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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397084 > unrolled thread

The speed of light is anisotropic

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

Contents

  The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 16:52 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 17:03 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 17:21 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 20:20 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-28 21:31 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 21:38 -0700
          Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 01:46 -0700
            Re: The speed of light is anisotropic "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-29 06:20 -0700
            Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:08 -0500
              Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:06 -0700
                Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:10 -0500
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:17 -0700
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:31 -0500
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 08:55 -0700
                Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 16:04 +0000
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 12:26 -0700
                  Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-10-31 12:44 -0700
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-10-31 21:03 +0100
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-01 07:51 -0700
                        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-01 16:02 +0000
                    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-31 21:12 +0000
                      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-01 06:52 -0700
                        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-01 14:45 +0000
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 21:57 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-29 06:34 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 17:11 -0500
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 03:44 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-29 08:39 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 10:29 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-29 11:52 -0700
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 16:48 -0700
        Re: The speed of light is anisotropic alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-31 09:45 -0700
    Re: The speed of light is anisotropic Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:08 -0500
      Re: The speed of light is anisotropic mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 06:28 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#397318

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
>> 
>> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
>> >c=local speed of light
>> >c'=incoming speed of light
>> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
>> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
>> 
>> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
>> 
>> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
>> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.
>> 
>> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

>OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
>c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'
>You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit suicide.

No, Stupider-than-Usual Ken.  My equation "c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i)"
does NOT simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) or "c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'".
So many mistakes on one line, Stupid Ken. No wonder you are called Stupid Ken.
Stupid Ken, try c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)/(Lambda_i*f_i) = c'=c*(c/c) or c'=c.

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

#397384

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >> >c=local speed of light
> >> >c'=incoming speed of light
> >> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> >> 
> >> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
> >> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.

Hey moron.....the speed of light is not the wavelength divided by the frequency. It is the wavelength*frequency.

> >> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

> 
> >OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
> >c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'
> >You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit suicide.
> 
> No, Stupider-than-Usual Ken.  My equation "c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i)"

Moron your original equation is:
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).
So now you changed it to:
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >> >c=local speed of light
> >> >c'=incoming speed of light
> >> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> >> 
> >> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
> >> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.

Hey moron.....the speed of light is not the wavelength divided by the frequency. It is the wavelength*frequency.

> >> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

> 
> >OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
> >c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'
> >You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit suicide.
> 
> No, Stupider-than-Usual Ken.  My equation "c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i)"

Moron your original equation is:
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).
So now you changed it to 
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:12:24 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 12:04:05 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> >It's easy to test the anisotropy of the speed of incoming light from a moving source:
> >> >c=local speed of light
> >> >c'=incoming speed of light
> >> >Lambda_o=measured wavelength of specific light source local light.
> >> >Lambda_i=measured wavelength of identical moving light source of incoming light.
> >> 
> >> >c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
> >> 
> >> No, Stupid Ken.  The speed is the wavelength divided by the frequency. So
> >> c=Lambda_i/f_i, and c' would be Lambda_o/f_o.

Hey moron.....the speed of light is not the wavelength divided by the frequency. It is the wavelength*frequency.

> >> Therefore, c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).

> 
> >OK moron your equation is simplified as follows:
> >c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)= c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'
> >You are so fucking stupid. I suggest that you go off to a corner and commit suicide.
> 
> No, Stupider-than-Usual Ken.  My equation "c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i)"

Moron your original equation is:
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_i/f_o).
So now you changed it to:
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i) 

> does NOT simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) or "c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'".

Moron your original equation does simplified to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)

> So many mistakes on one line,

The mistakes were on your part.....you came up with two different equations. I merely simplified your original equation....there is no mistake in my simplification.

 Stupid Ken. No wonder you are called Stupid Ken.
> Stupid Ken, try c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)/(Lambda_i*f_i) = c'=c*(c/c) or c'=c 

So moron do you admit that you made the following mistakes?
1. You said the speed of light is wavelength divided frequency.
2. You changed the equation for c'.

> does NOT simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) or "c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'".
> So many mistakes on one line, Stupid Ken. 

Hey moron: Your first equation does simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)

>No wonder you are called Stupid Ken.

No....
c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
and thus the incoming speed of light is variable/ 

> does NOT simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) or "c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'".
> So many mistakes on one line, Stupid Ken. No wonder you are called Stupid Ken.
> Stupid Ken, try c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)/(Lambda_i*f_i) = c'=c*(c/c) or c'=c.

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

#397388

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>> does NOT simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) or "c(c)(c)= c^3 = c'".
>> So many mistakes on one line, Stupid Ken. 

>Hey moron: Your first equation does simplify to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i)

No, Stupid Ken, it does not.  The units come out correctly for me despite the
typo.  But you screwed up, Stupid Ken.

>>No wonder you are called Stupid Ken.

>No....
>c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)
>and thus the incoming speed of light is variable/ 

No, Stupid Ken. That equation assumes the frequency is the same, when it is
not, Stupid Ken.  The correct equation is c'=c(Lambda_o/Lambda_i)*(f_o/f_i)
but as you (should) know, that simplifies to c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)/(Lambda_i*f_i)
(NOT c'=c(Lambda_o*f_o)(Lambda_i*f_i) as you, Stupid Ken, wrote).  Since
Lambda_o*f_o=c, and Lambda_i*f_i=c, Stupid Ken, the equation becomes
c'=c(c/c) or c'=c, Stupid Ken.  In other words, the speed of light is
always measured as being c, Stupid Ken.

Why do you deliberately remain ignorant of SR, Stupid Ken?

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

#397103

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:31:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:20:54 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > "The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
> > precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
> > frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
> > propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
> > of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
> > The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
> > or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
> > sensitive test of the theory."
> > 
> > http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf
> > 
> > And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
> > your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
> > the vacuum in your head?
> > 
> No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

No experiments of any kind have ever proven anisotropy...

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

#397125

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 10:31:43 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:20:54 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > "The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
> > precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
> > frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
> > propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
> > of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
> > The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
> > or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
> > sensitive test of the theory."
> > 
> > http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf
> > 
> > And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
> > your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
> > the vacuum in your head?
>
> No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

Now you are being a dishonest fool.  Mossbauer experiments ARE one way and
they DO confirm isotropy.  Go ahead and bury your head in the sand and
suffocate.

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

#397164

On 10/28/2016 11:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

That is flat incorrect, Peter.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#397378

El sábado, 29 de octubre de 2016, 0:31:43 (UTC-4), Peter Riedt  escribió:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 11:20:54 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 5:52:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > "The work described in this thesis involves the Mössbauer effect in a
> > precision experiment, which was conducted in a search for a preferred
> > frame of reference. The experiment, sensitive to anisotropies in the
> > propagation of light, is a direct test of the fundamental postulates
> > of the special theory of relativity and the Lorentz transformation.
> > The limit set on effects arising from a preferred frame of reference,
> > or a classical aether, is 2.0 + 5.2 cm/sec which represents the most
> > sensitive test of the theory."
> > 
> > http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf
> > 
> > And there have been many more experiments since which demonstrate that
> > your unfounded bullshit is dead wrong.  Why do you make up stuff out of
> > the vacuum in your head?
> > 
> No one way light speed experiments have been successful in proving isotropy.

Take a glance to the systems of Newtonian equations (with Euclidean geometry and Cartesian coordinates) that all operative GPS receptors are just now resolving since already almost four decades.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato

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

#397141

W dniu sobota, 29 października 2016 01:52:40 UTC+2 użytkownik Peter Riedt napisał:
> The speed of light is anisotropic
> 
> Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 
> 
> The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.
> 
> However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.
> 
> This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.

You used incorrect mean - the arithmetic mean:
A = (a + b) / 2

But for two speeds a harmonic mean is correct:
H = 2/[1/a + 1/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean

there is third mean - a geometric:
G = (ab)^1/2

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

#397144

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-10, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The speed of light is anisotropic
> 
> Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 
> 
> The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.
> 
> However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.
> 
> This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.



Arithmetic mean =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2 

geometric mean = W

W = sqrt((c + v) / (1 + (v/c)) * (c + v) / (1 - (v/c))) 

W = (c+v) / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)) 

W = gamma*(c+v)

http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html

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

#397152

W dniu sobota, 29 października 2016 19:29:53 UTC+2 użytkownik Alan Folmsbee napisał:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-10, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 
> > 
> > The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.
> > 
> > However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.
> > 
> > This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.
> 
> 
> 
> Arithmetic mean =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2 
> 
> geometric mean = W
> 
> W = sqrt((c + v) / (1 + (v/c)) * (c + v) / (1 - (v/c))) 
> 
> W = (c+v) / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)) 
> 
> W = gamma*(c+v)
> 
> http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html

I'm afraid the geometric mean is still unapplicable for the speeds.

(c + v) / sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2)
?

c'(f) = gamma(c-vcosf) in general.

so, for f = 180 you indeed can get the:
k(c+v) - as an backward light signal speed...

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

#397170

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 1:29:53 AM UTC+8, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 1:52:40 PM UTC-10, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The speed of light is anisotropic
> > 
> > Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against c+v on the way back. 
> > 
> > The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of the target.
> > 
> > However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.
> > 
> > This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.
> 
> 
> 
> Arithmetic mean =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2 
> 
> geometric mean = W
> 
> W = sqrt((c + v) / (1 + (v/c)) * (c + v) / (1 - (v/c))) 
> 
> W = (c+v) / sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)) 
> 
> W = gamma*(c+v)
> 
> http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html

gamma is not real and does not apply in MMX.

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

#397291

W dniu niedziela, 30 października 2016 01:48:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Peter Riedt 

> gamma is not real and does not apply in MMX.

The gamma is the one real thing in the relativity,
and the rest is a fallacy.

Simply:

x' = x-vt
y' = y; ...

thus c'(f) = |c-v| = ...

r' = c'(f) t = ... which describes an ellipse,
thus the anisotrophy of the space.

But such anisotrophy can't be tolerated in any real system,
therefore it's eliminated - how? 

By the material contraction, of corse.

after the contraction the anisotropy is eliminated:
r'(f) = r / gamma; r = ct

so, now the lightspeed is eq:
c' = r'/t = c / gamma.

so, now the speed, in a moving system, is less than the nominal c - gamma times;
and because of that every precess must slow down - gamma times.

The end.

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

#397262

On 10/28/2016 6:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The speed of light is anisotropic

Experiments other than the Michelson Morley experiment have proven 
otherwise. Are you aware of any of these other experiments?

>
> Michelson compared the light path times of the parallel and transverse
> arms of the interferometer in order to prove  the ether. Michelson's
> reasoning included a differing speed of light, c-v over the distance
> from the source to the mirror on the end of the parallel arm as against
> c+v on the way back.
>
> The one way speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If the
> target moves away, the speed of light is reduced by the speed of the
> target; if the target moves closer, it is increased by the speed of
> the target.
>
> However, the two way speed   of   light  from a source to a target and
> back is apparently  c =  ((c-v)+(c+v))/2.

Peter, you apparently believe that the average speed on a round trip is 
the numerical average of the speed on the way out and the speed on the 
way back.

I'm going to give you a small problem to work that every high school 
student works. I hope you can do it.

You make a trip to a nearby town and back. Your speed on the way out is 
40 mph. Your speed on the way back is 20 mph. The town is 10 miles away. 
What is your average speed for the trip?

>
> This applies to all light as there are no stationary sources or targets
> in the universe. The only stationary substance is the aether.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#397265

W dniu poniedziałek, 31 października 2016 14:08:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 10/28/2016 6:52 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The speed of light is anisotropic
> 
> Experiments other than the Michelson Morley experiment have proven 
> otherwise. 

A lie, as expected from a fanatic trash.
Even most of your fellow idiots agree
experiments don't prove.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web