🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 1:47 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 8:12 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
> > > of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
> > > observer:
>
> > In 100,00 words or fewer, tell us how to measure absolute speed.
>
> CMBR Doppler shift.  <APPLAUD>
>
> What do I win?
>
> Of course, the CMBR Doppler shift represents the numerous times where
> the self-styled physicists deny the existence of the absolute frame of
> reference.  They don't talk about it due to obvious reasons.  Their
> world of make belief is falling down with that, but they choose to
> brush it under the rug.  Well, it is not the first time.  The results
> of the MMX must also reference back to the absolute frame of
> reference.  Showing any results even null as it did actually proved
> beyond any reasons of doubt that that absolute frame of reference must
> exist.

Hmmm. So let's see if we can capture your argument here.
The MMX would certainly have been sensitive to the motion of the Earth
with respect to this absolute reference frame if it existed, and this
signal would have been marked by fringe shifts in the apparatus --
which were not seen.
However, you maintain that by even *contemplating* the motion of the
earth with respect to a supposed absolute reference frame, this is
sufficient to prove its existence.
So if you suppose that your intelligence was awarded by angels, then
this also is sufficient to prove the existence of angels?
Nice.

> The principle of relativity serving science for about 300
> years is not valid in general but is so when low speeds are
> concerned.  <shrug>
>
> It is OK.  Had not Peter recognized Christ three times?  <shrug>