Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum 1) desk 2)laser 3) mirror - I killed Einstein

in link I show tool and experiment

mathematical logic for below link :

A Michelson - Morley experiment TRUE

if A is true my tool work

if A not true my tool not work


https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bwm_d_hXrFwKTkQ1ZE5GUE1MejQ

I have approved your post...Polishtesla, against my better judgement.
Firstly you are not going to endear any Scientists to your cause, when you put "I killed Einstein" as your heading.

Also, I am afraid in the same way as your previous article (some way below this one) it is difficult to understand.
In fact it seems to me that you are undertaking a Michelson -Morely experiment in the very limited space of a moving rocket. I cannot see any point in you continuing
with this idea...since the moving rocket introduces variable gravity as it passes mass. Which upsets any readings you might obtain with your laser light beams.
However ....I will leave this item up, incase any one else wishes to comment upon your writings.

Any future writings you post will have to make more sense
before it gets published here.

I replied to your last post, so I will reply to this one. After that you are on your own. My reply at that time had all the facts, and it still applies. All measurements within your moving rocket are essentially in the same frame of reference, and therefore there will be nothing to detect with your set up.

To change Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity you are going to have to conduct a carefully controlled experiment that invalidates all of the experiments that have been conducted for over 100 years that have shown it to be true. If there is going to be any kind of change in SR it will have to come with extremely fine measurements at the limits of what we are capable of doing, not from some mental gymnastics. And the change will not involve doing completely away with SR. It will wind up being a minor variation under extreme conditions.

Bill Gill

Polishtesla, you have obviously put a lot of effort into your theory and its explanation. Perhaps it suffers from the fact that those of us who speak English have difficulty understanding some of what you say.

It does seem that you are claiming that the zig-zag pattern caused as light bounces between a couple of mirrors is what an observer on board the rocket would see. Obviously such is not the case. Only an observer outside the frame of reference of the rocket would see this, and he/she would know that the rocket was moving relative to him/her.

Like all the pseudoscience fringe he has done no such thing Bill S ... he has not bothered to do research on what science has tested and considered.

Try => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment

Testing of the speed limit of light did not stop with MM experiment the last real test was 2009

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/14/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet


This is the problem with these sorts they bother to spend time to write up their great discovery but don't spend enough time to actually read the background science work that has been done.

The recent optical and optical resonator section of wiki entry gives just how many tests have been done

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment


There is a list of what 20 or 30 experiments and the issue is effectively dead to science.


So perhaps Polishtesla can look at the 30 odd experiments and spend some time understanding what has been tested and checked before wasting peoples time.

Noone in the science community is going to bother to test or discuss this sort of rubbish until you look at prior tests and explain how it could possibly miss it.

Now lets see the reaction to that ... waiting for usual pseudoscience junk response because these sorts want to be scientist but without having to do any of the dam hard work scientists have to do ... wait did someone say Preearth :-)

I didn’t express the opinion that the “effort” was well directed, or that its conclusions were correct. I was simply acknowledging that someone had put some work and thought into an idea.

Assuming that Pre and KM are one, I think the same acknowledgement should be accorded to him. Where we go from there is a matter of (attempted) discussion. All we have to keep in mind is that there are those we will never convert, and those who may never convert us.