speed of light

@johnzdoe Said

and all you have to do to get rid of me is show where my videos are wrong....

@johnzdoe Said

the first bit is that if you have a testing device, and intend to place it in different conditions,, you first need to establish a baseline that is not effected by the changing conditions. The M&M device was testing something that they could not have a base line for. there is no static condition with which to compare their machine with.

Quote:

Next, the beam goes out then back along the same path. How can you tell if there is a "headwind" if you go in two directions? If I swim upstream against a current, my normal swim speed of 6 is reduced to 3 by the 3 current, but then I turn around and swim back, my speed is now 9, so the total time is now exactly the same as if there was no current at all. This is exactly what the M&M interferometer is doing. Testing nothing.

may as well spin around a room with a torch, and declare that light hits all 4 walls at the same time, so that means time, space and distance must shrink!

@nooneinparticular Said

Correct. There were however two varying conditions in which they could compare their data with. The light moving along the aether and the light moving against the aether. If the aether existed and is moving in some direction, then if you test every direction, you should see a change somewhere.



Are you attempting to argue that an interferometer does not and cannot cause light beams to go out of phase from each other? So then what does it do to create an image of varying light intensities?

@johnzdoe Said

actions speaks more loudly that words, so just solve the paradox in the video, or admit that it is a correct paradox proving relativity is wrong.

@mrmhead Said

I don't need no stinkin' video.

My bet is your premise is set up incorrectly either by purposefully ignoring, choosing not to believe, or willful ignorance of the conditions surrounding what you are trying to disprove.

Then using that result as the absolute truth that It CANT Be!

Why don't you enlighten us with a new thread trying to state what you want to disprove.

"Einsteins Paradox" is quite vague and doesn't garner any interest .. at least coming from you.

@chaski Said

And all you have to do to get me to watch your video is to admit you were wrong about the “m” in the equation e=mc^2 being matter.

Oh.., and explain how you turned e=mc^2 into e=m(600000000 in 2 seconds).

Note: I don’t want to get rid of you. Your ignorance, while astonishing, is hilarious.

@mrmhead Said

I don't need no stinkin' video.

My bet is your premise is set up incorrectly either by purposefully ignoring, choosing not to believe, or willful ignorance of the conditions surrounding what you are trying to disprove.

Then using that result as the absolute truth that It CANT Be!

Why don't you enlighten us with a new thread trying to state what you want to disprove.

"Einsteins Paradox" is quite vague and doesn't garner any interest .. at least coming from you.

@johnzdoe Said

You did not watch, then you have no knowledge to base your opinions on.

Your words are empty.

@johnzdoe Said

ok, yes, the m in e=mc2 IS MASS.

(i have opinions on what matter and mass are that affected my statement about mass and matter that are not in line with what you believe about the two.)

and the 600000000 x 2 seconds was just an attempt to demonstrate that c in an equation has just become a number. it was not a successful argument from me.

@johnzdoe Said

ok, yes, the m in e=mc2 IS MASS.

(i have opinions on what matter and mass are that affected my statement about mass and matter that are not in line with what you believe about the two.)

@johnzdoe Said

and the 600000000 x 2 seconds was just an attempt to demonstrate that c in an equation has just become a number. it was not a successful argument from me.

@chaski Said

None the less, even though you have presented yourself in a very cowardly light, I will now take the high road and watch your video.

@mrmhead Said

@johnzdoe Said

But there is no aether, or thats the assumption now. So there would not be any reason to see a difference then. You would be demonstrating nothing interesting with this setup. (unless there was an aether, AND it affected light, two big assumptions.)

The interferometer shows something, but what? why?. its not proven whats going on, just more assumptions. Physicists will tell you that they don't really know much about light. Just lots of assumptions as to whats happening.

Anyway, because of the return on the same path over the same distance, the design of the interferometer is NOT showing what they thought it was supposed to be showing, that is, that something would cause the light to change speed, when aligned in a particular way, but not at 90 degrees.

The LIGO interferometer detecting "gravitational waves" is a joke, surely.

You have to explain how the net time elapsed for swimming "with" and then "against" a current, compared to swimming with no current at all, could be any different.

Given the same distances in both tests.

@johnzdoe Said

don't worry about it, I don't care.