On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:49:16 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:
>
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:
>
> "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:
>
> Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.
>
> So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
> red shift blue shift
>
> http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
>
> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev

The fundamental problem with this analysis is that Newton's velocity addition approximation is simply not valid for velocities that are not very small fractions of light speed. So your assertion that c' = c+v is just false. Newtonian physics is not valid at lightspeed. The rest of the argument, once it starts with a false assumption, is irrelevant. If the argument actually follows from the assumption, then using the correct velocity composition formula will lead to a different conclusion.

It is a fact that the Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation. It is also a fact that every Lorentz transformation can be characterized by a boost. It is further a fact that the boost of the product of two arbitrary transformations is just the linear sum of the individual boosts of the two composing transformations. The boost itself is just a euphemism for hyperbolic rotation angle, and the rule illustrates the fact that hyperbolic rotation angles compose by linear addition. This can be proved from the geometric definition of a hyperbolic angle. The angle is defined as an area under a hyperbola. Specifically, given the unit hyperbola, xy = 1, the rotation angle for any point on the hyperbola is the triangular patch bounded by the axis of symmetry, the radius vector to the point and the arc of the hyperbola between the two intersections of the radii with the curve. This is completely analogous to the definition of the circular angle. A circular angle is the area bounded by the same axis of symmetry (of a circle that is tangent to the hyperbola at the vertex), a radius vector to an arbitrary point on the circle and the arc of the curve between the points of intersection. This is because the circle and the hyperbola are stereographic projections of each other. Every point on the perimeter of one figure maps to a point on the perimeter of the other. Every point inside the sector of the circle maps to a unique point inside the triangular wedge, in spite of the fact that the area of the wedge is unbounded while the area of the sector is finite. Anyway, the point is that the area of this triangular wedge is the hyperbolic angle. The usual method for finding the area of an irregular shape is to split it up into smaller, simpler shapes and add the results.

Because the curve is a hyperbola, we can do a little geometric algebra to simplify the computation. We start by dropping two perpendiculars to the x axis from the two points on the curve. This creates two right triangles. We add the area of the triangle formed by the vertex, and subtract the area formed by the arbitrary point. Since the area of a right triangle is just 1/2 base x height, and both points are on a hyperbola for which the product of the coordinates is constant, both triangles have the same area, and they cancel out, leaving the total area unchanged in magnitude. Now, however, the perimeter is a quadrilateral, with 3 perpendicular line segments and the same section of the hyperbola. It is now in a form to find the definite integral of the area under the hyperbola between an arbitrary value of x, and 1.. Where the function is continuous and the integral exists, the limits of integration are subject to certain rules, for all definite integrals. If A and C are the limits of integration, and B is between them, the area of the definite integral from A to C must equal the sum of the area from A to B and the area from B to C. Each one of these areas is a hyperbolic rotation angle, so if we represent this area by w, the rule can be expressed as w3 = w1+w2. The composition of hyperbolic angles is by linear addition. This is a law of mathematics.

There is another law of mathematics that relates a hyperbolic angle to a circular angle. It is an isomorphism that uniquely maps one to the other. It is the analytical relationship that describes the stereographic projection mentioned above between the areas of the two triangular shapes. There are a number of identities associated with this isomorphism, but the one we are interested in is sin(θ) = tanh(w). When scaled by the invariant speed of light, relative velocity, v, equals c sin(θ) = c tanh(w). When θ is very small, as in Newtonian physics, sin(θ) ≈ θ, and the sum of two velocities can be approximated as v1+v2 = c sin(θ1)+c sin(θ2) = c θ1 + c θ2 = c (θ1+θ2 ) = c θ3 = c sin(θ3) = v3. However, when θ is not small (as in relativistic velocities), the approximation is not valid. But hyperbolic composition is an identity, independent of velocity. If we want to combine large velocities, we can map the angles, θ, to the equivalent hyperbolic angles, add them, and convert back to velocity. In other words, v3 = c sin(θ3) = c tanh(w3) = c tanh(w1+w2) = c(tanh(w1)+tanh(w2))/(1+tanh(w1)tanh(w2)) = ((c tanh(w1))+(c tanh(w2)))/(1+(c tanh(w1))(c tanh(w2))/c²) = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c²). This is exact and valid for all velocities, whereas the first, simpler form is just an approximation that is only valid at low speeds. The relativistic formula is not a correction to the Newtonian formula. The Newtonian formula is a corruption of the exact formula. It is an accident of history that Newton came first.

So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c. So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.

On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:

big snip

> So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.

What a load of crap

--
-- lover of truth

Le 11/05/2023 à 01:41, Jane a écrit :
> On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> big snip
>
>> So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
>> be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
>> So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
>
> What a load of crap

This is basically your "uncle"'s words.

You are mixing up sides in your role. Give up :-)

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:43:41 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> big snip
> > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> What a load of crap
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth
kookfight

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> big snip
> > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> What a load of crap
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth

An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >
> > big snip
> > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > What a load of crap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- lover of truth
> An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >
> > big snip
> > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > What a load of crap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- lover of truth
> An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
Relativity is not even wrong, and its defenders have nothing to defend it with.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> >
> > big snip
> > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > What a load of crap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- lover of truth
> An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 3:59:54 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >
> > > big snip
> > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > What a load of crap
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- lover of truth
> > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?

Relativity is compatible with MMX.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 7:24:51 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 3:59:54 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > big snip
> > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > What a load of crap
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- lover of truth
> > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?
> Relativity is compatible with MMX.
As I said, relativity is not needed to explain the MMX. Who needs relativity? In fact, the MMX disproves the second postulate.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 6:59:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >
> > > big snip
> > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > What a load of crap
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- lover of truth
> > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?

Relativity applies at ALL speeds. It just isn't significant until velocity is much greater than escape velocity. Of course, with specialized instruments, that velocity threshold is reduced, as in GPS systems. Clearly, velocity is less than escape velocity, but the precision of measurement requires relativistic corrections there. There are relativistic corrections at 30 km/s, which is faster than a GPS satellite. You don't grasp the fact that ordinary velocity addition is only a first-order approximation. It is a corruption of the full velocity addition formula, which is itself a transformed version of hyperbolic velocity composition, which is absolutely LINEAR in the hyperbolic angle, what physics calls a Lorentz boost. "Laws" that are based on approximations are not legitimate, like the arguments made using them. Simply increasing the velocity causes the so-called "law" to break down. If that's all you've got, no one is buying it.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 11:09:05 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 7:24:51 PM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 3:59:54 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > big snip
> > > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > > What a load of crap
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- lover of truth
> > > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > > If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?
> > Relativity is compatible with MMX.
> As I said, relativity is not needed to explain the MMX. Who needs relativity? In fact, the MMX disproves the second postulate.

Actually, the 2nd Postulate can be proved mathematically, so your unfounded claim is wrong. The MMX does NOT disprove the 2nd Postulate. Maybe your interpretation seems to, but that is a strawman, and doesn't really apply.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > >
> > > big snip
> > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > What a load of crap
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- lover of truth
> > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.

In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."

On 5/11/23 8:40 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction
> divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX,
> elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason
> relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to
> negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary
> velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No
> relativity is needed.

This is all nonsense, and merely shows that YOU do not understand either
relativity or science in general.

You need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it.

Tom Roberts

On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]

The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.

> Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.

Yes. That is how science works.

> What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> results.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

> This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> good enough."

This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
building MODELS of how the world works, and that inherently cannot
answer "why?" questions. This, of course, goes much deeper than mere
"numbers that agree".

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:22:20 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]
>
> The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.
> > Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.
> Yes. That is how science works.
> > What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> > results.
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> > This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> > only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> > good enough."
> This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
> building MODELS of how the world works,

No, your building MODELS of how your delusions works.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:46:18 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > big snip
> > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > What a load of crap
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- lover of truth
> > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.
> In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."
There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the MMX. It is easily accounted for exactly utilizing ordinary additive velocity. No second-order corrections are necessary. No Lorentz boost is needed. No matter what the speed, this remains true. It would remain valid if the Earth were moving at 99% C. I don't need anyone in the relativity community to buy it. I don't need relativity. Relativity is purely nonsensical pseudoscience. Whatever the mathematics, they are disproved by the MMX since it is entirely explained by ordinary additive velocity. What I am saying is not part of any hidden interpretation. It is just additive velocity as follows. The beam perpendicular to the motion of the Earth's orbit, when sharing the velocity of the source, by Galileo's principle and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion, will have additive velocity. It will also have an added distance to travel because its path will describe a hypotenuse on its way out to the mirror. The added velocity exactly counteracts the added distance making the apparent velocity C. Voila. Now, if light did not share the velocity of the source, it would have negative added velocity and a lengthened path of the hypotenuse, making its apparent speed C- V- D. This would result in a fringe shift that was not observed. Your acceptance of relativity smacks of ignorance. The experiments do not confirm relativity. Relativity is complete nonsense.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:46:18 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > big snip
> > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > What a load of crap
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- lover of truth
> > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.
> In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."

Kookfight

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:22:20 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]
>
> The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.
> > Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.
> Yes. That is how science works.
> > What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> > results.
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> > This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> > only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> > good enough."
> This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
> building MODELS of how the world works, and that inherently cannot
> answer "why?" questions. This, of course, goes much deeper than mere
> "numbers that agree".
>
> Tom Roberts

Rubbish. You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is physical or not. Einstein said it had to be because both length contraction and time dilation were necessary to support his empirical 2nd Postulate. Now, I get crackpot skeptics telling me that length contraction is just a passive Lorentz transformation or that it is a result on non-simultaneous measurement of the ends of the length interval, in spite of the fact that simultaneity is required by the protocol. You can choose to ignore these problems. I guess I don't know how physics works, but that isn't science. But "numbers that agree" is not good enough for me. Let me put it this way. If I tell you why your model is valid or not, from fundamental mathematics, are you interested or not? Maybe it isn't the job of a physicist to look for an answer to "Why?", but if one is handed to him isn't he obligated to consider it?

So, enough of your opinions. Is length contraction physical or not? If it is, how does it even happen? We know it takes enormous gravitational force to overcome nuclear repulsive forces, something that was not well understood when length contraction was proposed. Relativity requires the same contraction if the observer is stationary and the object is moving as if the object is stationary and only the observer is moving. How does an inert object know that it is being observed? How does it know the relative velocity? And most of all, how does the stationary object, which has no reason to contract in the first place, contract by different amounts for multiple observers moving at different relative velocities trying to measure it at the same time? And you claim there are no problems.

On the other hand, it may not be physical. But time dilation certainly is. GPS would not work without it. So if time dilation is physical and length contraction isn't, how do we rationalize the 2nd Postulate. The invariance of c is something that is apparently physical, because all those experiments to measure it got the same results. But if length contraction is not physical, how is that possible? Show me that you have a more logical explanation than mainstream physics.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:46:18 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > big snip
> > > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > > What a load of crap
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- lover of truth
> > > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > > What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.
> > In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."
> There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the MMX. It is easily accounted for exactly utilizing ordinary additive velocity. No second-order corrections are necessary. No Lorentz boost is needed. No matter what the speed, this remains true. It would remain valid if the Earth were moving at 99% C. I don't need anyone in the relativity community to buy it.. I don't need relativity. Relativity is purely nonsensical pseudoscience. Whatever the mathematics, they are disproved by the MMX since it is entirely explained by ordinary additive velocity. What I am saying is not part of any hidden interpretation. It is just additive velocity as follows. The beam perpendicular to the motion of the Earth's orbit, when sharing the velocity of the source, by Galileo's principle and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion, will have additive velocity. It will also have an added distance to travel because its path will describe a hypotenuse on its way out to the mirror. The added velocity exactly counteracts the added distance making the apparent velocity C. Voila. Now, if light did not share the velocity of the source, it would have negative added velocity and a lengthened path of the hypotenuse, making its apparent speed C- V- D. This would result in a fringe shift that was not observed. Your acceptance of relativity smacks of ignorance. The experiments do not confirm relativity. Relativity is complete nonsense.

There is a mathematical reason why lightspeed is invariant. It is the unique limit of the real projections of complex Proper velocity as Proper velocity approaches infinity. Adding velocity to lightspeed is equivalent to adding finite hyperbolic angle to infinite hyperbolic angle. No change in the total, it's still just infinity. There is no such thing as c+v. It is incorrect to simply add velocities unless they are small compared to c. The Earth's velocity around the sun is not small enough to avoid detection of relativistic effects. Therefore, velocity addition is wrong, period. The boost of a Lorentz transformation adds linearly when two boosts are composed. The low speed approximation is just velocity addition. But, since it is an approximation, asserting that it is valid at any speed involves contradicting the linearity of boost addition. Boost addition is a fundamental property of hyperbolic trigonometry. To claim that it is not true is simply unsupported rubbish. It is one thing to make ludicrous statements, it is another to track all the unavoidable consequences. Your claim does not pass any true test. Furthermore, physicists tried to explain the MMX with Newtonian physics and they could not do it. Yet, you claim to know better. Your argument is vague generalizations that I doubt mean anything if you used actual formulas. The MMX was only satisfactorily explained with the inclusion of relativistic effects. You are just fooling yourself.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:46:17 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:46:18 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > big snip
> > > > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > > > What a load of crap
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- lover of truth
> > > > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > > > What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.
> > > In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."
> > There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the MMX. It is easily accounted for exactly utilizing ordinary additive velocity. No second-order corrections are necessary. No Lorentz boost is needed. No matter what the speed, this remains true. It would remain valid if the Earth were moving at 99% C. I don't need anyone in the relativity community to buy it. I don't need relativity. Relativity is purely nonsensical pseudoscience.. Whatever the mathematics, they are disproved by the MMX since it is entirely explained by ordinary additive velocity. What I am saying is not part of any hidden interpretation. It is just additive velocity as follows. The beam perpendicular to the motion of the Earth's orbit, when sharing the velocity of the source, by Galileo's principle and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion, will have additive velocity. It will also have an added distance to travel because its path will describe a hypotenuse on its way out to the mirror. The added velocity exactly counteracts the added distance making the apparent velocity C. Voila. Now, if light did not share the velocity of the source, it would have negative added velocity and a lengthened path of the hypotenuse, making its apparent speed C- V- D. This would result in a fringe shift that was not observed. Your acceptance of relativity smacks of ignorance. The experiments do not confirm relativity. Relativity is complete nonsense.
> There is a mathematical reason why lightspeed is invariant. It is the unique limit of the real projections of complex Proper velocity as Proper velocity approaches infinity. Adding velocity to lightspeed is equivalent to adding finite hyperbolic angle to infinite hyperbolic angle. No change in the total, it's still just infinity. There is no such thing as c+v. It is incorrect to simply add velocities unless they are small compared to c. The Earth's velocity around the sun is not small enough to avoid detection of relativistic effects. Therefore, velocity addition is wrong, period. The boost of a Lorentz transformation adds linearly when two boosts are composed. The low speed approximation is just velocity addition. But, since it is an approximation, asserting that it is valid at any speed involves contradicting the linearity of boost addition. Boost addition is a fundamental property of hyperbolic trigonometry. To claim that it is not true is simply unsupported rubbish. It is one thing to make ludicrous statements, it is another to track all the unavoidable consequences. Your claim does not pass any true test. Furthermore, physicists tried to explain the MMX with Newtonian physics and they could not do it. Yet, you claim to know better. Your argument is vague generalizations that I doubt mean anything if you used actual formulas. The MMX was only satisfactorily explained with the inclusion of relativistic effects. You are just fooling yourself.
None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:24:55 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:46:17 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:00:15 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 2:46:18 AM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 9:40:02 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 7:43:41 PM UTC-4, Jane wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > big snip
> > > > > > > > So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> > > > > > > > be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> > > > > > > > So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.
> > > > > > > What a load of crap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- lover of truth
> > > > > > An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.
> > > > > What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.
> > > > In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."
> > > There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the MMX. It is easily accounted for exactly utilizing ordinary additive velocity. No second-order corrections are necessary. No Lorentz boost is needed. No matter what the speed, this remains true. It would remain valid if the Earth were moving at 99% C. I don't need anyone in the relativity community to buy it. I don't need relativity. Relativity is purely nonsensical pseudoscience. Whatever the mathematics, they are disproved by the MMX since it is entirely explained by ordinary additive velocity. What I am saying is not part of any hidden interpretation. It is just additive velocity as follows. The beam perpendicular to the motion of the Earth's orbit, when sharing the velocity of the source, by Galileo's principle and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion, will have additive velocity. It will also have an added distance to travel because its path will describe a hypotenuse on its way out to the mirror. The added velocity exactly counteracts the added distance making the apparent velocity C. Voila. Now, if light did not share the velocity of the source, it would have negative added velocity and a lengthened path of the hypotenuse, making its apparent speed C- V- D. This would result in a fringe shift that was not observed. Your acceptance of relativity smacks of ignorance. The experiments do not confirm relativity. Relativity is complete nonsense.
> > There is a mathematical reason why lightspeed is invariant. It is the unique limit of the real projections of complex Proper velocity as Proper velocity approaches infinity. Adding velocity to lightspeed is equivalent to adding finite hyperbolic angle to infinite hyperbolic angle. No change in the total, it's still just infinity. There is no such thing as c+v. It is incorrect to simply add velocities unless they are small compared to c. The Earth's velocity around the sun is not small enough to avoid detection of relativistic effects. Therefore, velocity addition is wrong, period. The boost of a Lorentz transformation adds linearly when two boosts are composed. The low speed approximation is just velocity addition. But, since it is an approximation, asserting that it is valid at any speed involves contradicting the linearity of boost addition. Boost addition is a fundamental property of hyperbolic trigonometry. To claim that it is not true is simply unsupported rubbish. It is one thing to make ludicrous statements, it is another to track all the unavoidable consequences. Your claim does not pass any true test. Furthermore, physicists tried to explain the MMX with Newtonian physics and they could not do it. Yet, you claim to know better. Your argument is vague generalizations that I doubt mean anything if you used actual formulas. The MMX was only satisfactorily explained with the inclusion of relativistic effects. You are just fooling yourself.
> None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).

Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:51:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:

> > None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).
> Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.
You could try to understand because 30,000,000ths of a second is the time light takes to travel 10 meters. Try again.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:01:40 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:51:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> > > None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).
> > Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.
> You could try to understand because 30,000,000ths of a second is the time light takes to travel 10 meters. Try again.
Sorry you could not understand something so simple. The added length of the hypotenuse is exactly compensated by the additive velocity which is calculated by the square root of a^2 + b^2 or in the MMX C^2 + 30 km/sec^2.

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:01:40 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:51:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
>
> > > None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).
> > Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.
> You could try to understand because 30,000,000ths of a second is the time light takes to travel 10 meters. Try again.

No, mr. smartass, it is not. The error you introduce by rounding off the exact value is orders of magnitude larger than the relativistic effects. Lightspeed is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. The time it takes light to travel 10 m is 3.335640952e-8s, not 3.333333333e-8s. That's an error of more than 0.08%, orders of magnitude greater than the relativistic correction.