zztop

Cahill, Gift, Hatch, Marmet, De Witte are heavy duty cranks. Instead of wasting your life digging up rubbish, you would be better off taking a class. You will NOT be able to "bury" Einstein, as you mention on your profile, you are only making a fool of yourself. PS: Grusenick is seriously wrong as well, since you seem unable to follow any scientific argument I will not post the math that explains the "fringe shifts" that he's seeing. Suffice to say that they are perfectly explainable thru the fact that the "vertical" arm stretches and compresses becoming longer or shorter than the "horizontal" one. Not only that the stretching/compression occurs but it is also dynamic (it varies in time) and it affects BOTH arms. Only a totally insane person would envisage MMX the way Grusenick did it. Why do you think Michelson, Gale, Dayton Miller and all the modern re-enacters took and take such pains to keep the setup HORIZONTAL?

I wish I could have given you +10 for this! This one deserves a +10 as well. Unfortunately, I could only give you a +1 only. Why is "madmac" still here? Reg Cahill is a well known crank (coming from your part of the world). Why do you keep polluting this forum by posting utter rubbish? Read here and stop posting rubbish.

I was thinking of mentioning him, he is definitely outside the norm

Definitely. What is fascinating is the self-taught crackpots fascination with "I can prove Einstein wrong". I am longing for a crackpot that is obsessed with "I can prove QM wrong".

Given the complexity of today's physics, pretty low but not zero. Exceptions will appear.

There are exceptions, Faraday comes to mind but they are very rare.

Yes, absolutely. It is important to get a formal education at some point, preferably sooner rather than later.

Cahill is a crank.

Reg Cahill is yet another crank, he makes the same errors as Demjanov. Progress in Physics is a crackpot journal. Cease and desist.

You definitely can teach yourself. I recommend the "Feynman Lectures on Physics", you already know where to find them on the internet. I taught myself physics (from his books) starting at age 15. At 20, I enrolled in physics and I ended up with a phD at 26. I credit most of my success to the Feynman lectures. Go for it!

What I said is that there are thousands of experiments confirming light speed isotropy. I also said that you should stop posting rubbish, this is a mainstream forum, not a crank one.

S.J. Gift is a crackpot. Paul Marmet was another crackpot. The speed of light is isotropic. Stop posting rubbish.

And another -1. When will you stop posting rubbish?

There is no change in wavelength. Light reflected of moving mirrors has the same wavelength (frequency) as the incident light. Hicks is NOT using special relativity. Please stop the fringe posts, this is a mainstream science forum.

This is false. Everything you claim is incorrect.

The withdrawal was due to Demjanov being a crackpot who has deep misconceptions about relativity. No, it doesn't.

Demjanov has been refuted and his paper has been withdrawn.

There are TWO sights: the rear one (also called elevator) , closer to the shooter and the front one (on top of the nozzle). They need to be aligned (by eye) and the resultant line needs to be aligned with the bottom of the dark disk on the target. This type of alignment is necessary in order to hit the target in the center, since the rifles come calibrated this way.

If you ever shot at targets you would know that, in order to hit the bull's eye, you must align the sight with the bottom of the black circle. This means that guns come sighted such that they point slightly upward, just enough to counter the gravitational pull on the bullets.

This is a severely crackpot paper, has no business being in arxiv. Refraction is frequency dependent, so , white (star)light , by virtue of being composed of a large spectrum of frequencies, would exhibit DIFFERENT bending for each frequency. This is NOT what is being observed. The authors of the paper are ignorant cranks. A little checking confirms the authors to being heavy duty cranks: [32] R.C. Gupta, A. Pradhan and Sushant Gupta, ‘A Novel Concept for Mass as Complex-Mass towards Wave-particle Duality’, Infinite Energy, Issue 101, 40-48, (2012), [arXiv:physics/1001.4647, (2010)]. [33] R.C. Gupta, ‘Fabric of Universe is not like that of the Emperor’s Cloth! www.wbabin.net/physics/gupta1.pdf, (2008).

This is a classical example of an incorrectly posed question. Light falling radially into a black hole reaches and crosses the event horizon at....the speed of light. No massive object can reach the speed of light, so, any massive object reaches and crosses the event horizon at...less than the speed of light.

Please don't. You are writing nonsense.

Dimensions are all wrong.

Two events are separated by the amount of time [latex]\Delta t[/latex] and by the space [latex]\Delta x[/latex] in frame F. In frame F', the two events are separated by the time interval [latex]\Delta t'=\gamma(\Delta t -v \Delta x/c^2)[/latex]. Now, if the events are simultaneous in F, it means that [latex]\Delta t=0[/latex]. This means that , in frame F', the events are separated by the time interval: [latex]\Delta t'=-\gamma v \Delta x/c^2[/latex]. You can have [latex]\Delta t'=0[/latex] if [latex]\Delta x=0[/latex]. Another way of looking at it is : if [latex]\Delta x=0[/latex] then [latex]\Delta t'=\gamma\Delta t[/latex] , so, in this PARTICULAR case, simultaneity is preserved across frames of reference.

Cannot be "still decelerating" because that would mean that the rate of expansion is diminishing which would mean that the cosmological redshift is diminishing which....is contradicted by astronomical observations. Cannot be "still" because it never was to begin with. .