# The MM experiment is wrong!

Very simple.
You have a lot of crap floating at around 0 speed into the ether.
So you can distinguish easily if it is you who is burning because of the crap or if it is the other spaceship who is burning because of his speed into the same crap.
By chance they both have a shield. Nobody is hurt.
And since we don't see that happening, the ether idea falls apart.

Oops, sorry.
You wanted some mathematical answer, so with some mathematical ether ?
Yes, in that case (same if you have some light in the ether or some particle in the ether) ether dont burn the photons or the particles that travel inside.
SR is a photon/particle theory (i have already said this) that travel in the "void" (dont say ether in this case because you would mean the solid ether of lorentz and it is not).
This is nonsense. There is no science here.

Very simple.
But a spaceship doesent travel where the light can : It is too big ! (I hope you at least agree with that...)
Are you twelve?

Stop this at once. This is a science forum.

Stop this at once. This is a science forum.

I would say the same for you.
Science is facts.
The facts are : Read again, i will not repeat.
Here, you are just talking mathematic things.
But... mathematic is not science (i hope you at least agree with that).

Very simple.
You have a lot of crap floating at around 0 speed into the ether.
So you can distinguish easily if it is you who is burning because of the crap or if it is the other spaceship who is burning because of his speed into the same crap.
That assumes the existence of an ether that interacts with the ships but there is exactly no evidence of any such thing like you are describing friction between the ships and the ether so orbits of planets would decay and we wouldn't have a solar system.
Oops, sorry.
You wanted some mathematical answer, so with some mathematical ether ?
Yes, in that case (same if you have some light in the ether or some particle in the ether) ether dont burn the photons or the particles that travel inside.
SR is a photon/particle theory (i have already said this) that travel in the "void" (dont say ether in this case because you would mean the solid ether of lorentz and it is not).
But a spaceship doesent travel where the light can : It is too big ! (I hope you at least agree with that...)
This is rubbish how can we see a spaceship if light doesn't travel where the spaceship is? And SR is a pure classical theory that has no photons or particles in it anywhere.

That assumes the existence of an ether that interacts with the ships but there is exactly no evidence of any such thing like you are describing friction between the ships and the ether so orbits of planets would decay and we wouldn't have a solar system.

You dident undestand.
I said : There is no interaction with the "void" (ship or photon or what you want).
BUT : There is an interaction with all the particles that are in this "nothing" (the void or how yo want to name it).
Therfore, the ship is TOO BIG to only travel in the void (like particles) and therefore WE CAN KNOW THE SPEED OF THE SPACESHIP because of the collision with the REAL PARTICLES.
This is REALITY, no mathematic here.

So what was your claim ?
A Gedankenexperiment ?
Yes, it is interresting, but try with something else (some particle, a photon, and not a whole spaceship, it is stupid).
And you will see that your conclusions will be ... different.

Last edited:
Very simple.
You have a lot of crap floating at around 0 speed into the ether.
What are you talking about? There's not a lot of crap floating around space. Even if there was this crap, it would be at zero speed compared to what?
So you can distinguish easily if it is you who is burning because of the crap or if it is the other spaceship who is burning because of his speed into the same crap.
That absolutely will not work. The reason it won't work is because this hypothetical crap could be the thing moving along with one of the ships, so as the high speed 'crap' and the ship (which have zero velocity between them) flies past the other ship, the other ship will be burned up by the crap hitting it.
There is NO WAY to determine which, or if both of the ships are 'really' moving, you can only say they are moving relative to something.

I'm afraid you will deliberately misunderstand this for I fear you are just taking the opposite position to troll.

WE CAN KNOW THE SPEED OF THE SPACESHIP
Ah the good old crank belief that writing something in capitals makes it true. It doesn't. You can measure the speed of the spaceship relative to some gas cloud or something sure but the gas cloud doesn't make an absolute rest frame you can just as well say the gas cloud is moving and the spaceship is stationary and your result will be the same. And if you aren't talking about a gas cloud what particles are you actually talking about?
This is REALITY, no mathematic here.
You are saying one spaceship will heat up so either you can measure that temperature and that measurement is predictable and there is a mathematical model you could use to predict this number or else you are saying that the result is unpredictable even in principle or you are saying that you can't measure temperature and both the second and third options are stupid. So just by making a prediction that one spaceship will heat up you are implying a mathematical model whether you like it or not.
So what was your claim ?
A Gedankenexperiment ?
Yes, it is interresting, but try with something else (some particle, a photon, and not whole spaceship, it is stupid).
You said your spaceship would heat up that means friction that means slowing down of orbits in vacuum and if you think that's stupid I agree but it's your model.

Last edited:
Please do not flame other members. Do not troll.
What are you talking about? There's not a lot of crap floating around space.

Seriously ?

Even if there was this crap, it would be at zero speed compared to what?

There is crap.
And now... why do this crap float around at the same speed ?
Because it is relativ to... the real crap in the universe we deal with every day.
But now... this crap is relativ to something more fundamental : The void.

That absolutely will not work. The reason it won't work is because this hypothetical crap could be the thing moving along with one of the ships, so as the high speed 'crap' and the ship (which have zero velocity between them) flies past the other ship, the other ship will be burned up by the crap hitting it.
There is NO WAY to determine which, or if both of the ships are 'really' moving, you can only say they are moving relative to something.
What a joke !
You are surely not a physicist.

I'm afraid you will deliberately misunderstand this for I fear you are just taking the opposite position to troll.

Surely.
Every time you can't understand something a 10 old child can understand, the one you can not understand is a Troll.
Haha funny guy.

Science is facts.
The facts are : Read again, i will not repeat.
You don't know facts from nonsense. Cut it out.

Ah the good old crank belief that writing something in capitals makes it true. It doesn't.

Ah the good old crank belief that writing something in capital is mean to make something true (is it some magical tougth ?)
No, the capital is intended to let peoples who dont understand focus on the things they should think of.
It is just a help (i could have used the bold, its the same).

You can measure the speed of the spaceship relative to some gas cloud or something sure but the gas cloud doesn't make an absolute rest frame you can just as well say the gas cloud is moving and the spaceship is stationary and your result will be the same. And if you aren't talking about a gas cloud what particles are you actually talking about?

So you are not aware that space is not empty ?
Very funny.
I want to see the first time a spaceship will try to reach some descent speed if you are the engineer (but it will surely never happen, go sleep).

You are saying one spaceship will heat up so either you can measure that temperature and that measurement is predictable and there is a mathematical model you could use to predict this number or else you are saying that the result is unpredictable even in principle or you are saying that you can't measure temperature and both the second and third options are stupid. So just by making a prediction that one spaceship will heat up you are implying a mathematical model whether you like it or not.

You know the standard density of the space so you can predict the heat...
It is not rocket science.

You said your spaceship would heat up that means friction that means slowing down of orbits in vacuum and if you think that's stupid I agree but it's your model.

There is no vacuum for a spaceship !!!!
It is too BIG !!!

Funny guy.

And now... why do this crap float around at the same speed ?
Since I have no idea what you seem to think this 'crap' is it is hard to say if or why it floats at the same speed.
But now... this crap is relativ to something more fundamental : The void
The speed relative to the void? What is the void? How fast is the earth moving relative to 'the void'?
You are surely not a physicist.
I don't know if you are really that ignorant of physics or you are just trolling. I'm leaning towards ignorant.
Every time you can't understand something a 10 old child can understand, the one you can not understand is a Troll.
I'm pretty sure I could explain to a 10 year old that velocity is always relative, you however, not so much.

I don't know if you are really that ignorant of physics or you are just trolling. I'm leaning towards ignorant.
I'm leaning towards trolling. It's hard to believe someone so ignorant of the basics would at the same time be so interested in it.

Since I have no idea what you seem to think this 'crap' is it is hard to say if or why it floats at the same speed.

Space dust !
You never heard about that ?
Space said:
Every year 5,200 tons (4,700 metric tons) of interplanetary dust particles reach the Earth's surface, a new study reports.
https://www.space.com/extraterrestrial-dust-falls-on-earth

And other crap.
Wikipedia said:
Outer space, commonly shortened to space, is the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies. Outer space is not completely empty—it is a near perfect vacuum[1] containing a low density of particles, predominantly a plasma of hydrogen and helium, as well as electromagnetic radiation, magnetic fields, neutrinos, dust, and cosmic rays. The baseline temperature of outer space, as set by the background radiation from the Big Bang, is 2.7 kelvins (−270.45 °C; −454.81 °F).[2] The plasma between galaxies is thought to account for about half of the baryonic (ordinary) matter in the universe, having a number density of less than one hydrogen atom per cubic metre and a temperature of millions of kelvins.[3] Local concentrations of matter have condensed into stars and galaxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

The speed relative to the void? What is the void? How fast is the earth moving relative to 'the void'?

The void is not empty.
The void is not noything.
We call it also "the vacuum".
Did no one ever explain this to you ?

Wikipedia said:
A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. The word is derived from the Latin adjective vacuus for "vacant" or "void". An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call "vacuum" or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. In engineering and applied physics on the other hand, vacuum refers to any space in which the pressure is considerably lower than atmospheric pressure.[2] The Latin term in vacuo is used to describe an object that is surrounded by a vacuum.
...
Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.[5]

Stars, planets, and moons keep their atmospheres by gravitational attraction, and as such, atmospheres have no clearly delineated boundary: the density of atmospheric gas simply decreases with distance from the object. The Earth's atmospheric pressure drops to about 32 millipascals (4.6×10−6 psi) at 100 kilometres (62 mi) of altitude,[36] the Kármán line, which is a common definition of the boundary with outer space. Beyond this line, isotropic gas pressure rapidly becomes insignificant when compared to radiation pressure from the Sun and the dynamic pressure of the solar winds, so the definition of pressure becomes difficult to interpret. The thermosphere in this range has large gradients of pressure, temperature and composition, and varies greatly due to space weather. Astrophysicists prefer to use number density to describe these environments, in units of particles per cubic centimetre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

I don't know if you are really that ignorant of physics or you are just trolling. I'm leaning towards ignorant.

No i am not ignorant.

I'm pretty sure I could explain to a 10 year old that velocity is always relative, you however, not so much.

Haha, always using mathematic ? Good luck.
If you dont even understand that the relatvity of velocity only apply to the "mathematical ether" (it is like a perfect "void" (who CANT EXIST REALLY AT MACROSCOPIC SCALE), or the void where the photons and other particules travel in) and this is why it apply well (SR is fine if you understand the domain of application (and you dont understand it obviously)).

origin said:
Even if there was this crap, it would be at zero speed compared to what?

Not at zero !
Around zero, and zero would be the ground state of the vaccum.
Now, you would say ohhh thats total nonsense this is not what SR say....speed can not be relativ to the vaccuum or the void.
Yes, you got it ! I repeat. SR is a mathematical representation, and it works good if you apply it to things that dont care about the void.

Did you never noticed that the particules that can be produced by the vaccum (like some pair of particles) have a speed around this "0" ?
They have not -infinite to +infinite speed, like they should have if they would be no relativ to anything.
Therefore, in a real world : There is a void, and the void is not nothing (it is extremly dense), and what is in the void, the crap, you, has "a speed" relativ to the void.
Now... this is not a speed in fact, it is a relation in term of energy. And the energy permit you to define the speed.
There is no speed at all...

I'm leaning towards trolling. It's hard to believe someone so ignorant of the basics would at the same time be so interested in it.

I'm going to go with an alarmingly strong Dunning-Kruger effect, along with being either young and high, or old and demented.

I'm going to go with an alarmingly strong Dunning-Kruger effect, along with being either young and high, or old and demented.
I was willing to grant that too, until he started directly contradicting his own claims:
He claimed physicists don't know how antimatter reacts to gravity, until, when it was pointed out the experiment, he said he'd read about that, and claimed that physicists do know.

That means even he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about. So, not DKE, it's knowledge aforethought.

I was willing to grant that too, until he started directly contradicting his own claims:
He claimed physicists don't know how antimatter reacts to gravity, until, when it was pointed out the experiment, he said he'd read about that, and claimed that physicists do know.

That means even he knows he doesn't know what he's talking about. So, not DKE, it's knowledge aforethought.
But he could still be a nutcase.

Whatever he is, I decided a while ago his contributions are not worth reading or responding to. He may go away if we all ignore him long enough.

I was willing to grant that too, until he started directly contradicting his own claims:
He claimed physicists don't know how antimatter reacts to gravity, until, when it was pointed out the experiment, he said he'd read about that, and claimed that physicists do know.
You are a very funny guy...

You : Chef, we have finished the experience :
+ and +
+ and -
Now we know how antimater react !

Chef : You donut !
You are not even capable of doing the association of two states !!! A 8 year old child can do better than you !
Let finish the experience with - and -

You : Oh shit, how can we do ?
Where will we find some antimatter planet ?

Haha, very funny guy.

Sure you are a nice Dunning-Kruger specimen.

Last edited:
But he could still be a nutcase.

Whatever he is, I decided a while ago his contributions are not worth reading or responding to. He may go away if we all ignore him long enough.
DiCart? I decided to read Ignored Posts a day or two ago and I was reminded why I put him/her on ignore.

Whatever he is, I decided a while ago his contributions are not worth reading or responding to. He may go away if we all ignore him long enough.
I agree, ignore the troll (he is not even a very entertaining troll).

Space dust !
You never heard about that ?
I know I shouldn't respond, but...
Oh, you mean that material that hits the earths atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour, is that the 'crap' that has 'about zero' velocity. That doesn't make very much sense now does it?