Riedt vs Einstein
Peter Riedt
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
Juan R.
> 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.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
Androcles
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
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.
============================================
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
Inertial
news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Riedt vs Einstein
Reidt loses every time.
> 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.
And we know that is wrong experimentally
> 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)�.
You lose
BURT
Light can move relative to matter that is why it is anisotropic.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:a0ff71ee-c732-4eac...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>> 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
Except it isn't
Peter Riedt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Juan, my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) proves that
the parallel and perpendicular transit times of the MMX interferometer
are equal, 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.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Riedt vs Einstein
>
>
>
> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source.
>
> And we know that is wrong experimentally
>
>
please
tell me why.
Peter Riedt
>
> > 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)”.
Inertial
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fc122459-5b0f-4351...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 8, 10:25 pm, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
> <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 Poincar�. 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
It does not 'prove' anything.
> explaining the null result exceedingly better than the
> conjectures of Lorentz.
Lorentz (and SR) get the null results as they should
> Ockham�s razor applies if not the fact that
> the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to
> 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is
> evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my
> anisotropic light formula.
Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that
yours/
Except it is refuted by other experiments.
As is yours
Inertial
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Riedt vs Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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?
Androcles
On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Riedt vs Einstein
>
>
>
> > 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 Riedt
=====================================
Don't be silly, Peter. Killfile the ignorant troll.
Inertial
news:71SJm.59356$MG6....@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Riedt vs Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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 Riedt
> =====================================
> Don't be silly, Peter. Killfile the ignorant troll.
Androcles is afraid of me because I can see through his trickery .. so he
runs and hides when I post. Its quite funny.
BURT
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote in message
Nonsense inertia.
Mitch Raemsch
Peter Riedt
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.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
On Nov 8, 11:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
> ============================================
> 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.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Section 4.
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.
PD
> 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
> On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Riedt vs Einstein
>
> > > 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.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> 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.
[...]
doug
eric gisse wrote:
From his posts, it appears he is still working on the first one.
>
> [...]
Inertial
> On Nov 8, 11:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> 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.
>> ============================================
>> 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
> the POR of AE was:
> systems) moving uniformly and rectilinearly with respect to each
> other, in which all physical laws assume the SIMPLEST form (originally
> 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.
> Peter Riedt
Inertial
news:MsYJm.40897$9M4....@newsfe03.ams2...
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
Peter Riedt
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.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
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.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Riedt vs Einstein
>
> >> > 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.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Inertial
> 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.
Inertial
> On Nov 10, 2:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
No proof of that
> 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.
Wrong
doug
Peter Riedt wrote:
> 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.
Except that you have shown only ignorance of it.
No one has achieved the first in 122 years and only
> partially and
> inconclusively the second.
>
If you mean the nonsense you have been posting, that is a real
laugh. You would not even do well in high school science.
> Peter Riedt
Inertial
> On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Riedt vs Einstein
>>
>> >> > 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.
Funny.. you were very sure they did before
> 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.
It does no such thing. It doe nothing to change how those things already
explain it
> You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand
> this
You're the one not understanding .. providing some other formula does NOT
refute an existing explanation.
> or
> just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology.
Neither. You're just deluded by your obsession with proving physics wrong..
probably because you failed when trying to learn it. This is your attempt
at revenge. Sad
doug
Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
Except that it is not.
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.
Except that this is a lie. You do not seem to be aware that science
has done a lot of work in the last century.
>
> Peter Riedt
doug
Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>news:5ef893c9-cfaa-49f1...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Nov 9, 6:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:d601676e-7098-47c8...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>Riedt vs Einstein
>>
>>>>>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.
No, it just gives us something to laugh at.
You may be comprehension challenged if you do not understand
> this or
> just as likely, you cannot let go of your ideology.
Well, we showed your stupidity. Why do you cling to it?
>
> Peter Riedt
>
> Peter Riedt
eric gisse
What nobody has achieved is making you understand the solutions, which is
something entirely different.
FYI, light speed is isotropic. I'd give literature references but I don't
think you have another 50 years.
>
> Peter Riedt
eric gisse
> On Nov 10, 2:10 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Peter Riedt
Do you have any knowledge of experimental physics that took place after the
Michelson-Morley experiment?
You clearly don't, but I want to hear it from you.
PD
Actually, you do not know that. You have a model which *presumes* an
anisotropic speed of light and which accounts (you think) for the
actual observed results of the speed of light.
However, anisotropy of the speed of light is *directly* tested in
other experiments, and no such anisotropy has been found.
It is a bit irrational, don't you think, to suppose that the speed of
light is anisotropic in the MMX and not anisotropic in other
experiments?
> The difference between c
> and c' calculated with my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/
> cc) is only 1.5m/sec. It is sufficient to account for the null result
> but insufficient to be noticed outside MMX,
No sir. That is *completely* observable in the other experiments.
PD
I don't know why you think that is so. Relativity provides a solution
to the MMX, as does Lorentz ether theory. Both of those were done
quite a while ago.
> and only
> partially and
> inconclusively the second.
This is a matter of experimental test. The amount of anisotropy that
you are proposing is clearly within the sensitivity of later
experiments designed to test for it, and nothing of that magnitude was
found.
PD
Sorry, brain hiccup. .... "...actual observed results of the MMX."
Peter Riedt
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 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.
>
>
> >> > A proof of both principles is not required as they are axioms.
>
> >> 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.
>
>
> >> > Riedt’s Principle of Inconstancy of Light: The speed of light in free
> >> > space is anisotropic depending on the speed of the source.
>
>
> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
> >> Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Juan, my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) proves that
> > the parallel and perpendicular transit times of the MMX interferometer
> > are equal,
>
> It does not 'prove' anything.
>
> > explaining the null result exceedingly better than the
> > conjectures of Lorentz.
>
> Lorentz (and SR) get the null results as they should
>
> > Ockham’s razor applies if not the fact that
> > the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to
> > 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is
> > evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my
> > anisotropic light formula.
>
> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that
> yours/
>
> Except it is refuted by other experiments.
>
> As is yours- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Inertial, why c+v and c-v? The difference between c and c' calculated
by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/
sec. The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelson’s logic
of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be
used to account for the null result. 1.5m/sec is all that is required
to explain it. This value is so small that it does not show up in any
of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that
are applied to the experiments. My formula for MMX conclusively
demonstrates that the light path lengths of the perpendicular and
parallel arms of the interferometer are identical by virtue of a small
change in the speed of light caused by the source. There is the chance
however for you to prove me wrong if you recalculate my figures and
find an error. Wouldn’t that give you a lot of satisfaction? I bet you
are not game enough to take up my challenge.
Peter Riedt
eric gisse
> On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc122459-5b0f-4351...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 8, 10:25 pm, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
>> > <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 Poincar�. 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
>> > Ockham?s razor applies if not the fact that
>> > the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to
>> > 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is
>> > evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my
>> > anisotropic light formula.
>>
>> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that
>> yours/
>>
>> Except it is refuted by other experiments.
>>
>> As is yours- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Inertial, why c+v and c-v? The difference between c and c' calculated
> by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/
> sec. The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelson?s logic
> of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be
> used to account for the null result. 1.5m/sec is all that is required
> to explain it. This value is so small that it does not show up in any
> of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that
> are applied to the experiments.
For only a value of "any" that is valid before the 20th century.
Peter, why do you play this game?
[...]
Inertial
> On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc122459-5b0f-4351...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <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 special PoR goes beyond this newsgroup.
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> >> > 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
>> >> > (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
>> > the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to
>> > 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is
>> > evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my
>> > anisotropic light formula.
>>
>> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that
>> yours/
>>
>> Except it is refuted by other experiments.
>>
>> As is yours- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Inertial, why c+v and c-v?
its the simplest .. just like any other velocity .. they add. That's how
emission theories work.
> The difference between c and c' calculated
> by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/
> sec.
Doesn't matter how much it is
> The values c+v and c-v certainly play a role in Michelson�s logic
> of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be
> used to account for the null result.
Yes ... they do. If light travels balistically at the same speed in all
directions, you get a null result. Simple.
> 1.5m/sec is all that is required
> to explain it.
Simply slowing down light doesn't make it isotropic. And we know from
experiment that it is
And slowing it down by that factor results in self-contradictory results.
So its dead in the water
> This value is so small that it does not show up in any
> of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that
> are applied to the experiments.
Wrong
> My formula for MMX conclusively
> demonstrates that the light path lengths of the perpendicular and
> parallel arms of the interferometer are identical by virtue of a small
> change in the speed of light caused by the source.
Nope. It does nothing of the sort.
> There is the chance
> however for you to prove me wrong if you recalculate my figures and
> find an error. Wouldn�t that give you a lot of satisfaction? I bet you
> are not game enough to take up my challenge.
Its dead already .. no need to recalculate the values.
BURT
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:c7363bcb-6275-4680...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fc122459-5b0f-4351...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > <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 special PoR goes beyond this newsgroup.
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> >> >> > 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
> >> >> > 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
> >> > the times over the two arms calculated with my formula correspond to
> >> > 27 decimal places. Your action to snip the substance of my post is
> >> > evidence that you do not have any valid arguments against my
> >> > anisotropic light formula.
>
> >> Why not just use c+v an d c-v. That works for MMX and is simpler that
> >> yours/
>
> >> Except it is refuted by other experiments.
>
> >> As is yours- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Inertial, why c+v and c-v?
>
> its the simplest .. just like any other velocity .. they add. That's how
> emission theories work.
>
> > The difference between c and c' calculated
> > by my anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) is only 1.5m/
> > sec.
>
> Doesn't matter how much it is
>
> > of his interferometer experiment of 1887 but they cannot directly be
> > used to account for the null result.
>
> Yes ... they do. If light travels balistically at the same speed in all
> directions, you get a null result. Simple.
>
> > 1.5m/sec is all that is required
> > to explain it.
>
> Simply slowing down light doesn't make it isotropic. And we know from
> experiment that it is
>
> And slowing it down by that factor results in self-contradictory results.
> So its dead in the water
>
> > This value is so small that it does not show up in any
> > of the experiments that allegedly support the Lorentz conjectures that
> > are applied to the experiments.
>
> Wrong
>
> > My formula for MMX conclusively
> > demonstrates that the light path lengths of the perpendicular and
> > parallel arms of the interferometer are identical by virtue of a small
> > change in the speed of light caused by the source.
>
> Nope. It does nothing of the sort.
>
> > There is the chance
> > however for you to prove me wrong if you recalculate my figures and
> > are not game enough to take up my challenge.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Spped of light doesn't change but distance for its travel do. When
matter moves faster ir catches up or leaves light behind.
Peter Riedt
> Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fc122459-5b0f-4351...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > <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.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric, to be amused by clowns.
Peter Riedt