Riedt vs Einstein
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 10 Nov 2009 12:32 On Nov 9, 8:17 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> 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 I don't know why you think that is so. Relativity provides a solution to the MMX, as does Lorentz ether theory. Both of those were done quite a while ago. > and only > partially and > inconclusively the second. This is a matter of experimental test. The amount of anisotropy that you are proposing is clearly within the sensitivity of later experiments designed to test for it, and nothing of that magnitude was found.
From: PD on 10 Nov 2009 13:13 On Nov 10, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Sorry, brain hiccup. .... "...actual observed results of the MMX." > > 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 > >
From: Peter Riedt on 11 Nov 2009 01:45 On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:fc122459-5b0f-4351-80b0-6233b49340ae(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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, > > It does not 'prove' anything. > > > explaining the null result exceedingly better than the > > conjectures of Lorentz. > > Lorentz (and SR) get the null results as they should > > > 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. > > Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that > yours/ > > Except it is refuted by other experiments. > > As is yours- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Inertial, why c+v and c-v? The difference between c and c' calculated by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/ sec. The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelsons logic of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be used to account for the null result. 1.5m/sec is all that is required to explain it. This value is so small that it does not show up in any of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that are applied to the experiments. My formula for MMX conclusively demonstrates that the light path lengths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer are identical by virtue of a small change in the speed of light caused by the source. There is the chance however for you to prove me wrong if you recalculate my figures and find an error. Wouldnt that give you a lot of satisfaction? I bet you are not game enough to take up my challenge. Peter Riedt
From: BURT on 11 Nov 2009 04:46 On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:c7363bcb-6275-4680-b23d-8248e270a368(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>news:fc122459-5b0f-4351-80b0-6233b49340ae(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > 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, > > >> It does not 'prove' anything. > > >> > explaining the null result exceedingly better than the > >> > conjectures of Lorentz. > > >> Lorentz (and SR) get the null results as they should > > >> > 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. > > >> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that > >> yours/ > > >> Except it is refuted by other experiments. > > >> As is yours- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Inertial, why c+v and c-v? > > its the simplest .. just like any other velocity .. they add. That's how > emission theories work. > > > The difference between c and c' calculated > > by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/ > > sec. > > Doesn't matter how much it is > > > The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelsons logic > > of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be > > used to account for the null result. > > Yes ... they do. If light travels balistically at the same speed in all > directions, you get a null result. Simple. > > > 1.5m/sec is all that is required > > to explain it. > > Simply slowing down light doesn't make it isotropic. And we know from > experiment that it is > > And slowing it down by that factor results in self-contradictory results. > So its dead in the water > > > This value is so small that it does not show up in any > > of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that > > are applied to the experiments. > > Wrong > > > My formula for MMX conclusively > > demonstrates that the light path lengths of the perpendicular and > > parallel arms of the interferometer are identical by virtue of a small > > change in the speed of light caused by the source. > > Nope. It does nothing of the sort. > > > There is the chance > > however for you to prove me wrong if you recalculate my figures and > > find an error. Wouldnt that give you a lot of satisfaction? I bet you > > are not game enough to take up my challenge. > > Its dead already .. no need to recalculate the values.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Spped of light doesn't change but distance for its travel do. When matter moves faster ir catches up or leaves light behind.
From: Peter Riedt on 12 Nov 2009 13:32 On Nov 11, 3:03 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>news:fc122459-5b0f-4351-80b0-6233b49340ae(a)k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > 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. > > >> >> > 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. > > >> >> 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. > > >> >> > Riedt?s 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, > > >> It does not 'prove' anything. > > >> > explaining the null result exceedingly better than the > >> > conjectures of Lorentz. > > >> Lorentz (and SR) get the null results as they should > > >> > Ockham?s 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. > > >> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that > >> yours/ > > >> Except it is refuted by other experiments. > > >> As is yours- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Inertial, why c+v and c-v? The difference between c and c' calculated > > by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/ > > sec. The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelson?s logic > > of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be > > used to account for the null result. 1.5m/sec is all that is required > > to explain it. This value is so small that it does not show up in any > > of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that > > are applied to the experiments. > > For only a value of "any" that is valid before the 20th century. > > Peter, why do you play this game? > > [...]- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Eric, to be amused by clowns. Peter Riedt
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: An Absolute Chronometer Next: Simultaneous events and accelerations - contradiction? |