🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 2:03 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 10:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 11:25 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > According to Newton's emission theory of light, the SPEED of light
> > > varies with the speed of the observer.
>
> > > According to Maxwell's theory, the SPEED of light varies with the
> > > speed of the observer.
>
> > > According to Einstein's special relativity, the WAVELENGTH of light
> > > varies with the speed of the observer.
>
> > > The assertion that the SPEED of light varies with the speed of the
> > > observer is physically reasonable. The assertion that the WAVELENGTH
> > > of light varies with the speed of the observer is absurd.
>
> > Nothing that is directly measured with an experimental apparatus by
> > independent investigators can ever be taken to be absurd.
>
> No, you don't get it.  The absurdity is in how to interpret the data.
> The how is grossly biased by the politically correct or the religious
> sound expectations.  <shrug>

Nah, experiments are designed to probe the place where two models make
DISTINCT and DIFFERENT predictions. One model says quantity Q will
have value X, another model says the same quantity Q will have value
Y. Then the data are taken and they are either consistent with X or
consistent with Y. There's not much room for interpretation of that.

If you have two models that make the same prediction about quantity Q,
then you probe the models until you find they place where they make
different predictions and you test there. This again removes the room
for interpretation.

>
> > When confirmed measurement conflicts with your common sense, then it
> > is your common sense that needs to be adjusted, each and every time
> > this happens.
>
> This is not true.  Most of the time, you need to go back to examine
> your experimental setups.  Just ask Professor Roberts or any
> engineers.  Well, there are very few exceptions.  The null results of
> the MMX are certainly puzzling, but if analyzed correctly, it should
> rule out any relative simultaneity.

Perhaps, but the model that removes this also has to be consistent
with the scores of OTHER experiments as well. This is trickier.

> They should easily rule out the
> validity of the principle of relativity.  <shrug>

Same goes here.
But even more interestingly is the supposition you are making that the
principle of relativity is wrong. That is, there must be a frame in
which the laws of physics take a different form. In which frame do you
think this occurs, and what are the different laws of physics in that
frame?

>
> A not so off-topic explanation of this can be found in the post by
> yours truly below.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf2341...