Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd August 2010, 02:25 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 101
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
Relativity is one of the most well-established and experimentally verified principles of modern physics.
In theory it should be easy to get to the bottom of this. Bryan G. Wallace in his 'Farce of Physics' (chapter 4) notes:

At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation.

So who's lying - Bryan Wallace or E. Myles Standish?
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 10:10 AM   #12
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
I don't know who Standish is and your cite is totally inadequate to be able to find out what he actually said.

edit: Googled Standish. Still don't know what he actually said and in what context, other than a third hand recounting from a crank.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 10:58 AM   #13
CeeVee is offline CeeVee  Portugal
diyAudio Member
 
CeeVee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
If Einstein was wrong, how come his groundbreaking theory took hold and convinced the most brilliant scientific minds at a time when Maxwells theory was
the dominant ( universal ) truth ?

This i do not understand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 11:00 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7n7is View Post
[snip]Also, the MMX was always done on the surface of or above the surface of the Earth which we know rotates around its axis and revolves around the sun. Because of this motion, there must be a Sagnac effect from both types of motion, meaning that the actual speed of light from one point to another on the surface of the earth must differ depending on direction of the beam of light. [snip].
Interesting. I'm not a physicist but I always thought that the speed of light did NOT vary with the position and/or speed of the observer (in the saem medium). Is that incorrect?

jd
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:18 PM   #15
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
Interesting. I'm not a physicist but I always thought that the speed of light did NOT vary with the position and/or speed of the observer (in the saem medium). Is that incorrect?
The observers must be in the same inertial frame.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:26 PM   #16
hates ground loops
diyAudio Member
 
Rodeodave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the alps
Blog Entries: 1
To all you haters: Ever been hit by a muon? Explain yourselfs.
__________________
Gravity - Making the G since 13.7 billion B.C.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:26 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
neutron7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto Canada
I am glad Einstein was wrong, otherwise various countries on earth would have thousands of horrific weapons called "nuclear bombs"
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:27 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by SY View Post
The observers must be in the same inertial frame.
OK, so if the light source moves wrt two observers, who are stationary wrt each other, each 'sees' the same speed of light?

jd
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:35 PM   #19
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
If they're in the same inertial frame (i.e., stationary or moving at a constant velocity with respect to one another), c is constant.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 01:54 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
What complete hogwash. You try to disprove the entire SRT by claiming the absence of Sagnac effect? Did it occur to you that the 2mile/second resolution of the MMX may be too small to observe that effect? Earth is not in uniform motion but close enough to do these kinds of experiments without that effect influencing the results.

Remember that Lorentz's theory has absolutely NO basis other than trying to tackle the problem of the null result of the MMX. It's a total stopgap.

I suppose the experiments done with atomic clocks at different speeds relative to eachother are unimportant? They sure as hell experience a dilation effect.
Or the time-dilation experienced by the Muons, which should not reach earth if time dilation does not exist, but yet they do?


And apart from that, what IF we are moving relatively to the aether? It seems that our movement is small enough not to make our physics misbehave too much. What about planets that move with say .8c relative to us. Do they move with .8c relative to the aether as well? Doesn't that make normal physics impossible on those planets?

That violates the spirit of the Copernican Paradigm my friend, Earth is not special, all frames of reference are equal.

Last edited by mace1337; 23rd August 2010 at 02:00 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wrong Voltage / current on BoZ... or Wrong Measuring ? gionag Pass Labs 8 14th May 2008 11:24 AM
Where did I go wrong? Cup of coffee Solid State 31 26th June 2007 04:26 AM
My uncle could have been another Einstein keantoken The Lounge 16 15th October 2006 10:39 PM
Gemini proved crossovers? Hisatugo Multi-Way 2 7th March 2004 01:20 PM
What am I doing wrong???? Chuck Richey Everything Else 14 17th July 2003 08:42 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:11 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2