LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

Instead of relative motion you plead a motion for relativity. LOL

FOR?

How did you percieve that? I'm really courious

Sorry, just a play on words on the court theme. Your points are serious though and I am digesting them. I still subscribe to the notion that relativity observations are due to experimental error. MV

mark,

I lean more toward the mis-interpretation of experimental results.

The failure of the Michelson-Morley Inferometer infers that light maintains a constant velocity regardless of observer motion. That was the emputus for the development of the concept of relativity.

Relativity thereafter attempts to force reality to fit the observed paradox of light.

My thoughts are that light is a function of perhaps an energy trigger along the Chiral Condensate (Virtual Particles) such that the motion of an observer has an addative or subtractive energy component to the medium which causes the light to trigger which moves the percieved light to keep it occurring at the specific cummulative energy value.

That is you are not seeing the same photon but photons being generated as a function of energy which includes observer velocity.

With that being the case there then is no paradox and no emputus to have Relativity which speaks with forked tounge and leads to nowhere.

Stated more simply Relativity is based on a "Perception", an "Illusion" and not reality.

This trigger would function something simular to the quantasized energy steps for electrons to jump orbit and release photons equal to the energy differential between orbits.

And I think that means that we should be able to design a test to look for such quantum jumps in the velocity of light paradox. If on a microscopic scale light velocity varies but then jumps back into sync then this concept could be proven.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
mark,

I lean more toward the mis-interpretation of experimental results.

The failure of the Michelson-Morley Inferometer infers that light maintains a constant velocity regardless of observer motion. That was the emputus for the development of the concept of relativity.

Relativity thereafter attempts to force reality to fit the observed paradox of light.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think the null result of the MMX rather infers that light is not constant for a particular inertial frame since the perpendicular
beams traveled different lengths. SR cannot even be used to interpret
the result of this Xperiment due to the fact that the beams underwent
acceleration.

123...,

If I understand your post, I think you are in agreement. Relativity is based upon mis-intrepretation of the null result.