"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in
message news:<bcrtho$fl5$1@dolly.uninett.no>...
> "Marcel Luttgens" <muttgens@wanadoo.fr> skrev i
melding news:b45b8808.0306180244.1ace50a1@posting.google.com...
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hia.no> wrote in
message news:<bbq7mq$ir8$1@dolly.uninett.no>...
> 
> No, I didn't write anything of the following.
> 
> > It is useless to discuss ad nauseum about the validity of SR.
> > Only the results of a well chosen experiment could convince
> > the participants on this NG.
> 
> Well said.
> 
> > ' A very simple and cheap experiment using an interferometer
> > ' could confirm or disprove the Lorentz/Einstein hypothesis
> > ' of length contraction in the ratio sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> > ' Instead of travelling through air, the light beam would
> > ' get through a medium with higher refractive index, for
> > ' instance window glass with n = 1.5. Then, light would
> > ' travel at V = 2/3 c along the inteferometer's arms, instead
> > ' of at c.
> 
> [Snip Marcel's wrong derivation of what SR predicts
>   for the experiment. SR obviously predicts null fringe shifts.
>  Marcel's error is so obvious that I don't find it necessary
>  to point it out. Anybody but Marcel will see it, and Marcel
>  isn't amendable to reason anyway.]

Where did I derive what SR predicts?
I only used a Galilean analysis!

> 
> But the following  is a real gem!
> 
> > ' If such experiment is negative, one has to conclude that
> > ' the parallel arm underwent a contraction in the ratio
> > ' sqrt(1-v^2/V^2), which disproves the Lorentz/Einstein
> > ' hypothesis of a contraction by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> > ' If the experiment is positive, in other words, if a fringe shift
> > ' is observed, one has to conclude that motion through ether
> > ' can be detected, which falsifies SR.
> 
> The experiment will falsify SR regardless of its results!

Exactly, SR is just a big hoax!

> 
> Congratulation, Marcel.
> You did it again! :-)
> 
> Paul

Marcel Luttgens