Riedt vs Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Nov 2009 22:30 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a0ff71ee-c732-4eac-81d8-d452660c45de(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 8, 5:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Riedt vs Einstein >> >> Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of >> Relativity): The laws of Physics are the same in all inertial systems. >> No preferred inertial system exists. >> >> Riedt�s POR: The laws of physics are the same in all systems but >> measurement data is not available instantaneously and therefore varies >> for observers at different locations and moving with a different >> velocity. >> >> A proof of both principles is not required as they are axioms. >> >> Einstein's second postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of the >> Constancy of the Speed of Light): The speed of light in free space has >> the same value c in all inertial systems. >> >> The proof consisted of a metaphor of trains, railway stations and some >> assertions. >> >> Riedt�s Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free >> space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. >> >> Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson >> & Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 >> describing their MMX interferometer experiment: �The distance >> travelled (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D >> (1+vv/cc), and the length of the other path (across the perpendicular >> arm and back) is evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc)�. >> Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get 22.00000022m for the >> total distance of the parallel arm and using 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get >> 22.00000011m for the total distance of the perpendicular arm. (D=11m, >> v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). >> >> Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To >> explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel >> arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through >> space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel >> arm, its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical >> to the total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by >> Lorentz, first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of >> time by the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. >> >> The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be >> replaced by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ >> sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of >> light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by >> Michelson for v. >> >> If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the >> perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = >> 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the >> same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = >> 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. >> However, however, however, there is a difference between the two >> times. If taken to 27 decimal places, tpar is >> 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is >> 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. >> However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we >> may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for >> v, we get >> 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, >> 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, >> 299792459.5m/sec for c', >> AND >> 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar >> AND >> 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. >> >> As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result >> has been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm >> due to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz >> transformations which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel >> arm, dilated the TIME relating to the experiment and increased the >> MASS of the object in line with its speed. >> >> Peter Riedt > > Light can move relative to matter that is why it is anisotropic. Except it isn't
From: Peter Riedt on 9 Nov 2009 02:47 On Nov 8, 10:25 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <juanREM...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > Peter Riedt wrote on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:20:25 -0800: > > > Riedt vs Einstein > > > Einstein's first postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of > > Relativity): The laws of Physics are the same in all inertial systems. > > No preferred inertial system exists. > > The principle was introduced by Poincaré. Moreover the discussion of > the special PoR goes beyond this newsgroup. > > > Riedts POR: The laws of physics are the same in all systems but > > measurement data is not available instantaneously and therefore varies > > for observers at different locations and moving with a different > > velocity. > > This is not a principle. > > > A proof of both principles is not required as they are axioms. > > A logical proof is not required. However, experimental proofs are required. > > > Einstein's second postulate of Special Relativity (Principle of the > > Constancy of the Speed of Light): The speed of light in free space has > > the same value c in all inertial systems. > > > The proof consisted of a metaphor of trains, railway stations and some > > assertions. > > Untrue. > > > Riedts Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. > > Incorrect and the rest of this post is wrong. > > > > > > > Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson & > > Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 > > describing their MMX interferometer experiment: The distance travelled > > (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D (1+vv/cc), and > > the length of the other path (across the perpendicular arm and back) is > > evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc). Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get > > 22.00000022m for the total distance of the parallel arm and using > > 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get 22.00000011m for the total distance of the > > perpendicular arm. (D=11m, v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). > > > Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To > > explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel > > arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through > > space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel arm, > > its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical to the > > total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by Lorentz, > > first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of time by > > the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. > > > The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be replaced > > by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ > > sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of > > light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by > > Michelson for v. > > > If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the > > perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = > > 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the > > same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = > > 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. However, however, > > however, there is a difference between the two times. If taken to 27 > > decimal places, tpar is 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is > > 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. > > However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we > > may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for v, > > we get > > 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, > > 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, 299792459.5m/sec for c', > > AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. > > > As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result has > > been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm due > > to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz transformations > > which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel arm, dilated the > > TIME relating to the experiment and increased the MASS of the object in > > line with its speed. > > > Peter Riedt > > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ > > BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Juan, my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) proves that the parallel and perpendicular transit times of the MMX interferometer are equal, explaining the null result exceedingly better than the conjectures of Lorentz. Ockhams razor applies if not the fact that the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my anisotropic light formula. Peter Riedt
From: Peter Riedt on 9 Nov 2009 02:53 On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > Riedt vs Einstein > > > > > Riedts Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. > > And we know that is wrong experimentally > > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof and if you disagree please tell me why. Peter Riedt > > > Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson > > & Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 > > describing their MMX interferometer experiment: The distance > > travelled (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D > > (1+vv/cc), and the length of the other path (across the perpendicular > > arm and back) is evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc). > > Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get 22.00000022m for the > > total distance of the parallel arm and using 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get > > 22.00000011m for the total distance of the perpendicular arm. (D=11m, > > v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). > > > Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To > > explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel > > arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through > > space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel > > arm, its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical > > to the total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by > > Lorentz, first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of > > time by the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. > > > The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be > > replaced by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ > > sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of > > light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by > > Michelson for v. > > > If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the > > perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = > > 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the > > same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = > > 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. > > However, however, however, there is a difference between the two > > times. If taken to 27 decimal places, tpar is > > 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is > > 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. > > However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we > > may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for > > v, we get > > 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, > > 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, > > 299792459.5m/sec for c', > > AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar > > AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. > > > As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result > > has been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm > > due to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz > > transformations which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel > > arm, dilated the TIME relating to the experiment and increased the > > MASS of the object in line with its speed. > > > Peter Riedt
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 03:22 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1-8634-f134a0b5ad8a(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Riedt vs Einstein >> >> >> >> > Riedt�s Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free >> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. >> >> And we know that is wrong experimentally >> >> > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof Nope > and if you disagree > please > tell me why. Because it does not give isotropic light and light speed independent of source speed as is shown experimentally I'm still waiting for you to show how muons approaching Earth refute relativity and lorentz transforms. Have you given up on that one?
From: Androcles on 9 Nov 2009 05:19
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1-8634-f134a0b5ad8a(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:d601676e-7098-47c8-aa4f-b2c0fdb6a613(a)r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > Riedt vs Einstein > > > > > Riedt�s Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free > > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. > > And we know that is wrong experimentally > > Inertial, I have provided the experimental proof and if you disagree please tell me why. Peter Riedt ===================================== Don't be silly, Peter. Killfile the ignorant troll. > > > Proof is provided by the 1887 interferometer experiment of Michelson > > & Morley (MMX). They write in the American Journal of Science 203/1887 > > describing their MMX interferometer experiment: �The distance > > travelled (by light to the end of the parallel arm and back) is 2D > > (1+vv/cc), and the length of the other path (across the perpendicular > > arm and back) is evidently 2D(1+vv/2cc)�. > > Using Michelson's formula 2D(1+vv/cc) we get 22.00000022m for the > > total distance of the parallel arm and using 2D(1+vv/2cc) we get > > 22.00000011m for the total distance of the perpendicular arm. (D=11m, > > v=30000m/sec, c=300000000m/sec). > > > Michelson predicted a fringe shift but it could not be observed. To > > explain the null result, Lorentz suggested the length of the parallel > > arm contracted proportionally to the speed of the equipment through > > space. By applying his formula L' = L*sqrt(1-vv/cc) to the parallel > > arm, its total light path distance reduced to 22.00000011m, identical > > to the total light path of the perpendicular arm. This solution by > > Lorentz, first suggested by Fitzgerald, requires also an adjustment of > > time by the formula T' = T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and an adjustment of mass. > > > The three Lorentz formulas (the Lorentz transformations) can be > > replaced by one formula, the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula c' = c*1/ > > sqrt(1-vv/cc) which gives 300000150m/sec for MMX. This is the speed of > > light if the speed of the source is 30000m/sec, the value used by > > Michelson for v. > > > If we now calculate the time for the transit of light across the > > perpendicular light path using the formula tper = dper/c = > > 22.00000011m/300000000m/sec we get 0.0000000733333337sec which is the > > same time using c' for the parallel light path tpar = dpar/c' = > > 22.00000022m/300000150m/sec = 0.0000000733333337sec. > > However, however, however, there is a difference between the two > > times. If taken to 27 decimal places, tpar is > > 0.000000073333369999954200000sec and tper is > > 0.000000073333370000000000000sec. Is something wrong? Obviously. > > However, however, however, if we use different values for v and c, we > > may get a better match. Using 299792458m/sec for c and 29805m/sec for > > v, we get > > 22.000000217450100000000000000m for dpar, > > 22.000000108725000000000000000m for dper, > > 299792459.5m/sec for c', > > AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tpar > > AND > > 0.000000073384101306261100000sec for tper. > > > As the times for the two light paths are identical, the null result > > has been resolved by increasing the SPEED OF LIGHT on the parallel arm > > due to the speed of the source rather than by the Lorentz > > transformations which (incorrectly) reduced the LENGTH of the parallel > > arm, dilated the TIME relating to the experiment and increased the > > MASS of the object in line with its speed. > > > Peter Riedt |