🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 11:57 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks, KW, you've just confirmed yourself to be a full-tilt nutjob.

>
> > 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>

Gee, sure looks like the same kind of argument to me.
To you, they're different. But that's because you're a full-tilt
nutjob.

>
> > 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/c540aaf2341...
>
> > > 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>
>
>