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 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.
> 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.
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. ============================================ No it isn't that at all. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say "inertial". Here is the result of their experiment: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
> 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.
Irrelevant.
> 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.
Nope
> 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.
> 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.
> On Nov 8, 5:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@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.
<juanREM...@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.
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. 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.
> > 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.
> On Nov 8, 10:25 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <juanREM...@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.
> 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/
> > 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.
> 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. > ============================================ > No it isn't that at all. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
> A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the > University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say > "inertial". > Here is the result of their experiment: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
Androcles, Einstein was a great mind. According to his friend and collaborator Max Born (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Methuen 1924) the POR of AE was: “There are an infinite number of systems of reference (inertial systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally derived for absolute space or the stationary ether).” The brackets inside the quotes are Born’s.
The SIMPLEST form is my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/ cc), not the complex Lorentz transformations of Lorentz, another great mind.
> 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. > ============================================ > No it isn't that at all. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
> A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the > University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say > "inertial". > Here is the result of their experiment: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
Androcles, Einstein was a great mind. ================================================ Perhaps by your standards. To me the guy was a lunatic. ================================================
According to his friend and collaborator Max Born (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Methuen 1924) the POR of AE was: “There are an infinite number of systems of reference (inertial systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally derived for absolute space or the stationary ether).” The brackets inside the quotes are Born’s. ================================================= I'm no more interested in Born's opinion of the fuckwit than your opinion of the imbecile. If he had a great mind compared to you then your mind must be minuscule.
What I'm telling you is that Einstein never once claimed systems of reference, systems of coordinates, reference frames or frames of reference were inertial and IN FACT claimed the opposite.
While I don't agree in any way with Einstein, that doesn't excuse from lying about him.
"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: " -- Albert Einstein.
If you think he's talking about an inertial system then you obviously haven't a clue what inertial means.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inertia Inertia : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force
Continuous curved lines are not the same straight line, dumb arse. Read what he does say and not what you imagine he says.
===============================================
The SIMPLEST form is my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/ cc), not the complex Lorentz transformations of Lorentz, another great mind. =============================================== c' =c+v. End of fuckin' story, you babbling moron.
On Nov 8, 7:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@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?
> 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.
> > > 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, 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.
> > > 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, 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.
>>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.
From his posts, it appears he is still working on the first one.
>> 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. >> ============================================ >> No it isn't that at all. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
>> A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the >> University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say >> "inertial". >> Here is the result of their experiment: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
> Androcles, Einstein was a great mind. According to his friend and > collaborator Max Born (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Methuen 1924) > the POR of AE was: > “There are an infinite number of systems of reference (inertial > systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each > other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally > derived for absolute space or the stationary ether).” The brackets > inside the quotes are Born’s.
That is wrong and the ( ) about aether is nonsense.
> The SIMPLEST form is my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/ > cc), not the complex Lorentz transformations of Lorentz, another great > mind.
No .. its not the simplest. And it makes no sense.
>> 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. >> ============================================ >> No it isn't that at all. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm
>> A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the >> University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say >> "inertial". >> Here is the result of their experiment: >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
> Androcles, Einstein was a great mind. > ================================================ > Perhaps by your standards. To me the guy was a lunatic. > ================================================
> According to his friend and > collaborator Max Born (Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen 1924) > the POR of AE was: > "There are an infinite number of systems of reference (inertial > systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each > other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally > derived for absolute space or the stationary ether)." The brackets > inside the quotes are Born's. > ================================================= > I'm no more interested in Born's opinion of the fuckwit than your > opinion of the imbecile. If he had a great mind compared to you > then your mind must be minuscule.
> What I'm telling you is that Einstein never once claimed systems > of reference, systems of coordinates, reference frames or frames > of reference were inertial and IN FACT claimed the opposite.
> While I don't agree in any way with Einstein, that doesn't excuse > from lying about him.
> "It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock > moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B > coincide. > If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for > a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: " -- Albert > Einstein.
> If you think he's talking about an inertial system then you obviously > haven't a clue what inertial means.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inertia > Inertia : a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform > motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force
> Continuous curved lines are not the same straight line, dumb arse. > Read what he does say and not what you imagine he says.
Indeed .. in that case he is talking about what would happen in a non-inertial system. He is NOT saying that the SR rules would apply, but is showing there why they do NOT, and is the basis for the twins paradox.
You really should try reading what he does say and not what you imagine he says
On Nov 10, 3:04 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@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.
> On Nov 8, 7:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@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.
> >> > 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. You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand this or just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology.
> On Nov 10, 3:04 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@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.
|
