"dej4" wrote in message oups.com...
-" Funny fact 1: 1905 SRT also uses "c-v" in the derivation of the LT,
it
yields the "miraculous" Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, but it's not a
ballistic theory. "

Yes, it uses "c-v" and "c+v" but it refers to TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS :
the light front and the receding mirror.

aka closing speed.
Harry knows that - he was testing you.

Dirk Vdm


http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29...nacandMM_1.pdf

"Funny fact 2: You confused the to second order approximated
predictions
from the Lorentz transformations with the exact ones."

Not really, this is somewhat newer material proving it:

http://www.wbabin.net/sfarti/sfarti15.pdf

Harry doesn't. He is a hard core LET'ist.

"dej4" wrote in message ups.com...
Harry doesn't. He is a hard core LET'ist.

Indeed, we all know that that is his hidden agenda.
But he does his best to conceal it :-)

Anyway, he does know the concept of closing speed.
He was fishing.

[follow-up set]

Dirk Vdm

"Martin Kowatsch" wrote in message ps.com...
The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.

I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
order term.
Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
the 'zero-result'.
Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.

Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.

On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).

Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
around the sun is not existing.

Please find more details at:
http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-onli...sgt/f10000.htm

I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?

Martin Hogbin

On Wed, "Martin Hogbin" wrote:

"Martin Kowatsch" wrote in message ps.com...
The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.

I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
order term.
Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
the 'zero-result'.
Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.

Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.

Still, more experiments would improve the quality
of postings here, which are at an all time low.

On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).

Some effects of redshift (or "time dilation") are
too small to detect with ordinary methods, so any
experiment that can be rationalized is commendable.

Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
around the sun is not existing.

Please find more details at:
http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-onli...sgt/f10000.htm

I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?
Martin Hogbin

Well, Seto has been saying measure in the vertical
direction, and as distasteful as the idea of agreeing is,
I agree, there could even be a 25000 MPH velocity
found in the vertical direction.

If you can't fight 'em, join 'em.

Joe Fischer

Yes really. I know of that paper and that paper does not show that
preferred frame theories contradic SR. As I said, the good ether
theories predict the exact same formulas as SR for the I-S experiments
(and other experiments).

And I would not trust Sfarti's work. I have noticed that his papers are
copy/paste of bits and pieces of other papers. I did a search on him
and there are numerous threads about him and his plagiarism.

Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Martin Kowatsch" wrote in message ps.com...
The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.

I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
order term.
Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
the 'zero-result'.
Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.

Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.

On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).

Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
result here. Where am I going wrong?

Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
around the sun is not existing.

Please find more details at:
http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-onli...sgt/f10000.htm

I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?

Jerry

Really? I-S falsifies all ballistic theories including LET (because LET
is ballistic).

"I did a search on him
and there are numerous threads about him and his plagiarism."

Really? Can you point such a link?

Really? I-S falsifies all ballistic theories

No, it does not falsify *all* ballistic theories. It falsifies some
ballistic theories.

numerous threads about him and his plagiarism."
Really? Can you point such a link?

I do not intend to search it all again. Do a Google, read and search a
few hours as I did. Its all there.
Perhaps later, when I have more time on my hands, I will look it up
again. The reason I looked him up is because when I read many of his
articles, I was sure I have seen them years before... indeed, I did, by
other authors!

Here is a quick thread readly found by google. There are many
more...just search; you should be able to do that on your own.?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1121800960/last-1127340383/Dissecting+Sfarti's+Papers