Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 11:08 On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this > > > > in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that > > > > Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, > > > > when he read his results in a journal, while at his office > > > > in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, > > > > pits this all into perspective.) > > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. > > They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. > > Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special > relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is > correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein If water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water, does the light travel at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'?
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 11:23 On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this > > > > in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that > > > > Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, > > > > when he read his results in a journal, while at his office > > > > in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, > > > > pits this all into perspective.) > > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. > > They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. > > Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special > relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is > correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein If water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water, does the light travel at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'? The above question is important in order to define simultaneity. In a modified Einstein train gedanken where water is at rest with respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 11:28 On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this > > > > in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that > > > > Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, > > > > when he read his results in a journal, while at his office > > > > in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, > > > > pits this all into perspective.) > > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. > > They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. > > Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special > relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is > correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein If water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water, does the light travel at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'? In a modified Einstein train gedanken where water is at rest with respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is necessary when determining simultaneity.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 11:51 On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this > > > > in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that > > > > Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, > > > > when he read his results in a journal, while at his office > > > > in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, > > > > pits this all into perspective.) > > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. > > They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. > > Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special > relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is > correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. In a modified Einstein train gedanken where water is at rest with respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is necessary when determining simultaneity.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 11:54
On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this > > > > in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that > > > > Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, > > > > when he read his results in a journal, while at his office > > > > in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, > > > > pits this all into perspective.) > > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. > > They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. > > Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special > relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is > correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. In a modified Einstein train gedanken where water is at rest with respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is necessary when determining simultaneity. |