"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.
You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.
Which false interpretation are you talking about?

It considered that the non-interference proved length contraction,
whereas in it's frame c would always have been the result and
so didn't require length contraction to cause it to be c.
In addition it's implied that it also means that c is always c
in all frames whereas an external at rest frame could simply
have the normal ballistic view of the MMX.

And why would a supposed false interpretation of an experiment
?mean that SR is false?

As above, since Einstein based his concepts on MMX and MMX
was wrongly interpreted at the time of the experiment, Einstein
was up the proverbial creek.


Spirit of Truth

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth



Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

Spirit of Truth

Please remind me of this false interpretation (and who made it)

The people doing the experiment. It was wrongly thought out.
They expected an interference when no interference would
ever result from it per regularly relativity.

Spirit of Truth

On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.
You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.
Which false interpretation are you talking about?

It considered that the non-interference proved length contraction,
whereas in it's frame c would always have been the result and
so didn't require length contraction to cause it to be c.
In addition it's implied that it also means that c is always c
in all frames whereas an external at rest frame could simply
have the normal ballistic view of the MMX.

And why would a supposed false interpretation of an experiment
?mean that SR is false?

As above, since Einstein based his concepts on MMX and MMX
was wrongly interpreted at the time of the experiment, Einstein
was up the proverbial creek.

Not at all. Einstein didn't base SR on MMX, though the results of MMX were
of particular interest at the time, and any theory developed would have to
be able to explain it. He based SR on the postulate of the principle of
relativity and the postulate that the speed of light was the same in all
frames. The theory he derived was, along with some others, able to explain
the MMX results. That does not mean that it had to be the only theory that
could explain MMX .. that's not how science works. Further, his theory was
able to explain other experimental results that other theories were not able
to explain, so those other theories were refuted (eg the normal ballistic
theory that you mention). So there is no problem there are all. You'll have
to do better than finding a single experiment that more than one theory can
explain to discredit SR. In particular you'll have to find an experiment
that definitely refutes it.

"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth



Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

Spirit of Truth

Please remind me of this false interpretation (and who made it)

The people doing the experiment. It was wrongly thought out.

Really .. it was trying to detect movement in the ether, and ended up
showing there was none (at least of the type they were looking for)

What do YOU think they were trying to find? And why do youthink it was
poorly thought out

They expected an interference when no interference would
ever result from it per regularly relativity.

What on earth is "regularly relativity"?

Is that somehow related to the simple ether theory they were testing for at
the time?

On Jun 20, 5:26 pm, gamma wrote:

1. Is it true that after a 90 degree rotation, the interference
pattern should change (assuming the ether theory is correct) - e.g.
would a 70 degree phase difference have a different interference
pattern to a 20 degree phase difference?

During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
allows for sound propagation. shrug

2. (this question has a yes or no answer) - is it possible to show
mathematically that as the apparatus is rotated, the interference
pattern and the phase difference should change (assuming the ether
theory is correct).

Yes. This is true for sound waves. shrug

3. Was the "null result" of the experiment the fact that the
interference pattern didn't change when the apparatus was rotated?

According to expert interpretations, yes.

4. Did the experiment at the time, depend on the path lengths of the
two paths being exactly equal and was any effort made to make them
equal or was this completely unnecessary?

If the experiment is performed through all orientations, it becomes
unnecessary to set the lengths of each arm precisely.

5. I've heard that the error/noise/inaccuracy of the original
experiment was too great for its result to be meaningful. If the
experiment depended only on observing the change in interference
pattern, what kind of error could invalidate this result?

This is a good question. There have been enough interpretations to
the null results. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are
indeed correct but willing to keep an open mind.

The absolute frame of reference was actually detected through a
Doppler shift in the Cosmic background radiation 100 years after the
MMX. The self-styled physicists turned their backs on this monumental
discovery because they have already BELIEVE IN the nonsense of SR.
Well, Peter did not recognize Christ three times anyway. shrug

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?


Spirit of Truth

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.
You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.
Which false interpretation are you talking about?

It considered that the non-interference proved length contraction,
whereas in it's frame c would always have been the result and
so didn't require length contraction to cause it to be c.
In addition it's implied that it also means that c is always c
in all frames whereas an external at rest frame could simply
have the normal ballistic view of the MMX.

And why would a supposed false interpretation of an experiment
?mean that SR is false?

As above, since Einstein based his concepts on MMX and MMX
was wrongly interpreted at the time of the experiment, Einstein
was up the proverbial creek.

Not at all. Einstein didn't base SR on MMX, though the results of MMX
were of particular interest at the time, and any theory developed would
have to be able to explain it. He based SR on the postulate of the
principle of relativity and the postulate that the speed of light was the
same in all frames. The theory he derived was, along with some others,
able to explain the MMX results. That does not mean that it had to be the
only theory that could explain MMX .. that's not how science works.
Further, his theory was able to explain other experimental results that
other theories were not able to explain, so those other theories were
refuted (eg the normal ballistic theory that you mention). So there is no
problem there are all. You'll have to do better than finding a single
experiment that more than one theory can explain to discredit SR. In
particular you'll have to find an experiment that definitely refutes it.
.................................................. .................................................. .......
.................................................. .................................................. ........

Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all frames?

Spirit of Truth

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:hND%l.752563$yE1.444103@attbi_s21...
Koobee Wublee wrote:


During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
allows for sound propagation. shrug


The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with no aether
at all.

It is perfectly consistent with LET, which has an aether, and also with
ballistic theories.

"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?

Of course .. because they were testing for a simple ether.

There was none.

That's the whole point.

It showed there was no simple ether, so light propagation by such an ether
was refuted (though some tried to use ideas like ether drag, which are
ad-hoc and don't really work).