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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408527 > unrolled thread

MMX violates the second postulate

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

Contents

  MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:57 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:06 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 00:11 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:14 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:53 +0100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:39 -0600
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-02-11 23:37 +0100
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:53 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:22 +0100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 11:48 +0100
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:30 -0800
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:49 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:25 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Emmaline Coots <ealoa@loealoioa.los> - 2017-02-13 12:58 +0000
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:52 +0100
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-13 00:18 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-13 04:03 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-12 08:45 -0600
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 16:14 -0800
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-13 08:19 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:09 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:19 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:31 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:27 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:36 +1100
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:49 +0100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 01:16 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 02:13 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:38 +1100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:13 +0100
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:30 -0800
        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 19:32 +1100
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:41 -0800
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 20:00 +1100
              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 01:13 -0800
                Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 21:39 +1100
                  Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:09 -0800
                    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 22:25 +1100
                      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 03:57 -0800
                        Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 23:53 +1100
                          Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 05:38 -0800
                            Re: MMX violates the second postulate Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:52 +1100
                              Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 23:29 -0800
          Re: MMX violates the second postulate benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:17 -0500
            Re: MMX violates the second postulate The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-11 10:20 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:09 +0100
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:37 -0600
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 08:16 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:07 -0800
    Re: MMX violates the second postulate numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:11 -0800
      Re: MMX violates the second postulate Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-12 01:46 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#408527 — MMX violates the second postulate

MMX violates the second postulate

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. 

Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#408529

On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> MMX violates the second postulate
>
> 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.

That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how 
science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the 
postulate.

>
> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
> 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
> postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
>

What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to 
keep posting this stuff.

Sylvia.

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

#408531

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:06:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > MMX violates the second postulate
> >
> > 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.
> 
> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how 
> science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the 
> postulate.
> 
> >
> > Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
> > 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
> > postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
> >
> 
> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to 
> keep posting this stuff.
> 
> Sylvia.

c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.

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

#408533

On 9/02/2017 7:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:06:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> MMX violates the second postulate
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
>> science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the
>> postulate.
>>
>>>
>>> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
>>> 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
>>> postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
>>>
>>
>> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to
>> keep posting this stuff.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
>

But not one's ever detected c+v. Yes, the way people thought light would 
behave would have violated the requirement that light travel at a 
constant velocity, but that requirement wasn't known then. It turned out 
that they were mistaken about the behaviour of light.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Sylvia.

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

#408546

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:14:56 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 9/02/2017 7:11 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:06:37 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 9/02/2017 6:57 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> MMX violates the second postulate
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> That's what he thought initially. Turns out he was wrong. That's how
> >> science works. The results he actually got were consistent with the
> >> postulate.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Einstein's 2nd postulate declares the speed of light is constant at
> >>> 300000000m/sec. Michelson's c+v at 3000030000m/sec violates this
> >>> postulate and MMX does not fit into the agenda of SR.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What I cannot fathom is what kind of defect of reasoning leads you to
> >> keep posting this stuff.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > c+v is also against Einstein's dictum that 300000000m/sec is the max. Your denial of these contradictions is breathtaking.
> >
> 
> But not one's ever detected c+v. Yes, the way people thought light would 
> behave would have violated the requirement that light travel at a 
> constant velocity, but that requirement wasn't known then. It turned out 
> that they were mistaken about the behaviour of light.
> 
> Why do you have a problem with this?
> 
> Sylvia.

No problem with this. But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX should have been disowned. Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his cherished maxim. 

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

#408552

On 02/09/2017 10:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> No problem with this. But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX should have been disowned. Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his cherished maxim.
>

Einstein has not said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec.

MMX and its outcome is valid
regardless of ideas of its time that violated laws not yet known.


-- 
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]

#408584

On 2/9/2017 3:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>  But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX should have been disowned.
> Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his cherished maxim.

The HYPOTHESIS was falsified. This does NOT invalidate ANY experiment 
used to test the hypothesis. The experiment result is retained. The 
tested hypothesis is rejected. Do you understand this, and why?


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

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

#408874

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 2/9/2017 3:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>  But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX
>>  should have been disowned.
>> Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his
>> cherished maxim.
> 
> The HYPOTHESIS was falsified. This does NOT invalidate ANY experiment
> used to test the hypothesis. The experiment result is retained. The
> tested hypothesis is rejected. Do you understand this, and why?

Also, it has to be reiterated that Einstein was not consciously aware of the 
MMX (whose purpose was _not_ to demonstrate the constancy of the speed of 
light, and not to detect the luminiferous ether, but to detect the effect of 
the *ether wind* on the speed of light – as the assumption at the time was 
that the ether was stationary [otherwise less stellar aberration than 
measured]).

He has said later that when he referred to “unsuccessful attempts to 
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ‘light medium’” [sic]¹ in 
the preface of [EdMB], he was not referring to the MMX of 1887/1889, but to 
*the Fizeau experiment of 1851*.  Einstein’s approach was to not assume the 
existence of a luminiferous ether in the first place, to not consider what 
had gone before in that direction, and start from scratch (he was of the 
opinion that gaps in his reasoning, if any, would be filled through analysis 
and experiment by others).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment>

The reason for this, IMHO, is that after going on one of those frequent 
walks where he talked with his friend Michele Besso (whom he thanked for 
“several valuable suggestions” in the last paragraph of [EdMB]), he had 
realized that “time is suspect”, i.e. that something important had been 
overlooked in all previous thinking (as we learn in [EdMB], the relativity 
of simultaneity and its consequences).  So I think that he thought that 
previous experimental results could not all be trusted.

Incidentally, this more fundamental, from-scratch approach got Einstein 
*without* assuming an ether the same equations as Lorentz and Poincaré got 
earlier (the latter of which I assume he was not aware of as he was not good 
at French), who *did* assume an ether that could just not be detected.  
(Although different to Poincaré, Lorentz considered Poincaré’s time dilation 
approach just to be a mathematical trick to make the ether work as he 
thought within the framework of his electrodynamics.)  And in [EdMB] § 9, 
Einstein explicitly recognizes that:

| […] we have the proof that, on the basis of our kinematical principles,
| the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics
| of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity.

Although, again, I find that this translation is not true to the German 
original.  Were I, native German, to translate it into English, it would be

“[…] that […] the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the 
electrodynamics of moving bodies *is equivalent to* [„entspricht“; the tr.] 
the principle of relativity.”

(emphasis mine).  So IMHO Einstein’s original claim is a much stronger one 
than the English translation admits.

_______
¹) From [EdMB];
   I think that “relatively” is either a translator’s or a digitizer’s 
   mistake; should be “relative”, IMHO.

[EdMB] Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.
       <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>;
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#408902

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:37:09 AM UTC+8, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > On 2/9/2017 3:13 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>  But when Einstein said the max speed of light is 300000000m/sec MMX
> >>  should have been disowned.
> >> Instead SR accepted it as a valid experiment even though it violated his
> >> cherished maxim.
> > 
> > The HYPOTHESIS was falsified. This does NOT invalidate ANY experiment
> > used to test the hypothesis. The experiment result is retained. The
> > tested hypothesis is rejected. Do you understand this, and why?
> 
> Also, it has to be reiterated that Einstein was not consciously aware of the 
> MMX (whose purpose was _not_ to demonstrate the constancy of the speed of 
> light, and not to detect the luminiferous ether, but to detect the effect of 
> the *ether wind* on the speed of light – as the assumption at the time was 
> that the ether was stationary [otherwise less stellar aberration than 
> measured]).
> 
> [EdMB] Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.
>        <https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>;
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.

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

#408903

Dne 12/02/2017 v 10:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.

Question for Peter:
If MMX had confirmed the c+v, c-v aether wind idea,
would it have been a valid experiment or not ?
If it would have been, why not if it had refuted it ?

MMX shows the Michelson's idea
of speed addition c+v, c-v due aether wind
does not follow reality behaviour
and therefore it is a valid experiment.

Let you hold an apple and suppose
it will fly up when released.
If the experiment shows it falls instead,
is it valid experiment or not ?

Michelson, you, Thomas or I
can add velocities or speeds whatever we like.
If such a model follows the observed reality behaviour,
than good.  If not, it needs to be modified
or thrown out of the window.

In Michelson time supposing simple addition c+v
was considered a good model. MMX was to confirm it.
But disagreement with MMX sent it to history.


-- 
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]

#408904

Dne 12/02/2017 v 10:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> 
> Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.
> 
You may confuse 2 things:

1/ wrong thinking the c and v can be added by a simple addition.
2/ wrong evaluation of experiment using wrong speed addition.

The former does not invalidate experiment,
the idea can only be confirmed or refuted by it.

The latter would invalidate the experiment evaluation part,
but not the experimental part.
It could be re-evaluated anytime later by proper way.

Michelson did the former 1/, not the latter 2/.
As the observed did not fit the expected, qualitatively,
especially in 1887.

MMX class experiments were done many times later,
with much better equipments and sensitivity.

-- 
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]

#408984

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 6:48:42 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 12/02/2017 v 10:53 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec. Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.
> > 
> You may confuse 2 things:
> 
> 1/ wrong thinking the c and v can be added by a simple addition.
> 2/ wrong evaluation of experiment using wrong speed addition.
> 
> The former does not invalidate experiment,
> the idea can only be confirmed or refuted by it.
> 
> The latter would invalidate the experiment evaluation part,
> but not the experimental part.
> It could be re-evaluated anytime later by proper way.
> 
> Michelson did the former 1/, not the latter 2/.
> As the observed did not fit the expected, qualitatively,
> especially in 1887.
> 
> MMX class experiments were done many times later,
> with much better equipments and sensitivity.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

The thinking that c can be added to v is the basis of MMX. It is refuted by Einstein. I accept Michelson and do not subscribe to Einstein's hypothesis. SR ignores Einstein that the speed of light is constant and has a limit of 300000000m/sec. This inconsistency makes MMX an invalid experiment within SR. To me it is valid and proves anisotropy.

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

#408993

Dne 13/02/2017 v 01:30 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> 
> The thinking that c can be added to v is the basis of MMX. It is refuted by Einstein. 

It is not refuted by Einstein,
but by MMX itself and plenty of other experiments.

> I accept Michelson and do not subscribe to Einstein's hypothesis. 

You are free to believe anything.
BTW, it is not a hypothesis for long time.

> SR ignores Einstein that the speed of light is constant and has a limit of 300000000m/sec. 

It does not, you just ignore physics.
Your confusion seems permanent.

> This inconsistency makes MMX an invalid experiment within SR. To me it is valid and proves anisotropy.

There is no inconsistency,
but inconsistency of your ideas wrt known experimental evidence.

Expectation the ignorance in math and physics
leads to superior conclusions is foolish.
Not being aware of it is not foolish, it is a diagnose.

-- 
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]

#408997

W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 07:49:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> Dne 13/02/2017 v 01:30 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> > 
> > The thinking that c can be added to v is the basis of MMX. It is refuted by Einstein. 
> 
> It is not refuted by Einstein,
> but by MMX itself and plenty of other experiments.

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.



> 
> > I accept Michelson and do not subscribe to Einstein's hypothesis. 
> 
> You are free to believe anything.
> BTW, it is not a hypothesis for long time.

You're free to believe anything.

> It does not, you just ignore physics.

A bunch of idiots screaming, that common sense
is a set of prejudices shouldn't be surprised
to be ignored.

> There is no inconsistency,

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

> Expectation the ignorance in math

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind,
that your idiot guru on his insane crusade
rejected its oldest part.

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

#409017

Poutnik wrote:

>> This inconsistency makes MMX an invalid experiment within SR. To me it
>> is valid and proves anisotropy.
> 
> There is no inconsistency, but inconsistency of your ideas wrt known
> experimental evidence.  Expectation the ignorance in math and physics
> leads to superior conclusions is foolish. Not being aware of it is not
> foolish, it is a diagnose.

Potty, you can't prove anything, much less General Relativity, 
which describes by tensors. You don't know tensors, Potty, hence 
you do not understand Relativity. Consequently, using your wording, 
your big mouth indicates a severe diagnose. Even know, you are not 
alone around here.

http://www.nature.com/news/long-awaited-mathematics-proof-could-help-scan-earth-s-innards-1.21439

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

#409001

Dne 13/02/2017 v 01:30 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> The thinking that c can be added to v is the basis of MMX.

It is not, it is just the idea behind the the idea
of hypothesed aether wind inpact on the light speed.
The MMX was to confirm it, but refuted the wind idea instead.

> It is refuted by Einstein.

Scientific ideas are refuted by experiments.
As the plain algebraic addition of velocities.

> I accept Michelson and do not subscribe to Einstein's hypothesis.
> SR ignores Einstein that the speed of light is constant
> and has a limit of 300000000m/sec.
> This inconsistency makes MMX an invalid experiment within SR.

Have you ever read the nonsense you wrote ?

> To me it is valid and proves anisotropy.

The fact the experiment confirming this anisotropy is missing
does not bother you.

-- 
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]

#409004

W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 08:52:47 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> Scientific ideas are refuted by experiments.
> As the plain algebraic addition of velocities.

That's how little Yona imagines a war.

> The fact the experiment confirming this anisotropy is missing
> does not bother you.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
The facts are: in real world  clocks are 
anisotropic, what makes time (as defined 
by your idiot guru himself) anisotropic,
what makes speed of light anisotropic.

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

#409015

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 3:52:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/02/2017 v 01:30 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> > The thinking that c can be added to v is the basis of MMX.
> 
> It is not, it is just the idea behind the the idea
> of hypothesed aether wind inpact on the light speed.
> The MMX was to confirm it, but refuted the wind idea instead.
> 
> > It is refuted by Einstein.
> 
> Scientific ideas are refuted by experiments.
> As the plain algebraic addition of velocities.
> 
> > I accept Michelson and do not subscribe to Einstein's hypothesis.
> > SR ignores Einstein that the speed of light is constant
> > and has a limit of 300000000m/sec.
> > This inconsistency makes MMX an invalid experiment within SR.
> 
> Have you ever read the nonsense you wrote ?
> 
> > To me it is valid and proves anisotropy.
> 
> The fact the experiment confirming this anisotropy is missing
> does not bother you.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec, Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec.
Why can't you grasp this? Why your ad hom?

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

#408911

On 2/12/17 2/12/17   3:53 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid
> experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec.
> Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is
> not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.

Because WHAT THEY DID was to measure the position of fringes as the apparatus 
rotated. that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with such additions as you mention.

As has been repeatedly said and you have repeatedly ignored, the THEORY used by 
Michelson and Morley was refuted by their experiment. This does not diminish the 
validity of the EXPERIMENT.

Tom Roberts

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

#408981

On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 10:45:41 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 2/12/17 2/12/17   3:53 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Why do you think it is acceptable that MMX should be considered a valid
> > experiment by SR considering that Michelson's c+v adds up to 300030000m/sec.
> > Einstein was very clear in his addition of velocities hypothesis that this is
> > not possible and the max is 300000000m/sec.
> 
> Because WHAT THEY DID was to measure the position of fringes as the apparatus 
> rotated. that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with such additions as you mention.
> 
> As has been repeatedly said and you have repeatedly ignored, the THEORY used by 
> Michelson and Morley was refuted by their experiment. This does not diminish the 
> validity of the EXPERIMENT.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Agree, however, SR is faced with the inconsistency between Michelson's c+v and Einstein's addition of velocities hypothesis. I can accept Michelson's experiments but SR has no credibility in doing so. If it does, it abandons the claim that the speed of light is constant and maxes at 300000000m/sec.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web