Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 26 Apr 2010 15:27 why do you always repeat this error?... no "dopplerian shift" changes any velocity; that is not what shifts, and if you stand directly in front of the train, it's even clearer, as if passes. anyway, M&M did not find no result, and their result was refined by others, DCMiller e.g. -- not that that means that an aether is required! > How can you or anyone measure the speed > of the light coming from across the Milky Way? I made the correct > assumption that light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the > velocity of the source. The mathematical check of M-M using that > correct assumption proves that M-M was an instrument incapable of > detecting velocity changes in light. However, those changes were > taking place in both the additive and the subtractive cases, neither > of which were due to ether drag. Because both of those were equal > and opposite, the TIMES of travel of the light to the target never > change, regardless of the orientation of the instrument or the > velocity vector of the Earth. thus: so, why cannot the "propagation of light" be solely through matter in space?... what is a single quality of aether, that is required for "electromagnetism?" thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co..... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 27 Apr 2010 12:27 I just want to know, why he attributes Leibniz's *vis viva* to Coriolis. now, the Coriolis effect is interesting, because it can also be a force, "depending." as for the rest, he is hopelessly illiterate in English. thus: his problem is not "research on the net;" it appears that English is not his primary language, so that we really can't say, what he is trying to say. if you have ever tried to "deal" with AP, you know of what I type. the only possible cure -- other than cruising on fora in his mother tongue, but of which (like AP) he may not be literate -- is to *try* to read Shakespeare (and this applies to everyone, who thinks he is or ought to be literate in the "King's English," as proven in the KJV .-) thus: I missed that on the initial scan; it is to laugh!... but I was interested to read of Soros' funding -- what a creep "philanthropist," he is (you can check this on the LaRouchiac site .-) so, basically, all Hindu gods should be toasted, if y'know what I mean (althoug, of course, each is very useful in its own domain, I'm sure, other than "what is the speed of the propogation of light?") Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 28 Apr 2010 15:42 don't touch that dial! thus: 1. The circle that measures ecliptic latitude, that is, the number of degrees above or below the ecliptic of the Moon or the planets. It is properly calibrated when it reads "zero" every day at noon, when sighting the Sun. 2. A half-circle and plumb-bob attached to the sighting arm, which gives the elevation of a star or planet above the horizo 3. Equatorial plane, points to the celestial equator, by tilting it from the horizontal by an angle equal to the co-latitude. The 14"circle on it is divided up into hours, for sidereal time or right ascension (when necessary, these readings can easily be converted into degrees, since 1 hour = 15 degrees). 4. Base, in the plane of the observer's horizon, oriented so that the axis of symmetry is on the north-south meridian. 5. Ecliptic plane, also known as the 23.5-degree wedge, set parallel to the plane of the ecliptic. The 12"circle on this plane is divided up into 24 hours, giving ecliptic longitude, where the position of the Sun is the sidereal time at noon for that day. 6. Sighting arm, with sights for "shooting"a planet, star, the Moon, or the Sun. Source: Adapted from Sentiel Rommel, "Maui's Tanawa: A Torquetum of 232 B.C.," 21st Century, Spring 1999, p. 75. > Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so if > you want to say light propagates through uncompressed matter, that > would be correct. > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.takethetrashoutofgoogolURL.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 28 Apr 2010 21:30 On Apr 28, 3:42 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear spudnik: To whom are you replying? Plotting the locations of objects in the heavens relates to astronomy more than the 'simple puzzle' question. What is the connection you're making? NoEinstein > > don't touch that dial! > > thus: > 1. The circle that measures ecliptic latitude, that is, the number of > degrees above or below the ecliptic of the Moon or the planets. It is > properly calibrated when it reads "zero" every day at noon, when > sighting the Sun. > > 2. A half-circle and plumb-bob attached to the sighting arm, which > gives the elevation of a star or planet above the horizo > 3. Equatorial plane, points to the celestial equator, by tilting it > from the horizontal by an angle equal to the co-latitude. The > 14"circle on it is divided up into hours, for sidereal time or right > ascension (when necessary, these readings can easily be converted into > degrees, since 1 hour = 15 degrees). > 4. Base, in the plane of the observer's horizon, oriented so that the > axis of symmetry is on the north-south meridian. > 5. Ecliptic plane, also known as the 23.5-degree wedge, set parallel > to the plane of the ecliptic. The 12"circle on this plane is divided > up into 24 hours, giving ecliptic longitude, where the position of the > Sun is the sidereal time at noon for that day. > > 6. Sighting arm, with sights for "shooting"a planet, star, the Moon, > or the Sun. > Source: Adapted from Sentiel Rommel, "Maui's Tanawa: A Torquetum of > 232 B.C.," > 21st Century, Spring 1999, p. 75. > > > Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so if > > you want to say light propagates through uncompressed matter, that > > would be correct. > > > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > > > his real "proof" is _1599_; > > > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > > > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. > > http://www.takethetrashoutofgoogolURL.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertain........ > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 20:59
it is simply untrue that M&M had nil results, and Einstein refused to believe that the improvment of those results by D.C.Miller could be true, when he was shown the article at Caltech. just forget about Newton's "photons," and Eisntein's Nobel for the "photoelectrical effect." > Tell me, guy: How can you or anyone measure the speed > of the light coming from across the Milky Way? I made the correct > assumption that light velocity is V = 'c' plus or minus v, or the > velocity of the source. The mathematical check of M-M using that > correct assumption proves that M-M was an instrument incapable of > detecting velocity changes in light. However, those changes were > taking place in both the additive and the subtractive cases, neither > of which were due to ether drag. Because both of those were equal > and opposite, the TIMES of travel of the light to the target never > change, regardless of the orientation of the instrument or the > velocity vector of the Earth. |