) Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c) a = pi/2 yields: SR: a' = arccos(v/c) v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees Galilean: (Michelson) a' = arctan(c/v) v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth it is not practically possible to discriminate between the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity. This is also the case for stellar aberration. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 13:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a576d978-27c2-4330-8874-6461cc414e83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396550 |
W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 21:54:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen > But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is: > > y > | / > | / > | / > |/ a > ------------------> x > "stationary frame" > > y' > | / > | / > | / > |/ a' > ------------------> x' > "moving frame" > > SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a)) > > Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c) > > a = pi/2 yields: > > SR: > a' = arccos(v/c) > v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees > v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees > > Galilean: (Michelson) > a' = arctan(c/v) > v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees > v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees > > Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth > it is not practically possible to discriminate between > the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity. > > This is also the case for stellar aberration. You are wrong. The Galilean formula is just: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a)) simply: cosf = cx/c => cosf' = cx'/c' = ... just because of the standard: C' = C-V, this is just the galilean using the standard geometry: C(f) = (ccosf, csinf); V = (v,0); then: c'(f) = |C'(f)|, it's s speed of light along the line with an angle of f to the x axis. but under the Lorentz's contraction the unit of longitudinal distance is shorther k=gamma times; so, finaly it's perfectly equal to: c'(f) = |C'(f)| = k(c-vcosf); and the: cx' = k(ccosf - v), of course; thus: cosf' = (ccosf - v) / (c-vcosf) = (cosf - v/c) / (1 - v/c cosf)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <989540f9-9cfa-48fc-9db1-3328998ebc14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396550 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:54:29 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 23.10.2016 16:58, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is:
>
> y
> | /
> | /
> | /
> |/ a
> ------------------> x
> "stationary frame"
>
> y'
> | /
> | /
> | /
> |/ a'
> ------------------> x'
> "moving frame"
>
> SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a))
>
> Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c)
>
> a = pi/2 yields:
>
> SR:
> a' = arccos(v/c)
> v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees
> v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees
>
> Galilean: (Michelson)
> a' = arctan(c/v)
> v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees
> v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees
>
> Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth
> it is not practically possible to discriminate between
> the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity.
>
> This is also the case for stellar aberration.
The whole point of the analyses that I cited is that a calculation of aberration
on a beam emitted at right angles from the direction of motion yields different
results than a calculation of the reflection angle from a moving mirror. They
are not quite the same scenario, and the calculated angles are not quite the
same. Michelson's calculation using aberration formulas was very slightly off.
In the non-relativistic calculation of reflection angles, both the transverse and
longitudinal beams reflect at a slightly different angle from the beam splitter
than the calculation made using the aberration formula. A non-relativistic
calculation of reflection angles predicts that the longitudinal and transverse do
not quite meet squarely at the beam splitter, and they diverge as they exit the
beam splitter by about 10e−8 radians. This of course is not what actually happens.
A relativistic calculation resolves the discrepancy.
The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
It is behind a paywall, so you'll have to visit your university library to get it.
Galilean calculation of abberation (Michelson): a' = arctan(c/v)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427042206779°
0.1000 c 84.28940686250036°
Reflection angle calculated using Huyghen's law: a' = 2 arctan(1 - v/c)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427013556024°
0.1000 c 83.97442499163332°
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ef2350a-043b-4633-b803-ad9fed9c24ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396550 |
(corrects typographical errors in deleted post)
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:54:29 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 23.10.2016 16:58, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Interesting.
>
> But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is:
>
> y
> | /
> | /
> | /
> |/ a
> ------------------> x
> "stationary frame"
>
> y'
> | /
> | /
> | /
> |/ a'
> ------------------> x'
> "moving frame"
>
> SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a))
>
> Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c)
>
> a = pi/2 yields:
>
> SR:
> a' = arccos(v/c)
> v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees
> v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees
>
> Galilean: (Michelson)
> a' = arctan(c/v)
> v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees
> v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees
>
> Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth
> it is not practically possible to discriminate between
> the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity.
>
> This is also the case for stellar aberration.
The whole point of the analyses that I cited is that a calculation of aberration
on a beam emitted at right angles from the direction of motion yields different
results than a calculation of the reflection angle from a moving mirror. They
are not quite the same scenario, and the calculated angles are not quite the
same. Michelson's calculation using aberration formulas was very slightly off.
In the non-relativistic calculation of reflection angles, both the transverse and
longitudinal beams reflect at a slightly different angle from the beam splitter
than the calculation made using the aberration formula. A non-relativistic
calculation of reflection angles predicts that the longitudinal and transverse
beams do not quite meet squarely at the beam splitter, and they diverge as they
exit the beam splitter by about 1e−8 radians. This of course is not what actually
happens.
A relativistic calculation resolves the discrepancy.
The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
It is behind a paywall, so you'll have to visit your university library to get it.
Galilean calculation of abberation (Michelson): a' = arctan(c/v)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427042206779°
0.1000 c 84.28940686250036°
Reflection angle calculated using Huyghen's law: a' = 2 arctan(1 - v/c)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427013556024°
0.1000 c 83.97442499163332°
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91ec264d-2d59-42ba-90c4-a749b1664567@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396562 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 00:16:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > (corrects typographical errors in deleted post) > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 2:54:29 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > On 23.10.2016 16:58, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > Interesting. > > > > But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is: > > > > y > > | / > > | / > > | / > > |/ a > > ------------------> x > > "stationary frame" > > > > y' > > | / > > | / > > | / > > |/ a' > > ------------------> x' > > "moving frame" > > > > SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a)) > > > > Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c) > > > > a = pi/2 yields: > > > > SR: > > a' = arccos(v/c) > > v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees > > v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees > > > > Galilean: (Michelson) > > a' = arctan(c/v) > > v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees > > v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees > > > > Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth > > it is not practically possible to discriminate between > > the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity. > > > > This is also the case for stellar aberration. > > The whole point of the analyses that I cited is that a calculation of aberration > on a beam emitted at right angles from the direction of motion yields different > results than a calculation of the reflection angle from a moving mirror. They > are not quite the same scenario, and the calculated angles are not quite the > same. Michelson's calculation using aberration formulas was very slightly off. > > In the non-relativistic calculation of reflection angles, both the transverse and > longitudinal beams reflect at a slightly different angle from the beam splitter > than the calculation made using the aberration formula. A non-relativistic > calculation of reflection angles predicts that the longitudinal and transverse > beams do not quite meet squarely at the beam splitter, and they diverge as they > exit the beam splitter by about 1e−8 radians. This of course is not what actually > happens. > > A relativistic calculation resolves the discrepancy. > > The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was > Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley > interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609 > It is behind a paywall, so you'll have to visit your university library to get it. > > Galilean calculation of abberation (Michelson): a' = arctan(c/v) > v a' > -------------------------------------- > 0.0000 c 90° > 0.0001 c 89.99427042206779° > 0.1000 c 84.28940686250036° > > Reflection angle calculated using Huyghen's law: a' = 2 arctan(1 - v/c) > v a' > -------------------------------------- > 0.0000 c 90° > 0.0001 c 89.99427013556024° > 0.1000 c 83.97442499163332° You are stupid again. The angles in any laboratory's measuremet are the same: 90 = 90, 77 = 77 there is no speed dependency! v/c = 0 in any lab. exp. understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web