Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: The bungle  in MIchelson Morley Interferometry experiment
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 05:55:47 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <dcbbec1ef2a2cff60bb750f170258d9d@www.novabbs.org>
References: <3324b192cb8829481333ad1baf537793@www.novabbs.org> <x58eV4T55hMSZHJDIWSKMiy1Lr8@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3209738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8Ljlg8xw5cAHatvjdHGGjEHKUx9ddlqxMwQzk4UFm4k";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$s7KnjfYTNdNN4Iz50ad4q.H7WcGOlf3myqnZ7nJ/58x5SZru8Zdy2
X-Rslight-Posting-User: d6bc49351b0faa08a25d2b434d815198335a8b45
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6346
Lines: 150

On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 19:58:03 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 03/06/2025 à 15:02, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) a écrit :
>
>> The Earth it moves.
>
> No, it doesn't move, except for negligible accelerations.
> This is what early physicists like Galileo understood, and what has
> extended to all of modern physics.

Galileo was forced to say that the Earth was still and the Sun moved
around it.
Denying this won't help. Lots of evidence to show that he thought the
Earth went around the Sun.

> The Earth's speed around the Sun can be considered Galilean at 30,000
> meters per second.

So Galileo was right. The Sun does not move around the still Earth. It
is the moving Earth that goes around the Sun.

And it moves at 30 Km per second, no mean speed. It is not at rest.



> Which corresponds, in its own frame of reference, to complete rest.

Well, with respect to your ashtray you are at complete rest in your 
moving car. But if the ashtray had the same rest speed as a tree by the
side of the road, then it would not be very satisfactory, what.

Simply because we say the Earth is at rest does not mean it is at rest.
We mean that we on Earth are at rest with respect to the Earth.

As things are, we are on Mother Spaceship Earth doing journey around the
Sun at 30Km/sec.




> You can turn all the branches of the Minkowski-Morley apparatus as you
> wish, and everything happens as if the apparatus weren't moving.

The apparatus is moving as Earth is moving, so always there will be
nulls with variant light speed.

>
> Is it the passing train that's moving? Or me, relative to it? Galileo
> said
> it depends on the observer's position. For the train passenger, sitting
> in
> his armchair reading, it's the landscape that's moving.

That is only a subjective thing which is not objective scientific truth.
To a third party the train is moving and the landscape is still.
Confusing appearance with reality is the trick for the relativistic
frauds.
Lying is another.
Galileo never saw a train in his life.
>
> Well, in relativity, it's no different.

Relativity is depravity. It is unethical. It is unscientific. It passes
lies for truth and truth as lies.
>
> I am perfectly still, and it is the Andromeda galaxy that is crossing
> space, approaching mine at incredible speed.

Nobody is still. All things move in the universe. And certainly the
Earth moves around the Sun, much though Aristotle/Einsteinian chaps
would have it otherwise. True the Sun seems to go around the Earth. But
it actually does not do so. The Earth it rotates and revolves. As any
primary school kid knows.


>
> A resident of Andromeda will regard my words with great astonishment.

So will many of honest disposition on Earth.

>
> The Michelson-Morley apparatus is systematically at rest.

It is at rest on Earth, true, but the Earth is not at rest. The Earth is
moving at 30 km/sec. So in perpendicular direction to its motion, in MMI
the time of passage is el/c. Now in parallel direction the time should
be el/(c+v). These two are different values. So knowing time difference
if light speed is variant we should find out v. That was the original
idea.

But it so happened they did not find the time difference. So they
thought that light speed was invariant with respect to the speed of
emission.

And that is the foundation of the wrong and ridiculous relativity
theories.

Now look what the real distance the light travels along the parallel
path.
By the time the light reaches end point B from start point A, the point
B has moved for the Earth is moving. The point B has shifted to B' where
BB' is v*t or v*el/c.  In short the distance travelled is el+v*el/c or
el(1+v/c).and NOT just el, Taking the distance travelled as el is the
subtle bungle in the analysis and conclusion for the MMI experiment.
Now, the time to cover the distance el(1+v/c) with speed c, would be
el(1+v/c)/c which is NOT el/c.
So if light speed was invariant as is now supposed there would be a time
difference!

So what is the time taken if light speed is variant?
It is distance/velocity or el(1+v/c)/(c+v) or (el(c+v)/c)/(c+v) or el/c
!

which is the same as the perpendicular path to Earth's motion!

Now as they are both same, there are the nulls observed.

So we have to conclude that as the Earth moves in free space, since it
goes around the Sun, and as there are nulls formed in the apparatus,
what is proven is that the speed of light varies as that of what emits
it.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum by

woof woof woof woof woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's heavenhounds setting physics - and the
supposedly warped up universe - straight)




Today, we
> could
> observe shifts of a few thousandths of a millimeter in its movements,
> yet
> nothing is measured; the Earth does not move one bit in the ether.
>
> So, physically speaking, it is not moving (its acceleration towards the
> sun being negligible); it is in essentially Galilean motion, and since
> there is no ether, everything happens as if the apparatus were not
> moving
> in space. As if it were at absolute rest relative to itself, and in an
> invariant manner.
>
>
>> Bertietaylor
>
> R.H.

--