EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 20:58 On Aug 2, 1:00 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:37 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sam Wormley: > > > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > > >news:2WQkk.280086$yE1.137306(a)attbi_s21... > > > > john wrote: > > > >> Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > > > At least the unseen dark matter can, and is being, > > > mapped, John. > > > Sam, as a sidelight, have you seen this:http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/20/full/ > > > It doesn't do anything for Dark Matter, but apparently is > > provides the "necessary" missing normal matter. > > > I find it hard to believe there is a significant amount of O+5 in > > intergalactic space, but Nature doesn't care what I believe > > either... > > > David A. Smith > > Dark matter at the Big Bang would be mixed with matter. Earth and > stars ought to be made primarily of it. > > This is not the case. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Mitch: You cover all of the bases, don't you? Have you considered that without relativity, the numbers for a BB don't work? There must have been a "super-expansive" phase... before time and space kicked in. But by my disproving Einstein, I have invalidated "space-time" anything. I hope Lorentz is rolling over in his grave! Instead of spouting off the same nonsense, over and over, just realize that all that you have read or heard about relativity is wrong, courtesy of... NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 5 Aug 2008 21:02 On Aug 2, 10:47 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:43 pm, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 4:13 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 4:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > ...but there is no single aether. > > > > your theory is an oversimplification. > > > > Of course not. There are four and a half ethers. Possibly more, if you > > > count the one with the long ears. > > > > I do love it when two people idle away the time by *making up stuff on > > > the fly* that doesn't mean anything and chucking it at each other. > > > It's kind of like watching two people at a costume party, having a > > > conversation by saying things they *imagine* their characters would > > > say, being wholly absorbed in the *game* and not at all in what each > > > other is saying. > > > > PD > > > There is the aether in M + M's heads that > > they 'disproved' after deciding what it could or could > > not do beforehand. > > > Of course, Dark Matter is *much more scientific*!! > > > Idiot. > > Dark matter is not aether. It provides no medium for electromagnetic > transmission. > > > > > > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD: Ether has no mass. But tangles of it do. Instead of looking for the missing mass, just realize that the estimate of the Universe's mass, from Newton's Law of U. G., is wrong. Correct that, and you can stop the insane searches for mass. NoEinstein
From: Eric Gisse on 5 Aug 2008 21:57 On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 1, 6:12 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 12:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I > > > realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. > > > That's because it is an interferometer. > > > [snip] > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. No, they don't. [snip rest, unread]
From: Yuancur on 6 Aug 2008 01:23 On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Sadly, you would rather repeat your imagined knowledge of > interferometers rather that to write one or two simple algebraic > equations to verify, mathematically, that the TIMES of travel do not > vary. But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's rotation. Love, Jenny
From: Yuancur on 6 Aug 2008 01:37
On Aug 5, 8:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > No, they don't. > Aren't you both wrong? NoEinstein, in MMX isn't each beam is a point of reference for the other? Isn't that comparison, the very substance of the experiment? Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something else? Love, Jenny |