Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #409164 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-14 01:09 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-16 15:04 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 01:09 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 10:33 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:12 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 04:05 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-02-14 13:24 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 22:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:46 +0100
Cretin Peter Riedt insists "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-15 11:32 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:01 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:39 -0600
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 04:48 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 16:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:34 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 22:59 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-15 11:06 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:18 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-15 16:35 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:04 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:13 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:46 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Cretin Peter Riedt keeps repeating the same cretinisms "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-14 06:13 -0800
MMX c+v NE SR c+v "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:12 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 12:04 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-14 21:59 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 17:09 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 16:24 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 13:12 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 19:02 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 14:25 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-15 22:06 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 07:32 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 18:12 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 08:32 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-16 18:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:37 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-16 18:16 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:47 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 23:20 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:54 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-17 00:36 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:36 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:14 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:33 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-17 19:11 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 01:22 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-17 20:35 +1100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:39 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:02 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-16 02:11 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-16 10:27 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 10:54 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-16 12:50 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 18:44 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 11:29 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-17 12:26 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 19:28 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-17 21:17 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 21:40 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 08:58 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:44 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:16 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:29 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:14 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:27 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sanjuanita Peeples <naalu@nwmeela.org> - 2017-02-18 13:55 +0000
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 13:29 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 15:10 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 15:22 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 16:52 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-18 18:03 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 21:10 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-19 09:46 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:48 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:41 +0100
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-14 23:02 -0800
Re: MMX c+v NE SR c+v Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-16 15:04 +1100
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 01:09 -0800 |
| Subject | MMX c+v NE SR c+v |
| Message-ID | <899a4742-39ae-4938-96ff-7a38ac2174cf@googlegroups.com> |
MMX c+v NE SR c+v Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 10:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7uip4$7m7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409164 |
On 02/14/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. c = 299 752 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s Either use c, either exact value, when adding small valus to it. > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment why do you think "If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment" ? Was it designed ( in original or later configurations ) wrong way, not able to tell what it was design for ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 11:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7ul2o$eld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409165 |
On 02/14/2017 10:33 AM, Poutnik wrote: Errata > c = 299 792 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s > Either use c, either exact value, when adding small values to it. -- 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]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 04:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fcdbcbf1-ae82-41c5-89f5-21a8005b48cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409165 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:33:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > On 02/14/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > c = 299 752 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s > Either use c, either exact value, when adding small valus to it. > > > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > > why do you think > "If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment" ? > > Was it designed ( in original or later configurations ) wrong way, > not able to tell what it was design for ? > > > -- > 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 inconsistency which I disclosed in this thread has consequences. It can't be refuted by substituting another value for c. Whatever the values for c and v, the difference between Michelson and Einstein is large enough to ensure my conclusion cannot be falsified. Einstein claimed he was not aware of MMX in 1905. He was aware of it in later years but chose not to repudiate it or modify his addition of velocities hypothesis. He may have thought MMX was inconsequential but thanks to the status it acquired, MMX put the last nail into the coffin of SR SR SR SR. RIP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 13:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7lt5ac933abqkjobtef8dmhes74gjgc7l2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #409169 |
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:05:49 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:33:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: >> On 02/14/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> > MMX c+v NE SR c+v >> > >> > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. >> >> c = 299 752 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s >> Either use c, either exact value, when adding small valus to it. >> > >> > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment >> >> why do you think >> "If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment" ? >> >> Was it designed ( in original or later configurations ) wrong way, >> not able to tell what it was design for ? >> >> >> -- >> 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 inconsistency which I disclosed in this thread has consequences. It can't be refuted by substituting another value for c. Whatever the values for c and v, the difference between Michelson and Einstein is large enough to ensure my conclusion cannot be falsified. > >Einstein claimed he was not aware of MMX in 1905. He was aware of it in later years but chose not to repudiate it or modify his addition of velocities hypothesis. He may have thought MMX was inconsequential but thanks to the status it acquired, MMX put the last nail into the coffin of SR SR SR SR. RIP. 1905? We have 2017 now. 2017 minus 1905 equals 112 according to my HP SR-51-II. You are 112 years too late. w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 22:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38a7040c-7dc5-4ef9-88da-f9987fc74422@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409172 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:24:46 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:05:49 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt > <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:33:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > >> On 02/14/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > >> > > >> > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > >> > >> c = 299 752 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s > >> Either use c, either exact value, when adding small valus to it. > >> > > >> > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > >> > >> why do you think > >> "If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment" ? > >> > >> Was it designed ( in original or later configurations ) wrong way, > >> not able to tell what it was design for ? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 inconsistency which I disclosed in this thread has consequences. It can't be refuted by substituting another value for c. Whatever the values for c and v, the difference between Michelson and Einstein is large enough to ensure my conclusion cannot be falsified. > > > >Einstein claimed he was not aware of MMX in 1905. He was aware of it in later years but chose not to repudiate it or modify his addition of velocities hypothesis. He may have thought MMX was inconsequential but thanks to the status it acquired, MMX put the last nail into the coffin of SR SR SR SR. RIP. > > > 1905? > > > We have 2017 now. > > 2017 minus 1905 equals 112 according to my HP SR-51-II. Correct. > You are 112 years too late. SR contravenes MMX for up to 112 years and counting. > > w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 07:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o80tcq$mg6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409308 |
Dne 15/02/2017 v 07:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > SR contravenes MMX for up to 112 years and counting. Then show it on detailed analysis. It is more convenient to address mistakes when they are exposed. -- 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]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Peter Riedt insists |
| Message-ID | <eec45c1c-0a3c-45f6-9b3c-382803ca9fff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409308 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:28:02 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:24:46 PM UTC+8, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:05:49 -0800 (PST), Peter Riedt > > <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:33:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > > >> On 02/14/2017 10:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > >> > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > >> > > > >> > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > >> > > >> c = 299 752 458 m/s, so classical c+v = 299 822 458 m/s > > >> Either use c, either exact value, when adding small valus to it. > > >> > > > >> > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > > >> > > >> why do you think > > >> "If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment" ? > > >> > > >> Was it designed ( in original or later configurations ) wrong way, > > >> not able to tell what it was design for ? > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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 inconsistency which I disclosed in this thread has consequences. It can't be refuted by substituting another value for c. Whatever the values for c and v, the difference between Michelson and Einstein is large enough to ensure my conclusion cannot be falsified. > > > > > >Einstein claimed he was not aware of MMX in 1905. He was aware of it in later years but chose not to repudiate it or modify his addition of velocities hypothesis. He may have thought MMX was inconsequential but thanks to the status it acquired, MMX put the last nail into the coffin of SR SR SR SR. RIP. > > > > > > 1905? > > > > > > We have 2017 now. > > > > 2017 minus 1905 equals 112 according to my HP SR-51-II. > Correct. > > > You are 112 years too late. > SR contravenes MMX for up to 112 years and counting. > ...only in your sclerotic mind
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 14:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7uuvf$i2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409169 |
On 02/14/2017 01:05 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > The inconsistency which I disclosed in this thread has consequences. > It can't be refuted by substituting another value for c. Whatever the > values for c and v, the difference between Michelson and Einstein is > large enough to ensure my conclusion cannot be falsified. > > Einstein claimed he was not aware of MMX in 1905. He was aware of it > in later years but chose not to repudiate it or modify his addition > of velocities hypothesis. He may have thought MMX was inconsequential > but thanks to the status it acquired, MMX put the last nail into the > coffin of SR SR SR SR. RIP. You disclosed just the expected ignorance in physics and reasoning. MMX result confirmed that time future SR prediction, while refuted Michelson idea he had wanted to confirm. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7utpk$iut$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409164 |
On 2/14/2017 3:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 04:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0c22b70-ae29-4e82-8fb8-e1980b86dc00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409175 |
W dniu wtorek, 14 lutego 2017 13:39:19 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist > on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. So is LET. MMX doesn't insist on constant speed of light, no matter how much you think it must.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3290b181-da35-498d-897e-c02359b87b48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409175 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/14/2017 3:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > MMX c+v NE SR c+v > > > > Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > > > > If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > > > > SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist > on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Please read Michelon's 1881 and 1887 papers and tell me why his c+v does not apply as he described it. I did not address predictions but the difference between Michelson's and Einstein's additions of velocities. Improve your level of comprehension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 07:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o80smj$kv2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409289 |
Dne 15/02/2017 v 01:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/14/2017 3:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v >>> >>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. >>> >>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment >>> >> >> SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist >> on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Please read Michelon's 1881 and 1887 papers and tell me why his c+v does not apply as he described it. > I did not address predictions but the difference between Michelson's and Einstein's additions of velocities. Improve your level of comprehension. Michelson used classical, in that time valid simple addition of the parallel speeds v = v1 + v2 SR addition of the parallel speeds is v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) If one of them is c, result is c as well. The formula is experimentally verified by particle physics,. IF you have the given path forward and back, the classical travelling the path by speed v1 takes shorter time than by v1 + v2, v1 - v2 along each of the opposite directions. As the average speed for the whole trip is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, but the geometric mean. This would lead to the interference fringe shifts when the apparatus was rotated. But it did not, so the light propagation by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, at least not according the classical theories. -- 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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 22:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05868d9f-06d9-4b26-a52a-252a3ec289bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409309 |
W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 07:34:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > If one of them is c, result is c as well. > > The formula is experimentally verified > by particle physics,. Bullshit. As usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 11:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <273ac238-706f-4e3a-bc77-794e78fbc612@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409309 |
W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 07:34:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > Michelson used classical, in that time valid > simple addition of the parallel speeds > v = v1 + v2 thus correct. > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > If one of them is c, result is c as well. Incorrect thus wrong. The addition of scalars and vectors has been precisely defined in the math. > The formula is experimentally verified > by particle physics,. Nonsense cannot be proven at all. > As the average speed for the whole trip > is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, > but the geometric mean. > > This would lead to the interference fringe shifts > when the apparatus was rotated. > > But it did not, so the light propagation > by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, > at least not according the classical theories. c+v is locally measured as: c/(1-v/c cos(v,c)), exactly! Therefore: c-two-way = c = inv is a classical fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d1abf9f-c294-4bc5-a093-da491c2420b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409366 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:06:09 AM UTC+8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 07:34:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > Michelson used classical, in that time valid > > simple addition of the parallel speeds > > v = v1 + v2 > > thus correct. > > > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > > If one of them is c, result is c as well. > > Incorrect thus wrong. > The addition of scalars and vectors has been precisely defined in the math. > > > The formula is experimentally verified > > by particle physics,. > > Nonsense cannot be proven at all. > > > As the average speed for the whole trip > > is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, > > but the geometric mean. > > > > This would lead to the interference fringe shifts > > when the apparatus was rotated. > > > > But it did not, so the light propagation > > by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, > > at least not according the classical theories. > > c+v is locally measured as: c/(1-v/c cos(v,c)), exactly! > Therefore: c-two-way = c = inv is a classical fact. Correct for a two way trip. My post is about the anisotropic speed of light. It varies with the speed of the target as I have outlined in my opening post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e0ece71-94d2-4a83-9037-4d6bf1acc3db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409407 |
W dniu czwartek, 16 lutego 2017 01:18:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Peter Riedt napisał: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:06:09 AM UTC+8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 07:34:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > Michelson used classical, in that time valid > > > simple addition of the parallel speeds > > > v = v1 + v2 > > > > thus correct. > > > > > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > > > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > > > If one of them is c, result is c as well. > > > > Incorrect thus wrong. > > The addition of scalars and vectors has been precisely defined in the math. > > > > > The formula is experimentally verified > > > by particle physics,. > > > > Nonsense cannot be proven at all. > > > > > As the average speed for the whole trip > > > is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, > > > but the geometric mean. > > > > > > This would lead to the interference fringe shifts > > > when the apparatus was rotated. > > > > > > But it did not, so the light propagation > > > by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, > > > at least not according the classical theories. > > > > c+v is locally measured as: c/(1-v/c cos(v,c)), exactly! > > Therefore: c-two-way = c = inv is a classical fact. > > Correct for a two way trip. My post is about the anisotropic speed of light. It varies with the speed of the target as I have outlined in my opening post. Michelson measured the two-way speed.. very sorry. The one way is just still: c - v; it's an algebraic fact! You can improvise, of course: c' = c in some provisional model; but this leads to the Lorentz's fictitious time fallacy: t' = c/c' t = ..., which is useless - superfluous improvisation!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 19:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c70571e-705d-42f9-9087-0c55d4422910@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409409 |
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:36:01 AM UTC+8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 16 lutego 2017 01:18:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Peter Riedt napisał: > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 3:06:09 AM UTC+8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 15 lutego 2017 07:34:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > > > Michelson used classical, in that time valid > > > > simple addition of the parallel speeds > > > > v = v1 + v2 > > > > > > thus correct. > > > > > > > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > > > > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > > > > If one of them is c, result is c as well. > > > > > > Incorrect thus wrong. > > > The addition of scalars and vectors has been precisely defined in the math. > > > > > > > The formula is experimentally verified > > > > by particle physics,. > > > > > > Nonsense cannot be proven at all. > > > > > > > As the average speed for the whole trip > > > > is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, > > > > but the geometric mean. > > > > > > > > This would lead to the interference fringe shifts > > > > when the apparatus was rotated. > > > > > > > > But it did not, so the light propagation > > > > by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, > > > > at least not according the classical theories. > > > > > > c+v is locally measured as: c/(1-v/c cos(v,c)), exactly! > > > Therefore: c-two-way = c = inv is a classical fact. > > > > Correct for a two way trip. My post is about the anisotropic speed of light. It varies with the speed of the target as I have outlined in my opening post. > > Michelson measured the two-way speed.. very sorry. > > The one way is just still: c - v; > it's an algebraic fact! > > You can improvise, of course: > c' = c in some provisional model; > but this leads to the Lorentz's fictitious time fallacy: > t' = c/c' t = ..., > which is useless - superfluous improvisation! I fully agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-15 16:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28d26f32-b30c-4aa2-8c08-bc1988987ad0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409309 |
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 2:34:44 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/02/2017 v 01:27 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:39:19 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/14/2017 3:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> MMX c+v NE SR c+v > >>> > >>> Michelson: c+v = 300030000m/sec; Einstein c+v = 300000000m/sec. > >>> > >>> If Michelson is right, the speed of light is anisotropic. If Einstein is right SR cannot claim MMX is a valid experiment > >>> > >> > >> SR's predictions are COMPLETELY consistent with MMX. MMX does not insist > >> on c+v, no matter how much you think it must. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Please read Michelon's 1881 and 1887 papers and tell me why his c+v does not apply as he described it. > > I did not address predictions but the difference between Michelson's and Einstein's additions of velocities. Improve your level of comprehension. > > Michelson used classical, in that time valid > simple addition of the parallel speeds > v = v1 + v2 > > SR addition of the parallel speeds is > v = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + v1 . v2 / c^2 ) > If one of them is c, result is c as well. > > The formula is experimentally verified > by particle physics,. > > IF you have the given path forward and back, > the classical travelling the path by speed v1 > takes shorter time than by v1 + v2, v1 - v2 > along each of the opposite directions. > > As the average speed for the whole trip > is not the arithmetic mean of speeds, > but the geometric mean. > > This would lead to the interference fringe shifts > when the apparatus was rotated. > > But it did not, so the light propagation > by c+v , c-v did not happen during the experiment, > at least not according the classical theories. > > -- > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) > > A wise man guards words he says, > as they say about him more, > than he says about the subject. Well put but neither Michelson nor Einstein remains valid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-16 06:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o83e82$ipc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #409406 |
Dne 16/02/2017 v 01:13 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > > Well put but neither Michelson nor Einstein remains valid. Sure, they died and their body is not valid any more. -- 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]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web