Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
Michelson's MMX logic was incorrect. Furthermore, inability to detect
the ether is not proof that SR is a proven theory.

What I am saying is that the work of Lorentz is based on MMX and the
contraction conjecture of Fitzgerald. The Lorentz transforms are the
foundation of SR. If it is accepted that contraction does not exist as
a real, theoretical, imaginary, illusory, relative or virtual physical
phenomenon, then SR cannot use the Lorentz transforms for whatever
purpose.

Peter Riedt

PD, you are correct but perhaps you place too much importance on AE's
derivation of the transforms. He had MMX and Voigt's, Larmor's and
Lorentz's formulas before him.

Peter Riedt

Androcles, congratulations. If you thought of this yourself, you should
be remembered as the author of the "relativistic eight train carriages
paradox"!

Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Androcles, congratulations. If you thought of this yourself, you
should
| be remembered as the author of the "relativistic eight train carriages
| paradox"!
|
| Peter Riedt

The light leaves the caboose and arrives at the engine, then reflects
back to the caboose.
If you want to **** a relativist off let the light leave the engine,
reflect at the caboose and return to the engine.

The diagram is like this (fixed font needed).

|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'


[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.

Distance between mirrors is x'

Einstein's equation:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

What it means in the diagram:

½[tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))

So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,
but it doesn't. Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.

End of Einstein's relativity phuckwittery.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

End of Reidt's aether phuckwittery.

Androcles.

Peri of Pera wrote:
PD, you are correct but perhaps you place too much importance on AE's
derivation of the transforms. He had MMX and Voigt's, Larmor's and
Lorentz's formulas before him.


Einstein worked very hard to demonstrate that he could *rederive* those
transforms without assuming anything other than his two postulates. His
point, perhaps, is that those transforms are correct but not for the
reasons that others thought.

PD

Peri of Pera wrote:
Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.

Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug


Michelson's MMX logic was incorrect.

Perhaps you should actually read his writing (specifically the 1887
paper with Morley). You are arguing against a strawman of your own, not
Michelson's actual discussion.


Furthermore, inability to detect
the ether is not proof that SR is a proven theory.

Sure. So what? Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug


What I am saying is that the work of Lorentz is based on MMX and the
contraction conjecture of Fitzgerald.

Just because you say it does not make it correct. The connection there
is tenuous at best.


The Lorentz transforms are the
foundation of SR. If it is accepted that contraction does not exist as
a real, theoretical, imaginary, illusory, relative or virtual physical
phenomenon, then SR cannot use the Lorentz transforms for whatever
purpose.

Your "logic" is faulty, and does not correspond to science. It does not
matter if length contraction is "imaginary, illusory, relative or
virtual", nor does it matter what you think the "foundation" of SR is
[#]. What matters is whether the predictions of SR are in agreement with
the corresponding measurements. They are (within its domain of
applicability).

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
|
| Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug

Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.

|
| Tom Roberts

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
in them already.
Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
Androcles.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
|
| Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug

Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.

|
| Tom Roberts

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
in them already.
Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
Androcles.

....such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one moving
at c, in a moving frame.
....only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
| |
| | Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug
|
| Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.
|
| |
| | Tom Roberts
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
| in them already.
| Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
| Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
| Androcles.
|
| ...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one
moving
| at c, in a moving frame.
| ...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.

Roberts is a complete fool. Here is a map of the whole sky,
with RA (right anscension) and Dec (declination marked on it.
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/con...rsa_Major.html
Hold the button down and move the mouse.
Nobody bothered to mark RA and Dec of the accretion disk near
the black hole that Roberts has OBSERVED.
Here's how to measure the speed of light, ONE way.
http://www.oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
Who cares about the time at the far end anyway?
Ya gotta love the grin on Michaelson's face as he points the finger
at the embarrassed scruffy guy next to him unable to face the camera.
I remember when my grandfather had shirts with detachable collars.

Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
|
| Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug

Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.

|
| Tom Roberts

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
in them already.
Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
Androcles.

...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one moving
at c, in a moving frame.
...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.

You are supposing that a light beam is a *structure* like a girder. It
is not. It is a *train* of objects.

To see how a *train* of objects can change its orientation with respect
to reference frame, I'd like you to make three sketches of something
with a completely different physical basis (but which is nonetheless
illustrative).

Sketch A:
Draw a helicopter poised above the ground.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the *later* wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is vertical.

Sketch B:
Draw a helicopter moving horizontally above the ground.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the later wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will *not* be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is *not* vertical.

Sketch C:
Draw a helicopter poised above the ground, with the wind blowing
horizontally.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the later wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will *not* be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is *not* vertical.

Now that it is recognized that a train of objects that is vertical in
one instance is not vertical in another instance, we can turn to what
happens in light's case.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".