EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 11 Aug 2008 17:01 On Aug 11, 3:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Dear Sam: How could there be an experimental basis for SR? I've > disproved SR by showing that M-M didn't have the required CONTROL. > NoEinstein First of all, the experimental basis of SR doesn't hinge on the MMX. If the MMX had NEVER EVEN HAPPENED, there would still be overwhelming experimental evidence of relativity. Secondly, Einstein did not rely on the MMX for the development of relativity. The basis for relativity is Maxwell's equations and the principle of relativity. Now, if you have a problem with Maxwell's equations or the principle of relativity, then by all means indicate what your problem is. PD
From: PD on 11 Aug 2008 17:02 On Aug 11, 3:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 10, 12:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 7:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Aug 9, 2:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > >>> I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? > > > >>> Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. > > > >> You said standing on earth, so I know that the earth moon > > > >> system is in free fall around the Sun... but I can't see > > > >> the sum moon or stars. > > > > >> I can determine that the earth is rotating... > > > >> pendulum > > > >> gyroscope > > > > > The pendulum does what, and how do you know? > > > > See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum > > > I know how Foucaults pendulum works. > > > How do you use it without referencing it to something else? > > e.g. some marks on the floor.or wall. > > > Remember the conditions? > > > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. > > > > >> I can determine tidal flexing caused by at least two > > > >> bodies... > > > > > How do you determine the tidal flexing? > > > > Scientific GPS Monitoring--assuming you can use GNSS signals. > > > You mean by refrrence to various satellites? > > > Remember the conditions? > > > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to anything else. > > > Love, > > > Jenny- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear Jenny: My X, Y, Z interferometer can detect the speed and the > velocity of the Earth without making any OUTSIDE observations. But > one must make inside observations to count the fringe shifts. > NoEinstein Please post a link to your description of your XYZ interferometer.
From: NoEinstein on 13 Aug 2008 13:37 On Aug 11, 4:32 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Dear Jenny: My X, Y, Z interferometer can detect the speed and the > > velocity of the Earth without making any OUTSIDE observations. But > > one must make inside observations to count the fringe shifts. > > NoEinstein > > And somewhere in the process, I'm sure that you compare one count with > some other count. > > Love, > > Jenny Dear Jenny: Because my X, Y, Z interferometer has a CONTROL (It's located back-and-forth on the Z axis, only.), the only comparison my interferometer needs is to count the fringe shifts in the other light course which DOES hit a 45 degree mirror. Light velocity due to the lateral movement of the Earth will cause the TEST light course to hit the 45 degree mirror off center. The faster the velocity sideways, the further off center the photons will hit. An off center reflection will cause a PHYSICAL lengthening or shortening of the effective length of the TEST light course. Such will be twice the distance off center of the reflection. Note: It's "twice" because both the down and the back up course distance will change. The length of the reflection from the 45 degree mirror to the "return" perpendicular mirror can be disregarded. But the explanation why is too involved to try to explain, here. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
From: NoEinstein on 13 Aug 2008 13:45 On Aug 11, 4:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 9:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 9, 4:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: The "assumed" masses of the universe are those necessary to > > > > hold the orbiting bodies in their observed (Doppler shifted) orbits.. > > > > And those forces are based on Newton's "Law" of Universal Gravitation > > > > Nope. Not based on Newton's law of universal gravitation. I don't know > > > where you got the goofy idea that they are. > > > > And you still haven't answered how tangles of something massless can > > > have mass. > > > > > > > > > which is in error. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > Dear PD: Good question! Mass is: "That which can be acted upon by > > gravity." > > That's an interesting definition. You do realize, don't you, that this > is not the definition that physics uses for "mass" at all? > > > Since gravity is just "flowing ether", > > Yes, I remember you saying that. You still haven't explained where the > "flowing ether" that flows into the moon emerges. > > > then tangles of > > ether must impede the flow of ether > > Sorry, this doesn't follow from your own definition. You say mass is > that which is acted on by gravity, but here you say gravity is that > which is impeded by mass. Which one is acted on by which? > > > > > and thus be subject to a force > > being applied. The tighter the tangles, the higher the mass. > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Who gives a damn what "physics" defines. I've proved that you and all of the Einsteiniacs are screwed up. My definition of mass is the simple and the true. Forget those outdated textbooks and encyclopedias! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 13 Aug 2008 13:51
On Aug 11, 5:01 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 11, 3:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sam: How could there be an experimental basis for SR? I've > > disproved SR by showing that M-M didn't have the required CONTROL. > > NoEinstein > > First of all, the experimental basis of SR doesn't hinge on the MMX. > If the MMX had NEVER EVEN HAPPENED, there would still be overwhelming > experimental evidence of relativity. > > Secondly, Einstein did not rely on the MMX for the development of > relativity. The basis for relativity is Maxwell's equations and the > principle of relativity. Now, if you have a problem with Maxwell's > equations or the principle of relativity, then by all means indicate > what your problem is. > > PD Dear PD: Oh, no? Then why is Lorentz's "transformation" used in both SR and in GR? That "rubber ruler" was an idiot's explanation for the nil results of M-M. Since I have proven mathematically and experimentally that M-M doesn't have a CONTROL, such is the ACTUAL reason for its nil results. Einstein anything is now superfluous! NoEinstein |