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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408167 > unrolled thread

The constancy of light

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

Contents

  The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 17:11 -0800
    Cretin Peter Riedt at it again "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 17:16 -0800
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-13 12:38 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:25 +1100
      Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:26 -0800
        Peter Riedt eats shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 20:36 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:56 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 19:31 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 00:39 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 17:07 -0500
        Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:22 -0600
          Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:02 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:11 -0800
              Re: The constancy of light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:16 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:31 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:33 -0600
                  Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:53 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:32 -0600
      Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 10:36 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:07 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 05:25 -0800
          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-08 05:59 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 06:14 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:15 +0100
              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 03:44 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 13:36 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 04:51 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-09 05:36 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:12 +0100
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-09 08:52 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-09 10:20 -0800
                        Imbecile Jay Mosley back with a vengeance "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 10:44 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-13 18:32 +0000
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 11:01 -0800
                      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-10 12:49 -0800
                Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-10 14:47 +0100
                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-10 07:48 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0600
                      Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 10:34 -0800
                        Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-13 14:16 -0600
                          Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-13 14:31 -0800
                            Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 09:33 -0600
                              Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 08:18 -0800
                                Re: The constancy of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-14 12:24 -0600
                                  Re: The constancy of light matt.rush200@outlook.com - 2017-02-14 10:40 -0800
                    Re: The constancy of light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-13 21:16 +0100
        Re: The constancy of light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 21:00 +0100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 14:59 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 15:51 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:06 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:09 -0800
        Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:53 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:19 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:08 +1100
          Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:24 -0800
            Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 14:11 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:24 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:10 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:45 +1100
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 10:36 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 12:57 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 14:56 -0800
      Re: The constancy of light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-11 14:42 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:09 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 13:27 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:23 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:56 -0800
    Re: The constancy of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:44 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#408167 — The constancy of light

The constancy of light

Michelson in his interferometer experiments (1881 and 1887) used c-v and c+v on the parallel arm of the equipment whereas Einstein insisted that the speed of light is c, unaffected by the speed of the source or the target.

Einstein in his 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies':

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the 'Principle of Relativity') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies".

The whole of Einstein's theory is only based on the POR 'raised to a postulate' from a conjecture and the 'introduction' of another postulate, the constancy of light. In contrast, my critique is based on Michelson's experiments.

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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth (oblique c).

To illustrate the concept, draw a circle K with T at the centre. Draw a line from the left to the right through T and a line from the top to the bottom also through T.  Call the left end of the horizontal line A, the right end C, the top end of the vertical line B and the bottom end D. This gives you a circle with arcs AB, BC, CD and DA and divided into four sectors TAB, TBC, TCD and TDA.

A tower at T sends light into free space in all directions. The light is received by observers located on circle K at points A, B, C and D which are all 10,000m distant from the tower. If the speed of the earth through space is say 324,000m/sec and its direction of motion is parallel to line AC, light from the tower has a speed of 300,500,000m/sec towards A (downwind c), 300,000,000m/sec towards B (perpendicular c), 299,500,000m/sec towards C (upwind c) and 300,000,000m/sec towards D (perpendicular c).

The light from the tower arrives at each point on circle K at different speeds (oblique c). From point B to C it decreases from 300,000,000m/sec by 1m/sec for each second of arc, from point C to D it increases from 299,676,000m/sec by 1m/sec for each second of arc, from point D to A it increases from 300,000,000m/sec by 1m/sec for each second of arc and from point A to B it decreases from 300,324,000m/sec by 1m/sec for each second of arc. There are 324,000 seconds of arc in every sector.

The total speed v of the earth through space is a composite of the speed of the rotation of the earth, its orbit around the sun, the motion of the solar system in the galaxy and the galactic motion. The value of the composite motion is not accurately known but whatever it is, it varies the speed of c proportionally in line with the definition of downwind c, upwind c, perpendicular c and oblique c.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#408168 — Cretin Peter Riedt at it again

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 5:11:36 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> snip imbecilities <

Keep it up, cretin. 

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

#409107 — Re: Cretin Peter Riedt at it again, was re: constancy of light

On February 6, Dono, wrote:
> On February 6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > snip imbecilities <
> 
> Keep it up, cretin.

He could give lessons in constancy to light.

--
Rich

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

#408172

On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

>
> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v
> (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c
> (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the
> source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth
> (oblique c).

This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.

Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false. What's 
the point?

Sylvia.

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

#408183

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v
> > (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c
> > (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the
> > source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth
> > (oblique c).
> 
> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
> were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.
> 
> Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false. What's 
> the point?
> 
> Sylvia.

The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according to logic. Elementary.

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

#408185 — Peter Riedt eats shit

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 8:26:32 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v
> > > (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c
> > > (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the
> > > source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth
> > > (oblique c).
> > 
> > This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
> > were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.
> > 
> > Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false. What's 
> > the point?
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according to logic. Elementary.

Wrong, cretin

The SR explanation is valid, thus both MMX and Einstein are "vindicated". 

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

#408189

Dne 07/02/2017 v 05:26 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v
>>> (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c
>>> (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the
>>> source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth
>>> (oblique c).
>>
>> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
>> were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.
>>
>> Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false. What's 
>> the point?
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according to logic. Elementary.
> 
It is rather the elementary flaw in your logic.

You confuse the experiment and its outcome.

Michelson expected c+v and c-v, according to the aether theory.
He set the MMX experiment to confirm it or to refute it.

The MMX experiment refuted it, showing c.

The MMX outcome is in agreement
with later created SR by Einstein and with LT.

-- 
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]

#408196

On 7/02/2017 3:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion
>>> it is c+v (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is
>>> c (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle
>>> the source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the
>>> earth (oblique c).
>>
>> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental
>> results were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be
>> detected.
>>
>> Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false.
>> What's the point?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but
> Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and
> Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can
> be according to logic. Elementary.
>

MM expected to see fringe shifts of the magnitudes that are predicted if 
velocities combine that way. In the event, they saw no such fringe 
shifts. Velocities do not combine that way.

Sylvia.

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

#408198

MM expected to see fringe shifts of the magnitudes that are predicted if 
velocities combine that way. In the event, they saw no such fringe 
shifts. Velocities do not combine that way. 

Sylvia. 

Gravity is the Fringe Shift 
Space Time is electromagnetic 

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

#408282

On 2/7/2017 3:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 7/02/2017 3:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:25:38 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion
>>>> it is c+v (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is
>>>> c (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle
>>>> the source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the
>>>> earth (oblique c).
>>>
>>> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental
>>> results were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be
>>> detected.
>>>
>>> Why do you say such things when they are well known to be false.
>>> What's the point?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but
>> Einstein insisted the speed of light is always c. BOTH MMX and
>> Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can
>> be according to logic. Elementary.
>>
>
> MM expected to see fringe shifts of the magnitudes that are predicted if
> velocities combine that way. In the event, they saw no such fringe
> shifts. Velocities do not combine that way.
>
> Sylvia.

Actually it said they combine that way but the velocity was zero.

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

#408218

On 2/6/2017 10:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light
> is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according
> to logic. Elementary.

Peter, you have this mistaken idea that an experimental result can only 
be used to tell you something about one and only one hypothesis. That is 
not true. An experimental result can be used to test a thousand 
hypotheses, even if the hypothesis that was originally considered for 
the test ends up being falsified by the experimental result.

Here, Michelson built the experiment to test a particular hypothesis, 
which ended up being falsified by the experimental result. This does not 
make the experiment in any way a failure, and in fact the result tells 
you something about the remaining 999 hypotheses other than the original 
one considered.

This is the main point that you miss over and over and over again.

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

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

#408310

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:44 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/6/2017 10:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light
> > is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according
> > to logic. Elementary.
> 
> Peter, you have this mistaken idea that an experimental result can only 
> be used to tell you something about one and only one hypothesis. That is 
> not true. An experimental result can be used to test a thousand 
> hypotheses, even if the hypothesis that was originally considered for 
> the test ends up being falsified by the experimental result.
> 
> Here, Michelson built the experiment to test a particular hypothesis, 
> which ended up being falsified by the experimental result. This does not 
> make the experiment in any way a failure, and in fact the result tells 
> you something about the remaining 999 hypotheses other than the original 
> one considered.
> 
> This is the main point that you miss over and over and over again.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Correct, I missed that point because it is irrelevant. My point was and is:

Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contrdiction that SR is not able to resolve.

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

#408318

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:02:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contradiction
> that SR is not able to resolve.

That's NOT a contradiction.  Michelson's "logic" was refuted, leaving a
clear path for SR.  You are VERY illogical.

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

#408335

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:02:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contradiction
> > that SR is not able to resolve.
> 
> That's NOT a contradiction.  Michelson's "logic" was refuted, leaving a
> clear path for SR.  You are VERY illogical.

Yes it was refuted but still SR accepted length contraction which was not justified after the invalid MMX.

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

#408340

On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:16:41 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:11:27 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 5:02:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contradiction
> > > that SR is not able to resolve.
> > 
> > That's NOT a contradiction.  Michelson's "logic" was refuted, leaving a
> > clear path for SR.  You are VERY illogical.
> 
> Yes it was refuted but still SR accepted length contraction which was not
> justified after the invalid MMX.

No, SR did not "accept" LC, it is derived FROM the LT.  Einstein DERIVED
the LT from postulates which have been confirmed by experiment.  You don't
seem to understand that Lorentz concocted the LT from the fact that c + v
was refuted.  Do you have a defective logic chip?

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

#408378

On 2/7/2017 8:16 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Yes it was refuted but still SR accepted length contraction which was not justified after the invalid MMX.

MMX is not invalid.
The fact that Michelson designed the experiment to test a hypothesis X, 
and the experiment showed that the hypothesis X is ruled out, does NOT 
invalidate the experiment.

This is what you do not understand.

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

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

#408389

W dniu środa, 8 lutego 2017 15:33:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:


> MMX is not invalid.
> The fact that Michelson designed the experiment to test a hypothesis X, 
> and the experiment showed that the hypothesis X is ruled out, does NOT 
> invalidate the experiment.

Besides, it didn't show what you say it did.
You only imagine.

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

#408377

On 2/7/2017 6:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:22:44 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/6/2017 10:26 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> The point is that Michelson based his experiments on c+v and c-v but Einstein insisted the speed of light
>>> is always c. BOTH MMX and Einstein are inexplicably considered valid but only one of them can be according
>>> to logic. Elementary.
>>
>> Peter, you have this mistaken idea that an experimental result can only
>> be used to tell you something about one and only one hypothesis. That is
>> not true. An experimental result can be used to test a thousand
>> hypotheses, even if the hypothesis that was originally considered for
>> the test ends up being falsified by the experimental result.
>>
>> Here, Michelson built the experiment to test a particular hypothesis,
>> which ended up being falsified by the experimental result. This does not
>> make the experiment in any way a failure, and in fact the result tells
>> you something about the remaining 999 hypotheses other than the original
>> one considered.
>>
>> This is the main point that you miss over and over and over again.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Correct, I missed that point because it is irrelevant.

I disagree that it is irrelevant. I think you misunderstand the role of 
experiment in physics.

> My point was and is:
>
> Michelson's logic is c+v and c-v. Einstein's logic is c. A contrdiction
> that SR is not able to resolve.
>

The experiment is NOT based on "c+v and c-v logic" or "c" logic. The 
experiment can deal with BOTH possibilities and distinguish between the 
two, providing an answer for BOTH. This is what you do not seem to see.


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

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

#408257

W dniu wtorek, 7 lutego 2017 02:25:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v
> > (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c
> > (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the
> > source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth
> > (oblique c).
> 
> This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
> were inconsistent with that.

No, they weren't. You only imagine, as usual.

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

#408370

Sylvia Else
>>On 7/02/2017 12:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: 
>> 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 (diminished c), if against the direction of motion it is c+v 
>> (enhanced c) and if perpendicular to the motion it is c 
>> (perpendicular c). The value of c is also subject to the angle the 
>> source is facing wrt to the direction of the motion of the earth 
>> (oblique c

>This is what had been supposed prior to MM, but the experimental results 
>were inconsistent with that. No such effect could be detected.

Is Peter talking about ballistic theory maybe? That wasn't refuted by MMX.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web