GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Randy Poe on 3 Jul 2007 13:19 On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light > > > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. > > > As SR says > > > > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation > > > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away > > > from a source at c . > > > Of course it does > > > > MMx refutes SR > > > No .. it doesn't > > > > and supports classical. > > > It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the > > MMx results. > > Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- > Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the > presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. > However > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley > experiment refutes special relativity What the hell does that mean? There is no version of SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which is refuted by M-M. Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does it say about transformation of velocities? - Randy
From: Pentcho Valev on 3 Jul 2007 13:31 Randy Poe wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jeckyl wrote: > > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light > > > > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. > > > > > As SR says > > > > > > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation > > > > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away > > > > from a source at c . > > > > > Of course it does > > > > > > MMx refutes SR > > > > > No .. it doesn't > > > > > > and supports classical. > > > > > It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the > > > MMx results. > > > > Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- > > Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the > > presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. > > Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, > no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. > > > However > > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley > > experiment refutes special relativity > > What the hell does that mean? There is no version of > SR without those effects. Of course. Conclusion: SR is too idiotic. Pentcho Valev
From: Androcles on 3 Jul 2007 14:04 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1183483148.050975.326320(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... : On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: : > Jeckyl wrote: : > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message : > >news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... : > > >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light : > > > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. : > : > > As SR says : > : > > > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation : > > > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away : > > > from a source at c . : > : > > Of course it does : > : > > > MMx refutes SR : > : > > No .. it doesn't : > : > > > and supports classical. : > : > > It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both explain the : > > MMx results. : > : > Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- : > Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the : > presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. : : Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, : no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. Any liar can say it, but can you prove it? Tell us, incoherent raving lunatic, how SR predicted MMX years before SR was written.
From: Koobee Wublee on 3 Jul 2007 14:20 On Jul 3, 10:19 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- > > Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the > > presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. > > Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, > no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. The Voigt transform and infinite others also support MMX. > > However > > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley > > experiment refutes special relativity > > What the hell does that mean? There is no version of > SR without those effects. There is no version of SR which > is refuted by M-M. Under the Lorentz transform, the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity results in relative simultaneity. In doing so, it would not allow any consistent interference patterns. Therefore, the interferometer uner MMX should not have worked. Since MMX works, therefore relative simultaneity must be wrong. Therefore, the combination of time dilation and the principle of relativity must also be wrong. Therefore, the Loretnz transform must be wrong as well. Finally, SR being merely an interpretation to the mathematics of the Lorentz transform must be wrong too. > Can you describe this theory that you think is SR and > is refuted by M-M? What are its postulates? What does > it say about transformation of velocities? The velocity transform of the Voigt transform is exactly the same as the Lorentz transform. You can also find other transforms that also gives the same velocity transform. <shrug>
From: Jeckyl on 3 Jul 2007 19:30
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1183483911.509498.70850(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Randy Poe wrote: >> On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Jeckyl wrote: >> > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >news:1183477195.656294.154730(a)o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> > > >,...the results of MMx in fact show us that light >> > > > does in fact propagate away from any source at c in straight lines. >> > >> > > As SR says >> > >> > > > So your above illustration is in fact substantiated by observation >> > > > Unlike Srs prediction which claims that light doesnt progate away >> > > > from a source at c . >> > >> > > Of course it does >> > >> > > > MMx refutes SR >> > >> > > No .. it doesn't >> > >> > > > and supports classical. >> > >> > > It does support ballistic/emmision theories as well as SR. Both >> > > explain the >> > > MMx results. >> > >> > Jecky Jeckyl Jeckyl you should always add something here. Michelson- >> > Morley experiment is consistent with special relativity only in the >> > presence of miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. >> >> Since those are the predictions of SR in its original form, >> no qualifier is necessary. M-M is consistent with SR, period. >> >> > However >> > if those miracles are too idiotic, then the Michelson-Morley >> > experiment refutes special relativity >> >> What the hell does that mean? There is no version of >> SR without those effects. > > Of course. Conclusion: SR is too idiotic. You're that idiot who just doesn't understand the simplicity and elegance of the theory .. and that it has never been refuted and correctly predicts experimental results. |