• The bungle in MIchelson Morley Interferometry experiment

    From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 3 13:02:11 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
    A consequence of this movememt of Earth is that save for one angle,
    light does NOT travel the distance marked out between any two points on
    Earth.
    That is because along the line AB, when light starts from A, the point B
    has shifted from the original point when that light reaches B.

    This may seem obvious now, but as a matter of fact it has been totally overlooked until 2005, when Arindam found this subtle basic.

    Now, the nulls do happen in the MMI and according to all texts they
    happen as light speed is invariant; so while going the same distance at
    right angles there are nullls which should not be the case if light
    speed is variant. There should be a time gap showing the velocity of so
    called aether wind.

    As there were nulls no aether wind found and very arbitrarily the
    existence of aether was dismissed.
    Key to this is the bungle that in both the orthogonal directions for
    light the distance remained same.

    The Earth it moves. So the distances are not the same. The nulls are
    there. The only way the nulls can happen is when light speed is variant.
    It moves just so much faster or slower from emission to make up the
    extra distances involved.

    The maths is easy.

    Woof woof woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 3 14:05:31 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    So with light speed being variant e=mcc bites the dust.
    We can travel faster than light and return from the nearest star in a
    few years.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jun 3 07:13:11 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.
    A consequence of this movememt of Earth is that save for one angle,
    light does NOT travel the distance marked out between any two points on Earth.
    That is because along the line AB, when light starts from A, the point B
    has shifted from the original point when that light reaches B.

    This may seem obvious now, but as a matter of fact it has been totally overlooked until 2005, when Arindam found this subtle basic.

    Now, the nulls do happen in the MMI

    You do know that there are MANY other tests in addition to the MMI that
    ALL come to the same conclusion, don't you crackpot?

    <delete delusional babble>


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 3 19:58:03 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :

    The Earth it moves.

    No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
    This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
    extended to all of modern physics.
    The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
    meters per second.
    Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.
    You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
    wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.

    Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo said
    it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting in
    his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.

    Well, in relativity, it's no different.

    I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
    space, approaching mine at incredible speed.

    A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.

    The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest. Today, we could observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements, yet nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.

    So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
    sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
    there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not moving
    in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an invariant manner.


    Bertietaylor

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Bertitaylor on Tue Jun 3 21:22:46 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.

    So you misunderstand even that.
    Motion is relative, and 'the Earth moves in space'
    is meaningless,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Jun 4 00:32:13 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    On 6/3/2025 9:22 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
    Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.

    So you misunderstand even that.

    He did; some Einsteinians are not stupid enough
    to deny, but others are, as anyone can see.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertietaylor@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Jun 4 00:20:14 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:22:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.

    So you misunderstand even that.
    Motion is relative, and 'the Earth moves in space'
    is meaningless,

    Jan

    As Arindam said long ago, Einsteinians are Aristotlean chaps who despite
    all evidence to the contrary maintain the Earth is still and everything
    goes around it. While blabbing about relativity with math mumbo jumbo.

    It so happens that the Earth goes around the Sun and it cannot do that
    if it is still. It jolly well has to move. So it has a velocity in
    space.

    Important point is that the speed of the Earth around the Sun is NOT the
    speed of the Earth with respect to aether. For the solar system is
    moving, the galaxy is moving... We cannot ever find the speed with
    respect to aether.

    WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's heavenhounds)

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jim Pennino@21:1/5 to Bertietaylor on Tue Jun 3 20:50:39 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:22:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

    Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

    That the Earth moves in space is not denied even by Einsteinians.

    So you misunderstand even that.
    Motion is relative, and 'the Earth moves in space'
    is meaningless,

    Jan

    As Arindam said long ago, Einsteinians are Aristotlean chaps who despite
    all evidence to the contrary maintain the Earth is still

    Delusional nonsense right from the start.

    <snip remaining delusional, crackpot nonsense>


    --
    penninojim@yahoo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jun 4 05:26:44 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :

    The Earth it moves.

    No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
    This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
    extended to all of modern physics.
    The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
    meters per second.

    Now that is movement.
    How can the Earth move at 30km/sec and still be said to be at rest!
    No wonder Arindam thinks you are a totally crazy lot, you stupid e=mcc
    wallahs.

    woof woof woof woof

    Bertietaylor




    Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.
    You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
    wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.

    Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo
    said
    it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting
    in
    his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.

    Well, in relativity, it's no different.

    I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
    space, approaching mine at incredible speed.

    A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.

    The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest. Today, we
    could
    observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements,
    yet
    nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.

    So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
    sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
    there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not
    moving
    in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an invariant manner.


    Bertietaylor

    R.H.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Wed Jun 4 05:55:47 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :

    The Earth it moves.

    No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
    This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
    extended to all of modern physics.

    Galileo was forced to say that the Earth was still and the Sun moved
    around it.
    Denying this won't help. Lots of evidence to show that he thought the
    Earth went around the Sun.

    The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
    meters per second.

    So Galileo was right. The Sun does not move around the still Earth. It
    is the moving Earth that goes around the Sun.

    And it moves at 30 Km per second, no mean speed. It is not at rest.



    Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.

    Well, with respect to your ashtray you are at complete rest in your
    moving car. But if the ashtray had the same rest speed as a tree by the
    side of the road, then it would not be very satisfactory, what.

    Simply because we say the Earth is at rest does not mean it is at rest.
    We mean that we on Earth are at rest with respect to the Earth.

    As things are, we are on Mother Spaceship Earth doing journey around the
    Sun at 30Km/sec.




    You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
    wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.

    The apparatus is moving as Earth is moving, so always there will be
    nulls with variant light speed.


    Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo
    said
    it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting
    in
    his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.

    That is only a subjective thing which is not objective scientific truth.
    To a third party the train is moving and the landscape is still.
    Confusing appearance with reality is the trick for the relativistic
    frauds.
    Lying is another.
    Galileo never saw a train in his life.

    Well, in relativity, it's no different.

    Relativity is depravity. It is unethical. It is unscientific. It passes
    lies for truth and truth as lies.

    I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
    space, approaching mine at incredible speed.

    Nobody is still. All things move in the universe. And certainly the
    Earth moves around the Sun, much though Aristotle/Einsteinian chaps
    would have it otherwise. True the Sun seems to go around the Earth. But
    it actually does not do so. The Earth it rotates and revolves. As any
    primary school kid knows.



    A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.

    So will many of honest disposition on Earth.


    The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest.

    It is at rest on Earth, true, but the Earth is not at rest. The Earth is
    moving at 30 km/sec. So in perpendicular direction to its motion, in MMI
    the time of passage is el/c. Now in parallel direction the time should
    be el/(c+v). These two are different values. So knowing time difference
    if light speed is variant we should find out v. That was the original
    idea.

    But it so happened they did not find the time difference. So they
    thought that light speed was invariant with respect to the speed of
    emission.

    And that is the foundation of the wrong and ridiculous relativity
    theories.

    Now look what the real distance the light travels along the parallel
    path.
    By the time the light reaches end point B from start point A, the point
    B has moved for the Earth is moving. The point B has shifted to B' where
    BB' is v*t or v*el/c. In short the distance travelled is el+v*el/c or el(1+v/c).and NOT just el, Taking the distance travelled as el is the
    subtle bungle in the analysis and conclusion for the MMI experiment.
    Now, the time to cover the distance el(1+v/c) with speed c, would be el(1+v/c)/c which is NOT el/c.
    So if light speed was invariant as is now supposed there would be a time difference!

    So what is the time taken if light speed is variant?
    It is distance/velocity or el(1+v/c)/(c+v) or (el(c+v)/c)/(c+v) or el/c
    !

    which is the same as the perpendicular path to Earth's motion!

    Now as they are both same, there are the nulls observed.

    So we have to conclude that as the Earth moves in free space, since it
    goes around the Sun, and as there are nulls formed in the apparatus,
    what is proven is that the speed of light varies as that of what emits
    it.

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum by

    woof woof woof woof woof

    Bertietaylor (Arindam's heavenhounds setting physics - and the
    supposedly warped up universe - straight)




    Today, we
    could
    observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements,
    yet
    nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.

    So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
    sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
    there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not
    moving
    in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an invariant manner.


    Bertietaylor

    R.H.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 4 08:31:26 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    Le 04/06/2025 à 07:26, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    How can the Earth move at 30km/sec and still be said to be at rest!

    Pour un observateur placé dans une galaxie lointaine, la terre n'est pas
    au repos, elle se déplace
    à des milliers de kilomètres par seconde.

    Mais la réciproque est tout aussi vrai.

    Hormis les effet de l'accélération centripète, il serait impossible de savoir qui de la terre ou du soleil bouge par rapport à l'autre.

    Je pense que tu n'as pas compris ni Galilée, ni Poincaré.

    Il n'y a pas dans l'univers de REPOS ABSOLU, de BASE absolue, d'éther.

    Tout le monde est pour soi-même au repos dans l'univers.

    Dire : "Il existe peut-être dans l'univers un point au repos absolu, et
    il ne bouge pas." est une absurdité, puisque le mouvement absolu n'existe
    pas. Tous les physiciens le savent : la notion de mouvement est relatif à quelque chose, comme toute conscience est conscience de quelque chose.

    Poincaré ira plus loin : "Le temps et les longueurs sont relatifs".

    Le docteur Hachel ira encore plus loin, et proposera l'universalité de l'équation a=(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) non seulement pour les
    longueurs, les temps, les fréquences électro-magnétiques, mais encore
    les distances cosmiques.

    Exemple, je me déplace à 0.8c direct vers l'axe terre-lune, quelle est
    la distance terre-lune?

    Ceux qui n'ont jamais appris la relativité de Poincaré disent D=300.000
    kms environ.

    Ceux qui ont appris Poincaré mais n'ont pas appris Hachel (comme quoi
    les plus grands pontes de la physique moderne peuvent être de parfait crétins) disent 180000 kms.

    Seuls les plus intelligents (je sais même pas si l'on peut les compter
    sur les doigts) vous dirons
    qu'il faut appliquer D'+D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) avec cosµ=-1 et
    que cette distance subit un effet élastique positif (et non négatif).
    Elle devient 900000 kms.

    Les autres disjonctent, et on se demande bien pourquoi.

    No wonder Arindam thinks you are a totally crazy lot, you stupid e=mcc

    The correct equation is : E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²).

    A rest (Vo=0, Vr=0) : E=mc².

    Bertietaylor

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bertitaylor@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Thu Jun 5 01:13:29 2025
    XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 8:31:26 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    Le 04/06/2025 à 07:26, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) a écrit :
    On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

    How can the Earth move at 30km/sec and still be said to be at rest!

    Pour un observateur placé dans une galaxie lointaine, la terre n'est
    pas
    au repos, elle se déplace
    à des milliers de kilomètres par seconde.

    Mais la réciproque est tout aussi vrai.

    Hormis les effet de l'accélération centripète, il serait impossible de savoir qui de la terre ou du soleil bouge par rapport à l'autre.

    Je pense que tu n'as pas compris ni Galilée, ni Poincaré.

    Il n'y a pas dans l'univers de REPOS ABSOLU, de BASE absolue, d'éther.

    Tout le monde est pour soi-même au repos dans l'univers.

    Dire : "Il existe peut-être dans l'univers un point au repos absolu, et
    il ne bouge pas." est une absurdité, puisque le mouvement absolu
    n'existe
    pas. Tous les physiciens le savent : la notion de mouvement est relatif
    à
    quelque chose, comme toute conscience est conscience de quelque chose.

    Poincaré ira plus loin : "Le temps et les longueurs sont relatifs".

    Le docteur Hachel ira encore plus loin, et proposera l'universalité de l'équation a=(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²) non seulement pour les longueurs, les temps, les fréquences électro-magnétiques, mais encore
    les distances cosmiques.

    Exemple, je me déplace à 0.8c direct vers l'axe terre-lune, quelle est
    la distance terre-lune?

    Ceux qui n'ont jamais appris la relativité de Poincaré disent D=300.000 kms environ.

    Ceux qui ont appris Poincaré mais n'ont pas appris Hachel (comme quoi
    les plus grands pontes de la physique moderne peuvent être de parfait crétins) disent 180000 kms.

    Seuls les plus intelligents (je sais même pas si l'on peut les compter
    sur les doigts) vous dirons
    qu'il faut appliquer D'+D.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c) avec cosµ=-1 et que cette distance subit un effet élastique positif (et non négatif).
    Elle devient 900000 kms.

    Les autres disjonctent, et on se demande bien

    Does French express pseudoscientific nonsense better than English?

    No wonder Arindam thinks you are a totally crazy lot, you stupid e=mcc

    The correct equation is : E=mc².sqrt(1+Vr²/c²).

    That is nonsense based upon nonsense.
    The correct equation is
    E=0.5mvv(N-k)N

    Up Arindam Down Einstein

    Woof woof woof woof

    Bertietaylor

    A rest (Vo=0, Vr=0) : E=mc².

    Bertietaylor

    R.H.

    --

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)