🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/25/2012 4:19 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/25/12 1/25/12 1:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 6:31 am, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> sci.physics.relativity:
>>> The question is not whether Dingle was wrong, but rather, whether SR
>>> is valid.
>>> For an incredibly wide domain we know that SR is indeed valid,
>>> because of the
>>> literally hundreds of experimental tests it has passed:
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>>> Of course knowing that SR is valid implies that Dingle was wrong.
>>
>> "Hundreds of experimental tests" are impossible to deal with in a
>> debate,
>
> Your problem, not mine. And this is not really a debate.

The typical problem of the typical SR-ian being blind and saying it is 
you who are blind.


>
>
>> Let us concentrate on the crucial one:
>> The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) [...]
>>
>> Now the truth: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
>> confirmed the assumption that the speed of light of light does vary
>> with the speed of the light source, [...]
>
> This is NOT any sort of "truth". The MMX did no such thing.
>
> The MMX showed that for their interferometer, no significant fringe
> shift is seen. That is ALL THAT IT DID, and this has been confirmed in
> many repetitions. That result is in agreement with the prediction of SR,
> and with the predictions of several other theories, including emission
> and ballistic theories such as Newton's. So this is not a "crucial"
> experiment at all, because by itself it is insufficient to distinguish
> among many different theories -- you MUST look at multiple experiments.
>
> [When one looks at all of the experiments, SR remains unrefuted
> within its domain, as does an infinite class of theories
> in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
> every inertial frame. No emission or ballistic theory of light
> is among them.]
>
> None of your quotations are actually relevant. You REALLY need to learn
> how to read, and to understand what you read.

It will only get solved if you learn to understand what you preach.

You are not equally guilty, just very slightly less. But guilty 
nevertheless.

To the engineer it might not be relevant, he can calculate in his moving 
lab and use Einstein. But a physicist is not just a formula provider for 
engineers. The public expects from physicists to explain them how the 
universe works. If you doubt that, then see the success Hawking and 
others have with their publications.

Uwe Hayek.