Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394940 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-05 12:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-09 23:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-05 13:59 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 14:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-05 16:58 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 07:07 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-06 18:28 -0700
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-06 21:07 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:33 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 06:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-07 21:56 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 14:56 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-08 16:37 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:18 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-09 18:32 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 19:33 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-09 23:53 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 20:17 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:00 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:32 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 05:25 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 07:14 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-10 18:51 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-11 03:55 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-10 21:37 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-11 05:07 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 05:18 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:56 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:56 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 17:48 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:13 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:38 -0800
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-14 10:14 -0800
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 23:15 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 02:03 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 02:36 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 12:09 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 03:30 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 16:33 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 10:33 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 21:09 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 11:23 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 02:48 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 07:42 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 06:05 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 19:36 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-19 19:42 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 23:24 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-20 02:13 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 07:15 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 05:44 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 07:13 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-20 19:36 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-20 21:02 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 09:08 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-21 18:08 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 20:26 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 04:55 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 05:43 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 06:34 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 13:41 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:19 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 08:41 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 16:39 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 11:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-22 17:24 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-23 12:02 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 14:46 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-23 12:54 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 15:01 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-24 02:31 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 07:35 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:48 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 07:49 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:56 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 08:42 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 08:47 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 12:29 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 11:30 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:19 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-22 20:36 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 14:32 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 15:28 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 16:03 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-22 19:52 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:28 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 20:39 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-22 15:39 +0200
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:16 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 07:26 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:43 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:58 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-23 17:44 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 15:56 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-23 19:48 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 20:15 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-23 20:49 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-23 21:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 03:50 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 07:01 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 08:20 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 08:46 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:19 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 15:06 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 14:47 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 11:30 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 10:22 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 11:06 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 11:22 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-24 22:10 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 22:34 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 14:19 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 20:05 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 13:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 20:17 +0000
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-24 20:37 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-24 21:20 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-22 08:33 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-22 07:13 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 08:57 -0500
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 11:33 -0800
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 23:41 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Eric Baird <erkdemon@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:15 -0800
ma dog, Michelsonnnn abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com - 2016-10-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 04:19 -0700
Re: Michelson used wrong logic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-09 23:21 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7e38fb4-c5fd-4e65-8da0-1f04a2aba5e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396382 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:26:56 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is > > responsible for the null result. > > Either you misunderstood them or you picked some fools for your "authorities." > > "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made > mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future." > > https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ > > > If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur. > > See? This is what happens when you cut short your education. > > > The opposite is claimed for MMX. > > Not if you appeal to LET. You are extremely confused and disoriented. Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around the sun". I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being real for comoving observers. Bod suggested that Einstein's response to Varicak meant that LC is real but cannot be identified by human efforts. I could reply to Bod the aether is also real but this has not be directly identified by anyone as yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 04:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a607ab2-d955-4e9e-8ec6-477acc9efb81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396383 |
On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:26:56 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is > > > responsible for the null result. > > > > Either you misunderstood them or you picked some fools for your > > "authorities." > > > > "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made > > mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future." > > > > https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ > > > > > If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur. > > > > See? This is what happens when you cut short your education. > > > > > The opposite is claimed for MMX. > > > > Not if you appeal to LET. You are extremely confused and disoriented. > > Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley > experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative > result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in > addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be > detected while the earth moves around the sun". > > I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX > is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being > real for comoving observers. This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page. This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority." Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable. Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't either. By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector are stationary in the laboratory frame. > Bod suggested that Einstein's response to Varicak meant that LC is real > but cannot be identified by human efforts. > > I could reply to Bod the aether is also real but this has not be directly > identified by anyone as yet. By LET it has not only not been identified, it CANNOT be identified by ANY experiment. As Einstein said: "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it." http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_aether.html If it has no "mechanical" attributes, does it have any existence at all? Is it ectoplasm?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1d6dea0-2d5c-4b32-9289-a04efe2d4dc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396391 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley > > experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative > > result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in > > addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be > > detected while the earth moves around the sun". > > > > I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX > > is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being > > real for comoving observers. > > This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page. > This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority." > > Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an > explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it > makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable. > Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't > either. > > By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't > see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector > are stationary in the laboratory frame. I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment Somebody who is *determined* to misread the page to justify his misconceptions about special relativity will certainly be able to do so. I have certainly found it to be the case that crackpots can misread Taylor & Wheeler, Ohanian and other standard texts on the subject. Likewise, the New Testament can be read to justify pogroms against the Jews, the Koran can be read to justify ISIS atrocities, the Constitution could be read to justify the Dred Scott decision, etc. Peter is in the *determined* category.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 06:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <827f550d-a6d1-420d-bcf7-1dcc2b11e2a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396395 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley > > > experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative > > > result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in > > > addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be > > > detected while the earth moves around the sun". > > > > > > I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX > > > is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being > > > real for comoving observers. > > > > This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page. > > This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority." > > > > Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an > > explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it > > makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable. > > Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't > > either. > > > > By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't > > see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector > > are stationary in the laboratory frame. > > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment Really? So how do you justify what it said: "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around the sun." This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. > Somebody who is *determined* to misread the page to justify his misconceptions > about special relativity will certainly be able to do so. I have certainly > found it to be the case that crackpots can misread Taylor & Wheeler, Ohanian > and other standard texts on the subject. Likewise, the New Testament can be > read to justify pogroms against the Jews, the Koran can be read to justify > ISIS atrocities, the Constitution could be read to justify the Dred Scott > decision, etc. > Peter is in the *determined* category.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nufqaj$hcd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396402 |
Il giorno martedì 11 ottobre 2016 09:46:59 UTC+-4, Gary Harnagel ha scritto: > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained > by length contraction alone, the negative result of the > Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to > length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while > the earth moves around the sun." > > This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. No, the above is in support of the Divergent Matter theory, whereas the appearance of Time Dilation is present, but there is no Length Contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8c3b16d-1e5c-416d-9b5b-252c10a6e50c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396402 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:34:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > length contraction alone, Wiki is wrong on this. TD enters in the explanation of MMX. It is just that LC is pivotal in the explanation while TD is secondary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <019c542f-d0d6-4330-8ac4-2029af9e7b4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396413 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:19:44 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:34:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > > length contraction alone, > > Wiki is wrong on this. TD enters in the explanation of MMX. It is just that LC is pivotal in the explanation while TD is secondary. More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of the MMX experiment. Lorentz noted that the transformation equations implied by FitzGerald contraction were inconsistent: they did not form a group. Consistency required the addition of terms implying time dilation; hence length contraction is now referred to as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bfbad65-6b37-4089-bd50-f57ef36b1ef0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396423 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:59:39 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of the MMX > experiment. Yes, from the assumption of an ether, which is no longer assumed. > Lorentz noted that the transformation equations implied by FitzGerald > contraction were inconsistent: they did not form a group. Consistency > required the addition of terms implying time dilation; hence length > contraction is now referred to as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction. IIRC, it was Poincare who noted the inconsistency. But all three were assuming the existence of the ether. SR does not use the ether, so there is no observer moving wrt the ether and no movement of instrument wrt the observer. Hence no LC and no TD since v = 0.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 16:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nug4ou$131k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396427 |
Il giorno martedì Sat, 22 Oct 2016 08:41:59 -0700-4, Gary Harnagel ha scritto: >> More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of >> the MMX experiment. > > Yes, from the assumption of an ether, which is no longer assumed. This correct, however the signal is still present, for various reasons. The signal indicates a Doppler Shift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <680fe524-f205-461a-9273-787fe05a1eb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396427 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 10:42:00 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:59:39 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of the MMX > > experiment. > > Yes, from the assumption of an ether, which is no longer assumed. > > > Lorentz noted that the transformation equations implied by FitzGerald > > contraction were inconsistent: they did not form a group. Consistency > > required the addition of terms implying time dilation; hence length > > contraction is now referred to as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction. > > IIRC, it was Poincare who noted the inconsistency. But all three were > assuming the existence of the ether. SR does not use the ether, so there > is no observer moving wrt the ether and no movement of instrument wrt the > observer. Hence no LC and no TD since v = 0. Sorting out who believed what and when is rather difficult for those of us who are not professional historians of science. What is obvious is that understanding came only gradually to those who were working on this issue. FitzGerald proposed the contraction hypothesis in 1899 and Lorentz independently proposed it in 1892. By 1892-1895, Lorentz had introduced the concept of "local time" t' = t-vx/c^2, but it is clear that he wasn't thinking in terms of group theory, but rather considered local time as a heuristic working hypothesis. Poincare was the first to see Lorentz's local time hypothesis as being more than just a math trick, and by 1900 wrote of local time as being an artifact of the procedure used to synchronize clocks using light signals. So it would seem that the complete set of equations making up the Lorentz transformation were discovered before recognition that they formed a group, which seems to have been in 1905. So yes, it seems that I was off in my history. I might mention that Kennedy and Thorndike did not presuppose SR in their derivation of the effects that sought to measure (or not, as the case may be) https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 17:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xbadnX0qX_q9epbFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396438 |
On 10/22/16 10/22/16 1:12 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > So it would seem that > the complete set of equations making up the Lorentz transformation were > discovered before recognition that they formed a group, which seems to have been > in 1905. Yes. Lest anyone make an incorrect conclusion, I'll point out that the group property of the Lorentz transformations was noted in 1905 by Poincaré (not Einstein, who also wrote an important paper on this in 1905). The history is complicated by the fact that when Lorentz presented his eponymous transformations in 1904 he made a mistake, which Poincaré pointed out. Lorentz also pulled his "derivation" out of thin air, without any justification except that it worked for what he was trying to do (show that the Maxwell's equations applied not only in the aether frame, but also in a moving frame, such as one occupied by a lab on earth). It was some combination of Einstein and Poincaré who turned this into invariance, and Einstein took that and made it an important foundation of modern physics (all current fundamental theories of physics are based on various types of invariance, of which Lorentz invariance is the most fundamental [#]). [#] The essence of SR is that all physics is Lorentz invariant. This is modified in GR to be LOCALLY Lorentz invariant. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 12:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nui8s9$35r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396483 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Sat, 22 Oct 2016 17:24:32 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > which Poincaré pointed out. Lorentz also pulled his "derivation" out of > thin air, without any justification except that it worked for what he > was trying to do (show that the Maxwell's equations applied not only in Same as relatvity and Einstein. I mean, his wife. She came up with a theroy about something completely else. The Public made Relativity to what it is today. Nevertheless, still misunderstood by large extent. Happingly, it shows up that Relativity is nothing but a special case of Divergent Matter theory. Or a subset of it, if you wish. > the aether frame, but also in a moving frame, such as one occupied by a > lab on earth). It was some combination of Einstein and Poincaré who > turned this into invariance, > and Einstein took that and made it an important foundation of modern > physics (all current fundamental theories of physics are based on > various types of invariance, of which Lorentz invariance is the most > fundamental [#]). No, that's the most fundamental is the Divergent Matter. All that extends from it. > [#] The essence of SR is that all physics is Lorentz invariant. > This is modified in GR to be LOCALLY Lorentz invariant. You too misunderstood the whole thing. GR is nothing but a Special Case of SR, whereas is still the motion doing the Relativistic Effects. But here in GR, the motion is embedded "stationary" against the "spacetime" curvature. And not because the "curvature" alone. There is no curvature. Which of course, the whole thing is PURE Divergent Matter-ish. I am disappointed, you never reach farther than Relativity, as I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 14:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuibdu$oeu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396516 |
Dne 23/10/2016 v 14:02 Edgar König napsal(a): > > Happingly, it shows up that Relativity is nothing but a special case of > Divergent Matter theory. Or a subset of it, if you wish. Good joke.. > You too misunderstood the whole thing. GR is nothing but a Special Case of > SR [...] Only if real numbers are special case of integer numbers. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuibue$77k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396519 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Sun, 23 Oct 2016 14:46:11 +0200 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Dne 23/10/2016 v 14:02 Edgar König napsal(a): >> >> Happingly, it shows up that Relativity is nothing but a special case of >> Divergent Matter theory. Or a subset of it, if you wish. > > Good joke.. > >> You too misunderstood the whole thing. GR is nothing but a Special Case >> of SR [...] > > Only if real numbers are special case of integer numbers. Budnig, read and quote the next paragraph, is you want to understand Science. You tend to take things upside down. When you are selective in your quotings, you reveal not only that you are incapable, but also that you lack prerequisites. I would rather appear lacking prerequisites than appearing incapable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 15:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nuicb2$qgf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396520 |
Dne 23/10/2016 v 14:54 Edgar König napsal(a): > Budnig, read and quote the next paragraph, is you want to understand > Science. You tend to take things upside down. When you are selective in > your quotings, you reveal not only that you are incapable, but also that > you lack prerequisites. I select what I comment. Unselective quoting is sign of inability of distinguish. And intentional corruption of names is sign of trolling. > I would rather appear lacking prerequisites than appearing incapable. Then try to appear lacking prerequisites. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 02:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nujrp8$69u$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396516 |
The nymshifter troll <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> writes: >Happingly, Even if the nymshifter troll didn't include dead giveaways like his obsession over some Divergent Matter theory, his bizarre use of English always gives him away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9306eb2-3d61-4258-9b4e-e002974bb496@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396402 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment > > Really? So how do you justify what it said: > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike > experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to > explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around > the sun." > > This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. No, it is a fairly straightforward summary in English of the mathematical argument presented in the following section of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#Basic_theory_of_the_experiment What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would *YOU* write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a better English summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly. I am a reasonably well respected Wikipedia editor of long standing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b07b2861-9b06-4ef6-9715-8fcd5a559fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396415 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:35:54 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment > > > > Really? So how do you justify what it said: > > > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > > length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike > > experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to > > explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around > > the sun." > > > > This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. > > No, it is a fairly straightforward summary in English of the mathematical > argument presented in the following section of the article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#Basic_theory_of_the_experiment > > What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would *YOU* > write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a better English > summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly. I am a reasonably well > respected Wikipedia editor of long standing. You may want to change this: "Although Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (Lorentz contraction) BY ITSELF is fully able to explain the null results of the Michelson–Morley experiment," You will need to remove the "BY ITSELF" because it is incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8365c653-c5cd-44c9-8e7d-654cbedd75fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396415 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:35:54 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment > > > > Really? So how do you justify what it said: > > > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > > length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike > > experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to > > explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around > > the sun." > > > > This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. > > No, it is a fairly straightforward summary in English of the mathematical > argument presented in the following section of the article: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#Basic_theory_of_the_experiment > > What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would > *YOU* write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a > better English summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly. > I am a reasonably well respected Wikipedia editor of long standing. The "explanation" given in what I quoted from the wiki article has Lorentz Ether Theory for its genesis. The modern interpretation does not involve length contraction (or time dilation) because both source and detector are stationary in the same inertial frame; i.e., v = 0 and gamma = 1. The whole article is so screwed up that an "update" is hopeless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50756df2-dbcd-445a-9eb6-ec9a24df166d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396419 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:49:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:35:54 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment > > > > > > Really? So how do you justify what it said: > > > > > > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by > > > length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike > > > experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to > > > explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around > > > the sun." > > > > > > This is 19th century mumbo jumbo. > > > > No, it is a fairly straightforward summary in English of the mathematical > > argument presented in the following section of the article: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#Basic_theory_of_the_experiment > > > > What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would > > *YOU* write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a > > better English summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly. > > I am a reasonably well respected Wikipedia editor of long standing. > > The "explanation" given in what I quoted from the wiki article has Lorentz > Ether Theory for its genesis. The modern interpretation does not involve > length contraction (or time dilation) because both source and detector > are stationary in the same inertial frame; i.e., v = 0 and gamma = 1. > > The whole article is so screwed up that an "update" is hopeless. Err, The explanation has TWO pointsm, not one: 1. From the POV of the lab 2. From the POV of an observer moving wrt the lab. This explanation needs: 2.1. TD and LC for KTX 2.2. In the case of MMX it needs LC (in the frame of the moving observer) and LC+TD (in order to transform the result back into the frame of the lab).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web