GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Jul 2007 19:32 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:46:33 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:94c3a3dh9pmsml4r1gjah81mubesnlc1f2(a)4ax.com... >>>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source or even >>>> compared >>>But the earth is a moving source :) >> Why don't you talk to geesey, he's about on your level. > >You don't think the earth is a moving source? Its was certainly moving >enough to disprove classical ether theory in MMx. Nothing is 'moving', idiot. Things can only MOVE RELATIVELY. Learn some physics ....then come back... www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Dono on 21 Jul 2007 19:56 On Jul 21, 4:29 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:50:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:81c3a3dp1kb5vnr79pithf3kef03fa4pkf(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >>>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>>>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. > >>>>>Look at > >>>>>the measurement and results described here: > >>>... > >>>> We've been through this before. > > >>>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... > > >>>More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's > >>>experiment showed that the speed of light from the > >>>source when moving is exactly the same as when it > >>>is at rest. > > >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at > >> c+v wrt > > ^^^^^^^ > >You ASSUME they move at c+v. > > >> the source. > >> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. > > >As you said yourself, you only ASSUME it to be true. > > I don't...the standard sagnac theory does. It doesn't , alphie. There are very few cranks of your stupidity, here is poking fun at them (and you): http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
From: Bob Cain on 22 Jul 2007 03:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > If you're so smart, why don't you explain how all starlight in the universe is > adjusted (by the fairies) to move at precisely c wrt little planet Earth... By the fairies, obviously. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
From: George Dishman on 23 Jul 2007 15:03 Follow-ups set to exclude off-topic groups. "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:bk55a3lv5kqn80p7gpfap35t6sricg6ikb(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:50:07 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:81c3a3dp1kb5vnr79pithf3kef03fa4pkf(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:15:09 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain >>>>> <arcane(a)arcanemethods.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>>>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. >>>>>>Look at >>>>>>the measurement and results described here: >>>>... >>>>> We've been through this before. >>>>> >>>>> Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... >>>> >>>>More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>>>experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>>>source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>>>is at rest. >>> >>> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to initially move at >>> c+v wrt >> ^^^^^^^ >>You ASSUME they move at c+v. >> >>> the source. >>> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. >> >>As you said yourself, you only ASSUME it to be true. > > I don't... Yes Henry, you do, because you cannot translate from one frame to another without a transform and the c+v result only comes from the Galilean version. > the standard sagnac theory does. There is no "sagnac theory" Henry, there is Sagnac's _experiment_ which you can analyse with any theory you like. >>The actual result is that the speed of the light is >>independent of the speed of the source, which Einstein >>showed requires that flat space be Lorentz invariant, >>not Galilean invariant, and that in turn means your >>assumption which is based on Galilean invariance is >>incorrect. > > Don't use big meaningless words, George. Sorry Henry, I forgot you don't understand geometry. George
From: sean on 23 Jul 2007 15:25
On 20 Jul, 22:15, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > > news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... > > > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> > > wrote: > >>Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>> There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a > >>> moving > >>> source. > > >>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. > >>Look at > >>the measurement and results described here: > ... > > We've been through this before. > > > Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... > > More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's > experiment showed that the speed of light from the > source when moving is exactly the same as when it > is at rest. > > George This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |