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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407553 > unrolled thread

Michelson confirms anisotropic light

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

Contents

  Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-01 20:13 -0800
    Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-01 20:18 -0800
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-01 22:02 -0800
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 07:06 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 15:39 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 16:03 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 16:16 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 16:40 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 22:18 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 04:52 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 05:02 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 05:36 -0800
                  Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:05 -0800
                    Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 19:46 -0800
                      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 20:52 -0800
                        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 04:51 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0600
                  Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 16:01 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-04 06:26 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:08 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 22:25 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:34 -0600
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 08:00 +0100
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 01:40 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 11:18 +0100
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 08:57 -0600
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 08:58 -0800
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 09:28 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 18:19 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 17:36 +0100
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 18:37 -0800
    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 09:30 -0600
      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 15:47 -0800
        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:24 -0600
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 20:13 -0800
            Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 21:00 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 23:14 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 23:18 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 04:19 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 06:28 -0800
            Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-06 09:39 -0600
              Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:35 -0800
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:50 +0100
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 05:22 -0800
                  Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:27 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:15 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:21 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:34 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 19:55 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 06:48 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:38 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 07:37 +0100
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:26 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:02 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:22 +0100
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:41 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:39 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:36 -0600
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:37 -0600
              Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 16:58 -0800
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 20:15 -0500
                  Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 18:46 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:39 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:56 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:58 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:32 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:40 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:36 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:42 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:43 +0100
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:53 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:59 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:20 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:22 -0800
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 22:55 -0800
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 12:15 -0800
            Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:36 -0800
    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 12:32 -0800

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

#408098

On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
> MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.

Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.

> Why does it
> have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
> refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
> of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related) 
experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE 
EXPERIMENTS.

The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.

> Yet
> science persists in using MMX and the Lorentz gamma formula arising out of it
> as the cornerstore  of a bizarre theory. SR has no legitimate foundation.

This is all completely wrong. You REALLY need to learn something about the 
subject before attempting to write about it. Your FANTASIES are worthless.

Tom Roberts

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

#408184

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
> > MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
> 
> Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
> 
> > Why does it
> > have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
> > refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
> > of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.
> 
> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related) 
> experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE 
> EXPERIMENTS.
> 
> The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
> 
I agree but this is irrelevant. Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein (always c). If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid, the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a contraction of the observed object has no basis.

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

#408188

Dne 07/02/2017 v 05:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
>>> MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
>>
>> Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
>>
>>> Why does it
>>> have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
>>> refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
>>> of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.
>>
>> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>
>> Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related) 
>> experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE 
>> EXPERIMENTS.
>>
>> The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
>>
> I agree but this is irrelevant. Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein (always c). If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid, the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> 
You have not shown yet, why you think MMX is invalid.

-- 
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]

#408217

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
> > >
> > > MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
> > 
> > Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
> > 
> > > Why does it have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not
> > > accepted (c+v and c-v refuted by experiment). Without the variation
> > > of the speed of light the logic of Michelson and his rationale for
> > > finding the aether is null and void.
> > 
> > Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
> > 
> > Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related) 
> > experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE 
> > EXPERIMENTS.
> > 
> > The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
> > 
> I agree but this is irrelevant.

No, it is NOT irrelevant.  The MMX refuted a theory then believed by most
physicists.  You seem to have a real problem with logical deduction.

> Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> (always c).

Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.

> If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,

Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.

> the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> contraction of the observed object has no basis.

More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
have been well-tested and confirmed today.

Your inability to draw valid conclusions from the evidence means that
your thoughts are, in general, highly suspect.  It's analogous to what
Einstein said:

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with
important matters." -- Albert Einstein

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

#408311

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> 
> > Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> > (always c).
> 
> Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
> 
> > If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
> 
> Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
> 
> > the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> > that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> > contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> 
> More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
> have been well-tested and confirmed today.
> 

The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.

The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein) failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different speeds of light (anisotropy).

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

#408320

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> > > (always c).
> > 
> > Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
> > 
> > > If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
> > 
> > Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
> > 
> > > the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> > > that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> > > contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> > 
> > More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
> > have been well-tested and confirmed today.
> > 
> 
> The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
> introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.

Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.

> The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
> failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
> explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
> moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
> speeds of light (anisotropy).

Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.

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

#408338

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:15:09 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> > > > (always c).
> > > 
> > > Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
> > > 
> > > > If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
> > > 
> > > Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
> > > 
> > > > the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> > > > that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> > > > contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> > > 
> > > More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
> > > have been well-tested and confirmed today.
> > > 
> > 
> > The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
> > introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
> 
> Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
> it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.
> 
> > The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
> > failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
> > explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
> > moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
> > speeds of light (anisotropy).
> 
> Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.

What experiment does prove the speed of light covers the distance of 300000km and 300030km in the same time?

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

#408342

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 8:21:40 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:15:09 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> > > > > (always c).
> > > > 
> > > > Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
> > > > 
> > > > > If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
> > > > 
> > > > Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
> > > > 
> > > > > the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> > > > > that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> > > > > contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> > > > 
> > > > More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
> > > > have been well-tested and confirmed today.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
> > > introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
> > 
> > Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
> > it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.
> > 
> > > The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
> > > failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
> > > explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
> > > moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
> > > speeds of light (anisotropy).
> > 
> > Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.
> 
> What experiment does prove the speed of light covers the distance of 300000km and 300030km in the same time?

If a light source is large enough to be seen by the unaided, then the light source is either:
1) so large that it defies distance to the unaided eye 
2) so close that it does not require such a large size

In our ability to measure both is equal and instantaneous and does not require the light to travel. It just is. Now, when we attempt to measure these lights- the instruments we use are inherited whith become the delay measures, due to the fact that our instruments bounce light off of multiple mirrors- in order for the event or stimulus to be measured. 

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

#408345

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:15:09 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
> > > introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
> > 
> > Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
> > it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.
> > 
> > > The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
> > > failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
> > > explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
> > > moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
> > > speeds of light (anisotropy).
> > 
> > Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.
> 
> What experiment does prove the speed of light covers the distance of
> 300000km and 300030km in the same time?

You must be the king of asininity.  Light travels the same distance in
the same amount of time in ALL inertial frames.  Posing "When did you
stop beating your wife?" questions is hypocrisy.

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

#408352

Dne 08/02/2017 v 03:21 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:15:09 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
>>>>> (always c).
>>>>
>>>> Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
>>>>
>>>>> If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
>>>>
>>>> Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
>>>>> that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
>>>>> contraction of the observed object has no basis.
>>>>
>>>> More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
>>>> have been well-tested and confirmed today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
>>> introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
>>
>> Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
>> it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.
>>
>>> The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
>>> failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
>>> explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
>>> moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
>>> speeds of light (anisotropy).
>>
>> Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.
> 
> What experiment does prove the speed of light covers the distance of 300000km and 300030km in the same time?
> 
How do you understand
the vacuum light speed invariance in inertial frames ?

-- 
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]

#408359

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 06:48:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> How do you understand
> the vacuum light speed invariance in inertial frames ?

A really simple word trick.

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

#408354

Dne 08/02/2017 v 03:21 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:15:09 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:27:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>
>>> The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an
>>> introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
>>
>> Since neither have been refuted and both have been confirmed by experiment,
>> it is impossible to understand your ridiculous assertions.
>>
>>> The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein)
>>> failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot
>>> explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is
>>> moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different
>>> speeds of light (anisotropy).
>>
>> Unfortunately for your asinine assertion, experiment refutes them.
> 
> What experiment does prove the speed of light covers the distance of 300000km and 300030km in the same time?
> 
What theory predicts that ? It looks like
your lack of basic understanding of SR is obvious.

-- 
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]

#408324

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 6:27:24 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:24 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:35:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > 
> > > Relevant is the difference between Michelson (c+v and c-v) and Einstein
> > > (always c).
> > 
> > Which the MMX put on the table, so it was EXTREMELY relevant.
> > 
> > > If Michelson is wrong and Einstein is right, MMX is invalid,
> > 
> > Now that claim is illogical, irrational and extremely stupid.
> > 
> > > the gamma formula of Lorentz is invalid and the contention of Einstein
> > > that a non co-moving observer of a moving object can discern a
> > > contraction of the observed object has no basis.
> > 
> > More illogical cow plop.  Einstein derived the LT from assumptions which
> > have been well-tested and confirmed today.
> > 
> 
> The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.
> 
> The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein) failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment. However, SR cannot explain its claim of c being constant if the target on a one way trip is moving away or approaching. Different target speeds produce different speeds of light (anisotropy).

But, the materials and configurations of our experiments continue to improve. Our mirrors continue to be ground more efficient. So, our target speeds continue to lower to a more and more precise value.

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

#408355

Dne 08/02/2017 v 01:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> [...] Different target speeds produce different speeds of light (anisotropy).

The point is - they do not, however it looks crazy for you.
The light has the same speed wrt all objects
mutually moving with constant velocities, simultaneously.

Nature decided to behave crazy
in domains out of our experience,
against our well established everyday logic.
It applies not only to SR,
but also to quantum physics and chemistry.

Do not worry - it already looked crazy
for millions of people for more than a century.
You are neither the first,
neither the smartest ( no offence ) who noticed that.

-- 
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]

#408356

Dne 08/02/2017 v 08:02 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 08/02/2017 v 01:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>
>> [...] Different target speeds produce different speeds of light (anisotropy).
> 
> The point is - they do not, however it looks crazy for you.
> The light has the same speed wrt all objects
> mutually moving with constant velocities, simultaneously.
> 
What means every such an object would observe
the same light at the speed c ( wrt itself ).
But at the same time the closing speed of the same light
wrt other objects is observed different to c,
if their speed wrt the observing object is high enough.

-- 
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]

#408361

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 08:22:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> What means every such an object would observe
> the same light at the speed c ( wrt itself ).

And people walking on a street
will observe trees and buildings 
running around them.
Relativistic moron said!!!!!!
Relativistic moron can't be wrong.

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

#408360

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 08:02:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> Nature decided to behave crazy
> in domains out of our experience,

Wrong, poor idiot. It's just you that decided
to describe it that way.

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

#408379

On 2/7/2017 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The two postulates of SR (Einstein 1905) consist of a conjecture and 'an introduced postulate' pulled out of thin air.

Yes, and that is a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE way to produce a hypothesis in 
science. What do you think the process SHOULD be for producing a hypothesis?

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

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

#408380

On 2/7/2017 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The experiment based on c+v and c-v (Michelson) as against c (Einstein) failed and cannot considered to be a valid experiment.

I just do not get where you think the experiment FAILED.
Do you think that an experiment succeeds only if it SUPPORTS the 
hypothesis used to design it?

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

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

#408489

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
> > MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
> 
> Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
> 
> > Why does it
> > have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
> > refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
> > of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.
> 
> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related) 
> experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE 
> EXPERIMENTS.
> 
> The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
> 
> > Yet
> > science persists in using MMX and the Lorentz gamma formula arising out of it
> > as the cornerstore  of a bizarre theory. SR has no legitimate foundation.
> 

According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent perpendicular to the motion it is c. 

I would appreciate it if you could clarify how SR reconciles Michelson's c+v and c-v with Einstein's postulate that c is always constant.

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

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

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

csiph-web