🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 1:47 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > 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.

That is correct.

> 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.

This is also correct.

> So if you suppose that your intelligence was awarded by angels, then
> this also is sufficient to prove the existence of angels?

No, not at all.  One must do his own diligence and analyze the
situation more carefully.  That is what makes a difference between an
engineer and a (self-styled) physicist I guess.  <shrug>

> Nice.

You see.  It does not matter what transforms anyone can come up with
to explain the null results of the MMX such as Larmor's Lorentz
transform and the Voigt transform earlier.  They all must reference
every experimental results back to the stationary background of the
Aether which is what is called as an absolute frame of reference.  The
Lorentz transform you know of (a mistake by Poincare) is only valid in
a very special circumstance.  In general, it is not valid at all.
Once again, here is the post from the past that explains all this.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en

> > 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>