jtbell

This statement is many decades out of date. See for example:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html --
Jon Bell <jtbell@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

arindam banerjee

But you do agree that relativistic effects have to do with light
travelling a longer path than measured; that travel is possible beyond
the speed of light; that the equation e=mcc is rubbish, and so on? In
short, will or will not the physics community agree as gentlemen that
the whole Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment was flawed; that
the Lorentz transformation has no basis in relativity? That we need
new insights (given my myself) into physics, throwing out many old
ideas?

helmut wabnig

On 4 Aug 2005 22:46:11 -0700, "Arindam Banerjee"


idiot

w.

arindam banerjee

AB.

bjoern feuerbacher

That equation has been experimentally confirmed, so how could it be rubbish?

Have you looked at the page which Jon Bell cited?
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>

Can you *quantitatively* explain the results of these experiments with
your "new insights into physics"?

If yes: feel free to show your work,

If no: shut up.


Bye,
Bjoern

sam wormley

You can't fool mother nature! Space travel at close to light
speed will never be safe or practical.

pd

Yes, absolutely. You're more than welcome to do physics, especially
good physics, especially profoundly revolutionary physics.

That would depend on whether those old ideas happen to agree with
experiment. That would depend on whether your new ideas happen to agree
with the predictions of the old ideas in areas where the old ideas work
well. That would depend on whether your new ideas accurately predict
experimental results in areas where the old ideas don't work as well.

Have at it, bub.

PD

glhansen

You are aware, aren't you, that tests of the special theory of relativity
have continued beyond 1887, and that not all of them consist of
interferometers on rotating platforms?


--
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win
by experience."

uncle al

Already broke another crated bullshit meter.


<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012 Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003) http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004) http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

[snip crap]

No doubt - 763 lines of boring bullshit trivially dismissed by empirical observation.

My watch says "2005." My HP-15C calculator says you are 41 years out
of date. Hey git - were there any electronic calculators in 1964?
The HP-35 came out 01 February 1972. It had more significant figures
than any IBM mainframe at the time, and it was faster.


<http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/>
What is "waving" in that experiment, jackass?

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57 /iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether

Michelson-Morley experiments
Brillet-Hall experiments
Kennedy-Thorndike experiments
Hughes-Drever experiments
Ives-Stillwell experiments

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academi c/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles /world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation


[snip crap]

That is why the expriment disproves existence of any aether
background.


You got 'em. Nobody else would touch it, not even with a turd.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

lewis mammel

The river is the ether, the floats are the earth. The river flowing
past the floats is like the ether drifting past the lab apparatus
in the lab frame of reference.

The swimmers are ****ogous to the light, as they move at constant
speed wrt the water, just as light was presumed to move at a
constant speed wrt the ether.

In your "correction" you simply reiterated your previous argument,
which is just the ****ysis of the kinetics of constant speed
motion from a moving frame, even though you agreed that light
can not be appropriately modeled as beams of particles emitted
at constant speed.


Lew Mammel, Jr.