Re: QM support for a preferred frame

On Jul 1, 9:57 am, Surfer <sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:25:06 -0700, Dono <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

... SR predicts a null result.

SR is not a quantum theory.


Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
has nothing to do with any quantum theory.



Given that optical interference is a quantum phenomenon, we should not
expect MM experiments to necessarily support SR predictions.

-- Surfer


But MMX results (when the experiments are not executed by crackpots
like Cahill, DeWitte) CONFIRM the SR results exactly. A couple of
posts ago you were saying that Cahill does not disagree with SR (he
just doesn't know how to apply it), so now you are contradicting
yourself. You are getting tangled in your own lies.
The fringe displacement effect is not a quantic effect, it is a
classical effect. As such, for the last 130 years since MM, the
fringe displacement has been calculated with classical methods. We are
not taking about the exat mechanics of how fringes are being creaded,
we are talking about how they move around. You must be getting really
desperate.....



.

Quantcast