Riedt vs Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Riedt on 9 Nov 2009 21:33 On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(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 > > >> > 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 > > 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?> Inertial, muons do not refute. My anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) if applied to MMX refutes Lorentz, contraction, time dilation and the constancy of light. You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand this or just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology. Peter Riedt Peter Riedt
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 22:02 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:2735522b-e4ba-4a3c-a474-28128e1e3975(a)y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 10, 3:04 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> PD wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > Peter, you have tried to devise a formula that provides an anisotropy >> > of the speed of light and accounts for a SINGLE experimental result >> > (the MMX). However, the anisotropy of the speed of light is ruled out >> > to great precision by a number of OTHER experiments already, and you >> > appear to be ignorant of any of those experiments. >> >> It took him 50 years to figure out one experiment. Two is unreasonable. >> >> [...] > > Eric, wrong. It took me 50 years to find the SOLUTION to MMX and the > anisotropy > of light. There is no anisotropy > No one has achieved the first in 122 years Wrong .. emission theory explained mmx just fine from the start. The modified ether theory of Lorentz et all explained it. Einstein's special relativity explained it > and only > partially and > inconclusively the second. But there is no anisotropy. And you don't have a theory .. you've got an equation that makes no sense and is self-contradictory.
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 22:02 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:00e676fb-7860-4ec3-8ce9-f39bc9163045(a)y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 10, 2:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 7:20 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 basic misunderstanding here, Peter. The laws of physics being the >> same in all inertial frames does NOT mean that measured quantities are >> the same in all inertial frames. Velocity is a good example of a >> quantity that is known to be different in different inertial frames, >> and this doesn't have anything to do with the first postulate of >> special relativity. >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> No sir. The gedanken of trains and railway stations is not intended as >> any kind of proof at all. It is an explanation of what *follows* from >> that postulate. The postulate is not proven, as it is a postulate. >> However, all experimental evidence to date says that yes, the speed of >> light has the same value c in all inertial systems. In science, it's >> the experimental evidence that serves as the indicator of truth. >> >> >> >> > Riedt�s Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free >> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source. >> >> This is inconsistent with a number of DIRECT tests of the anisotropy >> of the speed of light. Do you know what those direct tests are? >> >> >> > PD, the speed of light is anisotropic in MMX. No proof of that > The difference between c > and c' calculated with my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/ > cc) is only 1.5m/sec. It is sufficient to account for the null result > but insufficient to be noticed outside MMX, allowing false claims that > the speed of light is 100% isotropic. Wrong
From: doug on 9 Nov 2009 22:06 Peter Riedt wrote: > On Nov 10, 3:04 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>PD wrote: >> >>[...] >> >> >> >> >>>Peter, you have tried to devise a formula that provides an anisotropy >>>of the speed of light and accounts for a SINGLE experimental result >>>(the MMX). However, the anisotropy of the speed of light is ruled out >>>to great precision by a number of OTHER experiments already, and you >>>appear to be ignorant of any of those experiments. >> >>It took him 50 years to figure out one experiment. Two is unreasonable. >> >>[...] > > > Eric, wrong. It took me 50 years to find the SOLUTION to MMX and the > anisotropy > of light. Except that you have shown only ignorance of it. No one has achieved the first in 122 years and only > partially and > inconclusively the second. > If you mean the nonsense you have been posting, that is a real laugh. You would not even do well in high school science. > Peter Riedt
From: Inertial on 9 Nov 2009 22:05
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:9cee3375-fc7d-467a-87a2-abe0fb365fac(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(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?> > > Inertial, muons do not refute. Funny.. you were very sure they did before > My anisotropic light formula > c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) > if applied to MMX refutes Lorentz, contraction, time dilation and the > constancy > of light. It does no such thing. It doe nothing to change how those things already explain it > You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand > this You're the one not understanding .. providing some other formula does NOT refute an existing explanation. > or > just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology. Neither. You're just deluded by your obsession with proving physics wrong.. probably because you failed when trying to learn it. This is your attempt at revenge. Sad |