 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Riedt... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1 at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a52bf101-2d90-401f-b5a9-5158eb706447 at (no spam) z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
[/quote]
A null MMX mean isotropy, not anisotropy. And it also meant no simple fixed
aether (as was thought to exist at the time)
So you're wrong from the first line |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Riedt... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670[/quote]
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Riedt wrote:
[quote]MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
[/quote]
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
[quote]
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
[/quote]
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
[quote]
Peter Riedt[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1 at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66d01d4e-04ab-4746-9669-b3daa3bad6da at (no spam) m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
[/quote]
Still trying to show you're smarter than a century of physicists by showing
that you're stupider. that doesn't work.
I see you've given up on the moun approach as showing the contradictions you
claimed in SR and lorentz tranforms. time to give up on this as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Riedt wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
So you really do not understand the algebra. Now, try doing[/quote]
the algebra rather than rounding the numbers. You really should
be embarrassed since all of this has been well know for over
a century. We expect cranks to be a little bit more creative.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inertial wrote:
[quote]"Peter Riedt" <riedt1 at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66d01d4e-04ab-4746-9669-b3daa3bad6da at (no spam) m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
Still trying to show you're smarter than a century of physicists by
showing that you're stupider. that doesn't work.
[/quote]
Oh, come on. Algebra requires a junior high school education. You
cannot expect Peter to go that far.
[quote]
I see you've given up on the moun approach as showing the contradictions
you claimed in SR and lorentz tranforms. time to give up on this as well.
[/quote]
If it is this or study, you know which one he will pick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Riedt... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
So you really do not understand the algebra. Now, try doing
the algebra rather than rounding the numbers. You really should
be embarrassed since all of this has been well know for over
a century. We expect cranks to be a little bit more creative.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Doug, why not tell me where I am wrong instead of arguing at hominem?
I bet you can't.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Riedt wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
So you really do not understand the algebra. Now, try doing
the algebra rather than rounding the numbers. You really should
be embarrassed since all of this has been well know for over
a century. We expect cranks to be a little bit more creative.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Doug, why not tell me where I am wrong instead of arguing at hominem?
I bet you can't.
[/quote]
I did tell you. Look at the top of the post. You assume that the
average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is wrong.
Work out the algebra, if you know how. You will see where the
Lorentz contraction term comes from.
[quote]
Peter Riedt[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Riedt... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:53 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words..
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
So you really do not understand the algebra. Now, try doing
the algebra rather than rounding the numbers. You really should
be embarrassed since all of this has been well know for over
a century. We expect cranks to be a little bit more creative.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Doug, why not tell me where I am wrong instead of arguing at hominem?
I bet you can't.
I did tell you. Look at the top of the post. You assume that the
average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is wrong.
Work out the algebra, if you know how. You will see where the
Lorentz contraction term comes from.
Peter Riedt- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Doug, in your specific example you calculated different times for
the car at 30 miles and 90 miles an hour to come up with
an average of 45 miles for a distance of 2 miles. My answer
to that was to calculate the actual times over the parallel arm also
in two sections, first 11m upstream at c-v, then 11m downstream
at c+v. The result was an average speed of 299999997m/sec. I did not
just calculate (300000000+300000000)/2.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:36 pm, Peter Riedt <rie... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
[/quote]
By performing the computation to only five significant figures,
you miss understanding the effect.
Let the speed of light be 299,792,458 m/s and the average speed
of the Earth in orbit be 29,805 m/s
Time downstream = 0.0000000366884029556 s
Time upstream = 0.0000000366956987133 s
Total = 0.0000000733841016689 s for the parallel arm
Total = 0.0000000733841009436 s for the perpendicular
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference = 0.0000000000000007253 s
If had even a slight understanding of middle school algebra, you
wouldn't have made such a spectacle of yourself.
Jerry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter Riedt wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:53 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:22 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Oct 30, 9:15 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
MMX Null = Anisotropy = Ether
In 1887 Michelson and Morley predicted an interferometer experiment
(MMX) would show interference of light due to the presence of the
ether. When their experiment produced a null result, an explanation
was required. Lorentz suggested an answer after others pointed the
way. The light path across the parallel and perpendicular arms of the
interferometer equipment had been assumed to be of unequal length due
to the movement of the apparatus through space. The difference in
light path length was equalised in Lorentz’s theory by a contraction
of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of the earth (v) on
which the lab was located. However, Lorentz was wrong. The null result
of the experiment (MMX) is caused by the anisotropy of light which in
turn is caused by the ether. The speed of light over the perpendicular
arm is c, unimpeded and unassisted by the ether. On the parallel arm,
the speed upstream is c-v, retarded by the ether. Downstream, it is c
+v, assisted by the ether. The null result is determined by the
formula
perpendicular c = parallel (c+v+c-v)/2 = null result.
And here you make an elementary math error. You are claiming that
the average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is
not true. The average velocity is the total distance divided
by the total time. This was well understood by Michelson and Morley
as well as Lorentz. Your math mistake is a common one among cranks
here.
In case you lack of math knowledge is such that you are unable
to follow this, look at the following example. If you drive one
mile at 30 miles per hour and then one mile at 90 miles per hour,
according to you, the average speed will be (90+30)/2=60. However,
the correct answer is that the time of the first mile is 2 minutes
and the times of the second mile is 40 seconds so the total time
is 2 minutes and 40 seconds for the two miles. Your average speed
is 60* 2 / 2.666 = 45 miles per hour.
Conclusions: No Lorentz length contraction or time dilation, no
Einstein constancy of light. Anisotropy of light and existence of
ether confirmed. 105 years of a false notion demolished in 222 words.
Conclusion: Peter does not know math but assumes that if he disagrees
with reality, then reality is wrong. Peter is also assuming that no
work has been done in science in the last century.
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
Peter Riedt
So you really do not understand the algebra. Now, try doing
the algebra rather than rounding the numbers. You really should
be embarrassed since all of this has been well know for over
a century. We expect cranks to be a little bit more creative.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Doug, why not tell me where I am wrong instead of arguing at hominem?
I bet you can't.
I did tell you. Look at the top of the post. You assume that the
average velocity is the average of the velocities. That is wrong.
Work out the algebra, if you know how. You will see where the
Lorentz contraction term comes from.
Peter Riedt- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Doug, in your specific example you calculated different times for
the car at 30 miles and 90 miles an hour to come up with
an average of 45 miles for a distance of 2 miles. My answer
to that was to calculate the actual times over the parallel arm also
in two sections, first 11m upstream at c-v, then 11m downstream
at c+v. The result was an average speed of 299999997m/sec. I did not
just calculate (300000000+300000000)/2.
[/quote]
So I take this to mean that you are unable to do the algebra
to calculate the average speed in the interferometer. You should
be pretty embarrassed to make such a stupid mistake. The correct
result has been known for over a century. You really should study
some.
But, in any case, you notice that the average speed, even when you
just do the numbers to obscure the result show that the average
velocity is not c and thus there should have been an effect as
has been known for well over a century. Thus you are just showing
that you are a crank and do not even understand the results when
you take your numbers.
[quote]
Peter Riedt[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Riedt... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:30 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
But, in any case, you notice that the average speed, even when you
just do the numbers to obscure the result show that the average
velocity is not c and thus there should have been an effect as
has been known for well over a century. Thus you are just showing
that you are a crank and do not even understand the results when
you take your numbers.
Doug, the difference from c is 3m/sec. Miller did in 1926 the[/quote]
interferometer
experiment at Mt Wilson. He predicted a fringe shift of 1.12 but got
0.088.
This is enough to prove c-v+c+v.
Your two speed car formula is 2m/((1m/30miles/hr)+(1m/90miles/hr))
=45miles/hr.
My formula for MMX is 22m/((11m/(c-v))+(11m(c+v)))=299999997m/sec.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Riedt... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 9:53 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:36 pm, Peter Riedt <rie... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Doug, the time upstream for 11m of the parallel arm is 0.000000036670
seconds and downstream 0.000000036663 seconds for a total time of
0.000000073333 seconds which gives a speed of 299999997m/sec for
22m upstream and downstream.
By performing the computation to only five significant figures,
you miss understanding the effect.
Let the speed of light be 299,792,458 m/s and the average speed
of the Earth in orbit be 29,805 m/s
Time downstream = 0.0000000366884029556 s
Time upstream = 0.0000000366956987133 s
Total = 0.0000000733841016689 s for the parallel arm
Total = 0.0000000733841009436 s for the perpendicular
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Difference = 0.0000000000000007253 s
If had even a slight understanding of middle school algebra, you
wouldn't have made such a spectacle of yourself.
Jerry
[/quote]
Jerry, your calculations are good and almost correct. The time
for the perpendicular arm is not 22m/c but slighly more.
Even so, the difference of 0.0000000000000007253sec
is well covered by the observed fringe shift which of course
was less than the predicted fringe shift.
Peter Riedt |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Riedt" <riedt1 at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7f05d1d6-4e97-4de9-969a-66d66b2aa7c8 at (no spam) m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 11:30 am, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
But, in any case, you notice that the average speed, even when you
just do the numbers to obscure the result show that the average
velocity is not c and thus there should have been an effect as
has been known for well over a century. Thus you are just showing
that you are a crank and do not even understand the results when
you take your numbers.
Doug, the difference from c is 3m/sec. Miller did in 1926 the
interferometer
experiment at Mt Wilson. He predicted a fringe shift of 1.12 but got
0.088.
This is enough to prove c-v+c+v.
Your two speed car formula is 2m/((1m/30miles/hr)+(1m/90miles/hr))
=45miles/hr.
My formula for MMX is 22m/((11m/(c-v))+(11m(c+v)))=299999997m/sec.
Peter Riedt
[/quote]
Do you have an actual point here? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:16 am
|
|