madmac Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Thales et al asks -- what is being claimed in this experiment.(???) TIME AND THE METAPHYSICS OF RELATIVITY -- WILLIAM LANE CRAIG -- 2001. Craig says.......... ...............Ives & Stilwell were themselves neo-Lorentzians & so interpreted their results as a vindication of clock retardation for inertial frames in motion relative to the aether frame. "The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that the change of frequency of a moving light source predicted by the Larmor-Lorentz theory is verified," they concluded. Einsteinian relativists point out, however, that the results can be equally interpreted as a verification of the Einsteinian interpretation of Special Relativity.......... Prof Reg Cahill shows that Ives & Stilwell were correct -- Einsteinians wrong -- the results do not equally verify Einstein. Simply google -- cahill ives stilwell. A wonderful paper by perhaps the most important scientist alive. Edited March 21, 2017 by madmac -2
zztop Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Thales et al asks -- what is being claimed in this experiment.(???) TIME AND THE METAPHYSICS OF RELATIVITY -- WILLIAM LANE CRAIG -- 2001. Craig says.......... ...............Ives & Stilwell were themselves neo-Lorentzians & so interpreted their results as a vindication of clock retardation for inertial frames in motion relative to the aether frame. "The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that the change of frequency of a moving light source predicted by the Larmor-Lorentz theory is verified," they concluded. Einsteinian relativists point out, however, that the results can be equally interpreted as a verification of the Einsteinian interpretation of Special Relativity.......... Prof Reg Cahill shows that Ives & Stilwell were correct -- Einsteinians wrong -- the results do not equally verify Einstein. Simply google -- cahill ives stilwell. A wonderful paper by perhaps the most important scientist alive. Cahill is a crank. Stop rubbishing the forum with your own crankreries.
madmac Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) zztop. Thales et al had trouble finding original info on Ives & Stilwell. So did i. Wiki stuff is Einsteinian propaganda, & heavily censored. If Ives & Stilwell were fully anointed & baptised apostles of Einstein, & if their experiment was a heavenly example of the truth of the SR, then why cant we find any of the original Gospel according to Ives & Stilwell? All we see is propaganda. Einsteinians have even used Ives & Stilwell to "prove" Einstein's transverse Doppler. I would love to see some or all of Ives & Stilwell's original paper. What was their intention -- theory & equations -- test results (in full) -- conclusions (as Thales et al says -- what were their claims). Also, any info on Ives or Stilwell in the wake of their experiment. Any history re papers leading up to or following the experiment, & how it all influenced their professional lives. If u google wiki for -- Herbert E Ives -- u will see some breathtakingly disgusting Einsteinian propaganda twisting Ives' beliefs. Edited March 22, 2017 by madmac -3
zztop Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 zztop. Thales et al had trouble finding original info on Ives & Stilwell. So did i. Wiki stuff is Einsteinian propaganda, & heavily censored. If Ives & Stilwell were fully anointed & baptised apostles of Einstein, & if their experiment was a heavenly example of the truth of the SR, then why cant we find any of the original Gospel according to Ives & Stilwell? All we see is propaganda. Einsteinians have even used Ives & Stilwell to "prove" Einstein's transverse Doppler. I would love to see some or all of Ives & Stilwell's original paper. What was their intention -- theory & equations -- test results (in full) -- conclusions (as Thales et al says -- what were their claims). Also, any info on Ives or Stilwell in the wake of their experiment. Any history re papers leading up to or following the experiment, & how it all influenced their professional lives. If u google wiki for -- Herbert E Ives -- u will see some breathtakingly disgusting Einsteinian propaganda twisting Ives' beliefs. Here is the copy of the paper, contrary to your claims it is readily available. You need to stop spewing crankeries. 2
madmac Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 zztop. Thanx very much for that, I also found a free read only copy on MyJSTOR of a book by Roberto Lalli -- Anti-Relativity In Action: The Scientific Activity of Herbert E Ives between 1937 and 1953. Which looks to answer my other wish re history papers in the wake of the experiment. These will take me a few days to digest. Thanx again.
imatfaal Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 ! Moderator Note madmac If you have a problem with mainstream physics then the debate belongs in the speculations forum - however you will be asked to defend your assertions. If you post such nonsense in the main fora you will be sanctioned. Do not reply to this moderation in the thread. You can report this message if you feel it is not fair.
Tim88 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Here is the copy of the paper, contrary to your claims it is readily available. You need to stop spewing crankeries. Readily available indeed - did you notice from where you linked that paper?
zztop Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 Readily available indeed - did you notice from where you linked that paper? Yes, I did.
Bjarne Posted January 20, 2018 Posted January 20, 2018 Do anybody know How fast i the ion moving ? And are there similar and more precise devices nowadays ?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now