About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Math]
|
Prev: Operations management 9e ritzman solutions manual
Next: Proofs that standard functions are transcendental
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 16:55 On Jul 21, 11:02 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > Dear Harald: That's BS! Mathperformed by someone who has the science correctcan have a perfectly constructed "experiment" without spending a dime! But I also have my X, Y, & Z interferometer, which knocks Albert Einstein right out of his coffin! NoEinstein > > On Jul 21, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > Dear NoEinstein, > > As you probably know, math cannot prove a physical theory. > > Regards, > Harald
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 15:21 On Jul 21, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the "former" Dunce School Teacher: You don't set the agendas, I do. I tolerate you like a dog must tolerate fleas. I don't have the time nor the motivation to do your bidding on anything. Understand? NoEinstein > > On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > > common in HS Algebra. > > I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the > river. > All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the > basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are > they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > > > > > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. > > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll > > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > > to this common problem: > > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > > compare? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 16:22 On Jul 22, 2:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 21, 4:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the "former" Dunce School Teacher: You don't set the > agendas, I do. No, I do. You don't. All you can do is splutter and foam and wave your hands vigorously when your incompetence is demonstrated. That's the only flexibility you are afforded. There, I see you've aligned with this nicely. > I tolerate you like a dog must tolerate fleas. I > don't have the time nor the motivation to do your bidding on > anything. Understand? NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > > > common in HS Algebra. > > > I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the > > river. > > All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the > > basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are > > they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > > > > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > > > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > > > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > > > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > > > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well.. > > > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll > > > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > > > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > > > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > > > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > > > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > > > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > > > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > > > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > > > to this common problem: > > > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > > > compare? > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sebastian Garth on 22 Jul 2010 17:02 On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > The math I did PROVES that the > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > the direction being considered. NoEinstein Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C (such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)?
From: glird on 22 Jul 2010 17:07
On Jul 19, 8:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/19/10 4:59 PM, [In a posting about Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1", which was written in 1905!!] glird wrote: > > > We will now examine what would happen if someone invents a way to > > measure the one way speed of light... > > See:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#.... > > 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy > ... Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972) ,,, > Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731734, (1990) ... > Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963) ,,, > Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965) ... > Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964) ... > Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988) ... > T.W. Cole, ... (1976), > ... (1997), thanks for the info, Sam; but the cited experiments were long after the date when E might have written the stuff in my posting. glird |