Riedt vs Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 9 Nov 2009 22:07 Peter Riedt wrote: > 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. Except that it is not. 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. Except that this is a lie. You do not seem to be aware that science has done a lot of work in the last century. > > Peter Riedt
From: doug on 9 Nov 2009 22:08 Peter Riedt wrote: > 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. 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. No, it just gives us something to laugh at. You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand > this or > just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology. Well, we showed your stupidity. Why do you cling to it? > > Peter Riedt > > Peter Riedt
From: eric gisse on 9 Nov 2009 22:36 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. No one has achieved the first in 122 years and only > partially and > inconclusively the second. What nobody has achieved is making you understand the solutions, which is something entirely different. FYI, light speed is isotropic. I'd give literature references but I don't think you have another 50 years. > > Peter Riedt
From: eric gisse on 9 Nov 2009 22:39 Peter Riedt wrote: > 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. 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. > > Peter Riedt Do you have any knowledge of experimental physics that took place after the Michelson-Morley experiment? You clearly don't, but I want to hear it from you.
From: PD on 10 Nov 2009 12:29
On Nov 9, 8:23 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > > Riedts 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. Actually, you do not know that. You have a model which *presumes* an anisotropic speed of light and which accounts (you think) for the actual observed results of the speed of light. However, anisotropy of the speed of light is *directly* tested in other experiments, and no such anisotropy has been found. It is a bit irrational, don't you think, to suppose that the speed of light is anisotropic in the MMX and not anisotropic in other experiments? > 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, No sir. That is *completely* observable in the other experiments. > allowing false claims that > the speed of light is 100% isotropic. > > Peter Riedt |