The Theory of Relativity is Wrong.

[JazzRoc]

Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......

No. That isn't the inference that can be drawn here. It is very interesting, but actually the apparatus is very sensitive to strain, and there is a profound risk that STRAIN is what is measured here, namely the gravitational loading on the apparatus goes through a complete sinusoid for each rotation.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

Nor am I responsible for your failure here. YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so. You are plain wrong, and at such a fundamental level that, well, domestic science may be an option for you, but no other sort of science will. Here's a hint:

[JazzRoc]

Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......
The apparatus is measuring the changing strain due to gravity as it rotates in the vertical plane. The "scientist" claims nothing and proves nothing.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

You haven't noticed the piece is anti-Zionist through and through (and probably anti-semitic).

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

I remember well. You are a physics FAIL right now.

[galexander]

Originally Posted by JazzRoc

Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......

No. That isn't the inference that can be drawn here. It is very interesting, but actually the apparatus is very sensitive to strain, and there is a profound risk that STRAIN is what is measured here, namely the gravitational loading on the apparatus goes through a complete sinusoid for each rotation.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

Nor am I responsible for your failure here. YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so. You are plain wrong, and at such a fundamental level that, well, domestic science may be an option for you, but no other sort of science will.

I must admit I have my doubts about the experiment myself. For example what do we know about the experimenter and have others ever reproduced the same results? Its one thing putting something on YouTube..........

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Nonsense JazzRoc. I criticised Newton and Newton was a Christian so does that therefore make me anti-Christian? The logic is unsafe.

YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so.

I don't deny this but only because the whole science appears to be fatally flawed and doubting Thomas' like myself are unceremoniously chucked out.

[JazzRoc]

Originally Posted by galexander

But what is the moral of the story JazzRoc with this particular video?

That the way science looks to you is a reflection of the way you look at it.
Commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science, but that's because science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience.
Once you understand more of it, it becomes less threatening. So don't reject it.

[galexander]

[quote=JazzRoc;65088][quote=galexander;65049]But what is the moral of the story JazzRoc with this particular video?

That the way science looks to you is a reflection of the way you look at it.
Commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science, but that's because science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience.
Once you understand more of it, it becomes less threatening. So don't reject it.

Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguements are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism.

Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity.

If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things.

All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time:

YouTube - RDF TV - Baloney Detection Kit -...

[JazzRoc]

"Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguments are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism."
YOU are arguing from "commonsense". That won't work. The only argument that works in science is a scientific argument - that is one which is working using the common conceptual framework in that scientific field, that specific terminology, that specific understanding. To do anything other than that is to piss into the wind. What you believe to be a coracle in a stream is in reality an ocean liner in mid-ocean.

"Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity".
Only by a coracle user. The "veil of obscurity" is your projected "veil of ignorance". If you "knew" the context and had something new (and correct!) to say about it, then you would suddenly know everyone, and they you.

"If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time"
I do.

"and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer"
I don't.

"is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things. All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time"
It ill behoves you, in your parlous state of ignorance, to do this.

You have already clearly misunderstood me. Bone up on English comprehension.

[jane doe]

http://www.teslasociety.com/theoryofrel.htm

How much did Einstein scientifically understand?? The above link presents a separate knowledge base.

[galexander]

Originally Posted by JazzRoc

"Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguments are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism."
YOU are arguing from "commonsense". That won't work. The only argument that works in science is a scientific argument - that is one which is working using the common conceptual framework in that scientific field, that specific terminology, that specific understanding. To do anything other than that is to piss into the wind. What you believe to be a coracle in a stream is in reality an ocean liner in mid-ocean.

"Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity".
Only by a coracle user. The "veil of obscurity" is your projected "veil of ignorance". If you "knew" the context and had something new (and correct!) to say about it, then you would suddenly know everyone, and they you.

"If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time"
I do.

"and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer"
I don't.

"is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things. All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time"
It ill behoves you, in your parlous state of ignorance, to do this.

You have already clearly misunderstood me. Bone up on English comprehension.

Your ploy JazzRoc appears to be to hide yourself behind a cloud of philosophical utterances.

The main point we were discussing seems to have been left behind some time ago......

[galexander]

Originally Posted by jane doe

http://www.teslasociety.com/theoryofrel.htm

How much did Einstein scientifically understand?? The above link presents a separate knowledge base.

Don't fully understand the question.

If you aren't sure of Einstein's personal scientific background then GOOGLE IT!

[jane doe]

Originally Posted by galexander

Don't fully understand the question.

If you aren't sure of Einstein's personal scientific background then GOOGLE IT!

If you think Einstein created/understood all published "thoeries" with his sole name on them, you aren't well informed.