Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-08 19:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-17 11:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 19:11 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 12:31 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 19:52 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 12:59 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:08 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-09 14:57 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 04:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 20:25 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:59 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 21:55 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-10 18:54 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-10 02:48 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 19:20 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 12:27 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-10 21:01 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-11 15:30 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-11 03:27 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 05:27 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-11 07:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-11 18:56 -0400
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-12 10:39 +1000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-11 22:50 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 17:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 12:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:48 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 20:51 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-08 21:52 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 06:10 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-09 06:58 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 14:01 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 19:19 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-09 21:18 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-07-08 22:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-09 04:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-09 07:35 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-08 19:53 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-07-09 09:37 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:40 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-09 07:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 10:36 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 18:38 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 18:59 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-10 20:34 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-11 11:06 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-11 09:43 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 14:35 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2017-07-11 12:28 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:58 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-11 17:46 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 12:31 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-12 16:18 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 07:23 +0200
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 16:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 02:21 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 02:23 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 06:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 06:40 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 16:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-13 07:11 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 22:34 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-13 11:52 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 16:16 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-13 17:32 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-13 21:55 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 19:36 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 22:41 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-07-14 08:13 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-14 11:43 -0500
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-14 17:06 +0000
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-07-14 19:33 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:59 -0700
Re: The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-07-17 11:30 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 18:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ok0aa3$f2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424439 |
Dne 10.7.2017 v 17:36 Tom Roberts napsal(a): > [#] Except aether theories such as LET in which the aether is > completely unobservable, and which are experimentally > indistinguishable from SR. These aether theories are useless. Is the "LET aether" ruled out by GR ? -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 18:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ok0big$iuo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424444 |
Dne 10.7.2017 v 18:38 Poutnik napsal(a): > Dne 10.7.2017 v 17:36 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >> [#] Except aether theories such as LET in which the aether is >> completely unobservable, and which are experimentally >> indistinguishable from SR. These aether theories are useless. > > Is the "LET aether" ruled out by GR ? > Respectively, would be GR related expected experiment outcome depend on LET aether existence ? -- 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 | Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ok0ode$75a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424445 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 10.7.2017 v 18:38 Poutnik napsal(a): >> Dne 10.7.2017 v 17:36 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >>> [#] Except aether theories such as LET in which the aether is >>> completely unobservable, and which are experimentally >>> indistinguishable from SR. These aether theories are useless. >> >> Is the "LET aether" ruled out by GR ? Respectively, would be GR related > expected experiment outcome depend on LET aether existence ? Make a guess. Be a man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 11:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <abf4665f-df6b-af85-9b43-456abc15a564@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #424444 |
On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 11:38 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 10.7.2017 v 17:36 Tom Roberts napsal(a): >> [#] Except aether theories such as LET in which the aether is >> completely unobservable, and which are experimentally >> indistinguishable from SR. These aether theories are useless. > > Is the "LET aether" ruled out by GR ? Yes, in the same sense that SR is ruled out by GR. A "GR-like" extension of LET seems impossible to me, because LET denies the underlying symmetry at the heart of both SR and GR (local Lorentz invariance [#]). Of course LET is ruled out, or at least requires rather unseemly extensions, by the discovery of the weak and strong nuclear forces that (like electrodynamics) are Lorentz invariant. [#] It is certainly ironic that the Lorentz Ether Theory fails to obey Lorentz invariance. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <baa09ca0-dcb9-40cd-89cc-b6205a47e001@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424522 |
tjrob137
On 7/10/17 7/10/17 - 11:38 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 10.7.2017 v 17:36 Tom Roberts napsal(a):
>> [#] Except aether theories such as LET in which the aether is
>> completely unobservable, and which are experimentally
>> indistinguishable from SR. These aether theories are useless.
>
> Is the "LET aether" ruled out by GR ?
Yes, in the same sense that SR is ruled out by GR. A "GR-like" extension of LET
seems impossible to me, because LET denies the underlying symmetry at the heart
of both SR and GR (local Lorentz invariance [#]). Of course LET is ruled out, or
at least requires rather unseemly extensions, by the discovery of the weak and
strong nuclear forces that (like electrodynamics) are Lorentz invariant.
[#] It is certainly ironic that the Lorentz Ether Theory fails to
obey Lorentz invariance.
Tom Roberts
the "LET aether" = Space Time as a Frictionless Lossless perfect fluid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid
https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/-space-time-as-a-frictionless-superfluid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2e10884-5b4d-49ee-9cf5-6734eb7e4a9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424439 |
On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:37:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > This has been done. At least one experiment used a Michelson interferometer in a > satellite. They were using the interferometer for other purposes, but if the > fringes had depended on orientation their measurements would have been > completely useless. They weren't. [reference lost] Lots of examples of space-based experiments that should have detected aether drag if it existed. For example, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), operative since 2002, uses K-Band microwaves (roughly a centimeter) to monitor the distance between twin satellites 200 Km apart to within 10 micrometers. Any aether drag should have been manifest in systematic errors in the measurement of the satellite separation. http://www2.csr.utexas.edu/grace/mission/flight_config.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ok38m8$crb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424459 |
On 7/10/17 2:35 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:37:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> This has been done. At least one experiment used a Michelson >> interferometer in a satellite. They were using the interferometer >> for other purposes, but if the fringes had depended on orientation >> their measurements would have been completely useless. They >> weren't. [reference lost] > Lots of examples of space-based experiments that should have > detected aether drag if it existed. > For example, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), > operative since 2002, uses K-Band microwaves (roughly a centimeter) > to monitor the distance between twin satellites 200 Km apart to > within 10 micrometers. Any aether drag should have been manifest in > systematic errors in the measurement of the satellite separation. > http://www2.csr.utexas.edu/grace/mission/flight_config.html > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment There's also a satellite-based experiment under construction called mSTAR that will directly do a Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in space, to search for possible (very small) violations of Lorentz invariance. Steve Carlip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d2d2bdf-3d28-48e4-b27a-f39dc048a5ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424544 |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 12:28:51 PM UTC-7, Steven Carlip wrote: > On 7/10/17 2:35 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:37:00 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > > >> This has been done. At least one experiment used a Michelson > >> interferometer in a satellite. They were using the interferometer > >> for other purposes, but if the fringes had depended on orientation > >> their measurements would have been completely useless. They > >> weren't. [reference lost] > > > Lots of examples of space-based experiments that should have > > detected aether drag if it existed. > > > For example, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), > > operative since 2002, uses K-Band microwaves (roughly a centimeter) > > to monitor the distance between twin satellites 200 Km apart to > > within 10 micrometers. Any aether drag should have been manifest in > > systematic errors in the measurement of the satellite separation. > > http://www2.csr.utexas.edu/grace/mission/flight_config.html > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment > > There's also a satellite-based experiment under construction > called mSTAR that will directly do a Kennedy-Thorndike experiment > in space, to search for possible (very small) violations of > Lorentz invariance. > > Steve Carlip mSTAR and BOOST: https://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/en/research/space-technologies/metrology-aivt/projects/the-boost-symmetry-test-boost-satellite-mission-testing-special-relativity.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dea6d312-858b-41c7-9602-6e93ac99f460@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424319 |
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 7:11:02 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. Such experiments are already underway, imbecile: https://www.zarm.uni-bremen.de/research/space-technologies/fundamental-physics-tests-in-space.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2894b0ef-6043-4088-84a8-f5da62a10e05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424319 |
"special relativity and general relativity have been constructed, and they have been extensively verified. ______________________________________________________________________ Is special relativity a justification of Maxwell's theory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc73dc55-bddc-4efd-bc43-2c105344a6df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424638 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:31:57 AM UTC+10, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: > "special relativity and general relativity have been constructed, and > they have been extensively verified. > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Is special relativity a justification of Maxwell's theory? SR justifies nothing. It is an illusion based on deformation of bodies and the duration of time changed due to motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 07:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ok6vtv$s63$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #424656 |
Dne 13/07/2017 v 01:18 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 5:31:57 AM UTC+10, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote: >> "special relativity and general relativity have been constructed, and >> they have been extensively verified. >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Is special relativity a justification of Maxwell's theory? > > SR justifies nothing. It is an illusion based on deformation of bodies and the duration of time changed due to motion. > Well, this is illusion about SR. -- 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 | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-12 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2600ad2-d144-46f9-b104-aaacf54b3112@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424319 |
The title of Einstein SR paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." implies that Maxwell's theory is being justified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 02:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea4427ca-d8a2-4da9-8ebc-500f4f33b9d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424319 |
On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Riedt wrote: > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. Curious (Wikipedia) The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 "From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d46e011-e163-4dd2-bf1d-583c3538a0e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424700 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 2:52:00 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Riedt wrote: > > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > > Curious (Wikipedia) > > The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. > — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 > > "From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29 Also Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c508f96-7b69-4451-82bd-02d4f666ceea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424701 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:23:24 PM UTC+10, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 2:52:00 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > > > > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > > > > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > > > > Curious (Wikipedia) > > > > The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. > > — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 > > > > "From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity." > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29 > > Also > > Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source In your first post the stationary aether is confirmed and in the second post the aether is not required. It is symptomatic of SR constantly confusing the issue, both accepting and denying the aether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a7be474-e2ff-4529-818d-509c3e96d929@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424717 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:13:22 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:23:24 PM UTC+10, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent > > with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory > > postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source > > In your first post the stationary aether is confirmed and in the second post > the aether is not required. > > It is symptomatic of SR constantly confusing the issue, both accepting and > denying the aether. Actually, it is symptomatic that YOU constantly are confused about what SR says.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2d79ac1-8162-4bc3-b2c8-6fc0c1163de0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424722 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 11:40:36 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:13:22 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:23:24 PM UTC+10, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent > > > with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory > > > postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source > > > > In your first post the stationary aether is confirmed and in the second post > > the aether is not required. > > > > It is symptomatic of SR constantly confusing the issue, both accepting and > > denying the aether. > > Actually, it is symptomatic that YOU constantly are confused about what > SR says. No, not confused but I do not believe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc9fa95a-7db9-4bb2-9743-2ca4948b7d7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424717 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:13:22 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:23:24 PM UTC+10, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 2:52:00 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > > > > > > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > > > > > > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > > > > > > Curious (Wikipedia) > > > > > > The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. > > > — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 > > > > > > "From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity." > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29 > > > > Also > > > > Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source > > In your first post the stationary aether is confirmed and in the second post the aether is not required. > > It is symptomatic of SR constantly confusing the issue, both accepting and denying the aether. Gehan is an antirelativistic imbecile , just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 22:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea710c2f-69c0-401f-9961-a31499cba587@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424726 |
On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:41:47 PM UTC+5:30, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 6:13:22 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 7:23:24 PM UTC+10, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 2:52:00 PM UTC+5:30, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 7:41:02 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > The reason for the null result (failure) of MMX > > > > > > > > > > According to the experimental work of Stokes and confirmed by Hertz the aether is carried along with matter on earth and near the earth. Only in space is the aether at rest. > > > > > > > > > > To prove that Michelson was correct in assuming that an aether wind exists and that it causes the expected effect of a fringe shift we should carry out the interferometer experiment in space. > > > > > > > > Curious (Wikipedia) > > > > > > > > The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. > > > > — Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 > > > > > > > > "From the standpoint of the then current aether models, the experimental results were conflicting. The Fizeau experiment and its 1886 repetition by Michelson and Morley apparently confirmed the stationary aether with partial aether dragging, and refuted complete aether dragging. On the other hand, the much more precise Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) apparently confirmed complete aether dragging and refuted the stationary aether.[A 5] In addition, the Michelson–Morley null result was further substantiated by the null results of other second-order experiments of different kind, namely the Trouton–Noble experiment (1903) and the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902–1904). These problems and their solution led to the development of the Lorentz transformation and special relativity." > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Michelson.E2.80.93Morley_experiment_.281887.29 > > > > > > Also > > > > > > Walther Ritz's emission theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source > > > > In your first post the stationary aether is confirmed and in the second post the aether is not required. > > > > It is symptomatic of SR constantly confusing the issue, both accepting and denying the aether. > > Gehan is an antirelativistic imbecile , just like you. Hi guys its been too long, really.
[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