MMX-LT-Einstein = discrepancy

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
On Jul 7, 12:15 am, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in
---
Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.

Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.

Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
understand the mantra.

Spirit of Truth

No, June, I don't understand YOU.

Uncle Ben
.................................................. ..................................................
.................................................. ..................................................
Or this that I posted for Harold:

"Yes, it is to do with Maxwell. However, there was in MMX
a reason to review Maxwell not go diving head-first into
the miasma that Einstein brewed. Harold, not many people here
understand where lack of simultaneity comes from and they
think it has to with time dilation....do you understand where it
comes from? Point is it is only recently that the consequences of that
(block universe) has started to be understood by SR'ians.


That blockhead universe is false and even if negative evidences
for that (falseness) have to be made the evidences outnumber
ANY so-called evidences for Einsrein's SR a trillion to one!


Whether you all realize it or not the era of Einstein's Sci-Fi
is coming to an end."


Spirit of Truth

On Jul 10, 3:52*pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Uncle Ben" wrote in message

...
On Jul 7, 12:15 am, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in
---
Then Tom you really do not understand MMX, nor LET not SR.

Meanwhile you tell others to go learn it.

Go and talk with your Uncle and he can help you. At least he does
understand the mantra.

Spirit of Truth

No, June, I don't understand YOU.

Uncle Ben
.................................................. .......................... ........................
.................................................. .......................... ........................
Or this that I posted for Harold:

"Yes, it is to do with Maxwell. However, there was in MMX
a reason to review Maxwell not go diving head-first into
the miasma that Einstein brewed. Harold, not many people here
understand where lack of *simultaneity comes from and they
think it has to with time dilation....do you understand where it
comes from? Point is it is only recently that the consequences of that
(block universe) has started to be understood by SR'ians.

That blockhead universe is false and even if negative evidences
for that (falseness) have to be made the evidences outnumber
ANY so-called evidences for Einsrein's SR a trillion to one!

Whether you all realize it or not the era of Einstein's Sci-Fi
is coming to an end."

Spirit of Truth

It is not, June. Some big corporations still need St Einstein and his
religion.
It gives them a technological edge, being able to conduct parallel,
secret
research while the competition wastes time trying to rehabilitate that
self-promoting charlatan.

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:


"doug" wrote in message
ocknet...


Spirit of Truth wrote:



I reread your post, so corrected this
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...



Spirit of Truth wrote:



[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and
what it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions
are NOT relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are
related by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any
object [#] moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame
moves with speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to
SPEED -- in other inertial frames the direction can differ, but the
speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame
in which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels
isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same
location no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and no
fringe movement is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There are
a bunch of small effects that can easily be shown to make no
significant difference in this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect
the results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


Tom Roberts


No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
understand SR so should be able to confront the question.

The actual time of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest
frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
you really don't understand SR.

Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that LET
time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.


A century of experimental verification is pretty good justification.
You calling it a leap of faith only shows how ignorant of science
you are.


Spirit of Truth


Let me help you learn how to think, boy.

MMX itself because it shows the at rest return time would indicate
a ballistic situation, or an ether drag situation both of which
would also show the same return time. To leap to LET would
be a leap of faith not justified by experiment.


Spirit of Truth

It seems you lied about plonking. But that is not surprising
since you are ignorant about physics as well. You want to
ignore the century of evidence so that you can wallow in
your prejudice.


Feel free to ignore the truth.

The truth is you lied about plonking and you have no knowledge
of science. Go ahead and have another tantrum. It is funny to
watch you be so childish.





Spirit of Truth

Last chance for you to get educated, boy:

Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:LJf5m.776484$yE1.160977@attbi_s21...
Spirit of Truth wrote:


The physical universe all around you is it's own experiment, you just
have to open your eyes to see it. And no, my understanding is completely
correct. Since things change, they change from an earlier condition.
That condition has ceased to be. Similar to the future, it is yet to be.

When SR falsely posits lack of simultaneity _the universe_ falsifies it.
There is no block universe which lack of simultaneity demands.
Your "experiments" are misconceived.


Spirit of Truth

Dear Spirit--

I would like you to watch...

The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.


and report back to me what the half-hour program says about
simultaneity or the lack thereof. You can use email if you like.

-Sam

Yes, an excellent presentation. Yes, I was aware of all that. There was
one mistake in verbiage when it was first mentioned that simultaneneity
was out between the person at rest and the traveller, didn't make it clear
that it was what one frame was thinking happened in the other frame.
The truth, as later noted, was that BOTH frames seeing themselves at rest
see the light in their frames being received simultaneously, which is what
I have posted often here.

I have ALSO posted here that the math is correct in itself, and
rather beautiful, if I may say so.

However, as I've also posted continuously here, lack of
simultaneity creates a blocktime universe. It is false.

The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math.
There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing.
The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing.
What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing
objects which are subject to "changing", and the changing of
the objects that occur being change of position of the particles,
this change of position of the particles are position but also
produce what we see as state changes of objects in now.
Also, ties into what we call motion.

Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED
to an agreed upon object's distance covered...the hand
moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed
should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of
10", for instance.

None of this contains a time dimension.

We could be looking at a "dimension" of 'changing forces'/action
in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive parameter
only. This dimension takes place in now, which is simply existence
in an unchanging "now". There actually is neither past nor future,
as such, and it is only because Man appears to himself as a creature
of time that this mistake is being made.

The math that would actually be correct has to have all
points in the universe at rest continuously in reference
to each other and changes like gap closure between two
at rest point considered without any reference to a
"time dimension". It and lack of simultaneity simply
do not exist.


Spirit of Truth

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:


"doug" wrote in message
ocknet...


Spirit of Truth wrote:



"doug" wrote in message
news:1eednVVXLbEzYtLXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@posted .docknet...



Spirit of Truth wrote:




I reread your post, so corrected this
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. com...




Spirit of Truth wrote:




[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and
what it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and
delusions are NOT relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are
related by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any
object [#] moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial
frame moves with speed c in every other inertial frame. This
applies to SPEED -- in other inertial frames the direction can
differ, but the speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial
frame in which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light
travels isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the
same location no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and
no fringe movement is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There
are a bunch of small effects that can easily be shown to make no
significant difference in this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they
cannot induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect
the results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


Tom Roberts


No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
understand SR so should be able to confront the question.

The actual time of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest
frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
you really don't understand SR.

Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that LET
time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.


A century of experimental verification is pretty good justification.
You calling it a leap of faith only shows how ignorant of science
you are.



Spirit of Truth


Let me help you learn how to think, boy.

MMX itself because it shows the at rest return time would indicate
a ballistic situation, or an ether drag situation both of which
would also show the same return time. To leap to LET would
be a leap of faith not justified by experiment.


Spirit of Truth

It seems you lied about plonking. But that is not surprising
since you are ignorant about physics as well. You want to
ignore the century of evidence so that you can wallow in
your prejudice.


Feel free to ignore the truth.

The truth is you lied about plonking and you have no knowledge
of science. Go ahead and have another tantrum. It is funny to
watch you be so childish.





Spirit of Truth


Last chance for you to get educated, boy:

I have been educated. You are the sorry ignorant
one. But you want to be so I do not feel sorry for
you, only pity.


Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:LJf5m.776484$yE1.160977@attbi_s21...

Spirit of Truth wrote:


The physical universe all around you is it's own experiment, you just
have to open your eyes to see it. And no, my understanding is completely
correct. Since things change, they change from an earlier condition.
That condition has ceased to be. Similar to the future, it is yet to be.

When SR falsely posits lack of simultaneity _the universe_ falsifies it.
There is no block universe which lack of simultaneity demands.
Your "experiments" are misconceived.


Spirit of Truth

Dear Spirit--

I would like you to watch...

The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.


and report back to me what the half-hour program says about
simultaneity or the lack thereof. You can use email if you like.

-Sam


Yes, an excellent presentation. Yes, I was aware of all that. There was
one mistake in verbiage when it was first mentioned that simultaneneity
was out between the person at rest and the traveller, didn't make it
clear
that it was what one frame was thinking happened in the other frame.
The truth, as later noted, was that BOTH frames seeing themselves at rest
see the light in their frames being received simultaneously, which is
what
I have posted often here.

I have ALSO posted here that the math is correct in itself, and
rather beautiful, if I may say so.

However, as I've also posted continuously here, lack of
simultaneity creates a blocktime universe. It is false.

And, you are still wrong as usual.

The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math.
There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing.
The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing.
What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing
objects which are subject to "changing", and the changing of
the objects that occur being change of position of the particles,
this change of position of the particles are position but also
produce what we see as state changes of objects in now.
Also, ties into what we call motion.

Your ignorance and hatred is not a scientific argument.

Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED
to an agreed upon object's distance covered...the hand
moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed
should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of
10", for instance.

None of this contains a time dimension.

We could be looking at a "dimension" of 'changing forces'/action
in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive parameter
only. This dimension takes place in now, which is simply existence
in an unchanging "now". There actually is neither past nor future,
as such, and it is only because Man appears to himself as a creature
of time that this mistake is being made.

The math that would actually be correct has to have all
points in the universe at rest continuously in reference
to each other and changes like gap closure between two
at rest point considered without any reference to a
"time dimension". It and lack of simultaneity simply
do not exist.

You have no clue about science. What ever happened to your
plonk? You have no clue about truth either.


Spirit of Truth

Doug, you have shown nothing except a profound ignorance of science.
*plonk*




Spirit of Truth

Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:


"doug" wrote in message
cknet...


Spirit of Truth wrote:



"doug" wrote in message
news:1eednVVXLbEzYtLXnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@posted. docknet...



Spirit of Truth wrote:




I reread your post, so corrected this
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
om...




Spirit of Truth wrote:




[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and
what it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions
are NOT relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are
related by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any
object [#] moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame
moves with speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to
SPEED -- in other inertial frames the direction can differ, but the
speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame
in which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels
isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same
location no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and no
fringe movement is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There are
a bunch of small effects that can easily be shown to make no
significant difference in this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect
the results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


Tom Roberts


No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
understand SR so should be able to confront the question.

The actual time of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest
frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
you really don't understand SR.

Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that LET
time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.


A century of experimental verification is pretty good justification.
You calling it a leap of faith only shows how ignorant of science
you are.



Spirit of Truth


Let me help you learn how to think, boy.

MMX itself because it shows the at rest return time would indicate
a ballistic situation, or an ether drag situation both of which
would also show the same return time. To leap to LET would
be a leap of faith not justified by experiment.


Spirit of Truth

It seems you lied about plonking. But that is not surprising
since you are ignorant about physics as well. You want to
ignore the century of evidence so that you can wallow in
your prejudice.


Feel free to ignore the truth.

The truth is you lied about plonking and you have no knowledge
of science. Go ahead and have another tantrum. It is funny to
watch you be so childish.





Spirit of Truth


Last chance for you to get educated, boy:

I have been educated. You are the sorry ignorant
one. But you want to be so I do not feel sorry for
you, only pity.


Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:LJf5m.776484$yE1.160977@attbi_s21...

Spirit of Truth wrote:


The physical universe all around you is it's own experiment, you just
have to open your eyes to see it. And no, my understanding is completely
correct. Since things change, they change from an earlier condition.
That condition has ceased to be. Similar to the future, it is yet to be.

When SR falsely posits lack of simultaneity _the universe_ falsifies it.
There is no block universe which lack of simultaneity demands.
Your "experiments" are misconceived.


Spirit of Truth

Dear Spirit--

I would like you to watch...

The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.


and report back to me what the half-hour program says about
simultaneity or the lack thereof. You can use email if you like.

-Sam


Yes, an excellent presentation. Yes, I was aware of all that. There was
one mistake in verbiage when it was first mentioned that simultaneneity
was out between the person at rest and the traveller, didn't make it clear
that it was what one frame was thinking happened in the other frame.
The truth, as later noted, was that BOTH frames seeing themselves at rest
see the light in their frames being received simultaneously, which is what
I have posted often here.

I have ALSO posted here that the math is correct in itself, and
rather beautiful, if I may say so.

However, as I've also posted continuously here, lack of
simultaneity creates a blocktime universe. It is false.

And, you are still wrong as usual.

The key to the falseness is the baseline being used for the math.
There is no time dimension in the first place. Time is not passsing.
The now is not changing, it is only an illusion that it is changing.
What exists is a nowness with space dimensions containing
objects which are subject to "changing", and the changing of
the objects that occur being change of position of the particles,
this change of position of the particles are position but also
produce what we see as state changes of objects in now.
Also, ties into what we call motion.

Your ignorance and hatred is not a scientific argument.

Speed is a comparison of distance covered COMPARED
to an agreed upon object's distance covered...the hand
moving on the face of a watch for instance...and speed
should simply be a number...."That is going at a speed of
10", for instance.

None of this contains a time dimension.

We could be looking at a "dimension" of 'changing forces'/action
in addition to the usual 3 dimensions but is is a motive parameter
only. This dimension takes place in now, which is simply existence
in an unchanging "now". There actually is neither past nor future,
as such, and it is only because Man appears to himself as a creature
of time that this mistake is being made.

The math that would actually be correct has to have all
points in the universe at rest continuously in reference
to each other and changes like gap closure between two
at rest point considered without any reference to a
"time dimension". It and lack of simultaneity simply
do not exist.

You have no clue about science. What ever happened to your
plonk? You have no clue about truth either.


Spirit of Truth