How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 17:49 On Apr 19, 3:28 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > > > following two facts: > > > > (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due to its source > > > independency) > > > (ii) the value of this speed is known to be c (from Maxwell's > > > equations) > > > First of all, this is an erroneous statement of historical fact. The > > MMX was performed almost 20 years before those two statements above > > were written down. And in fact, the MMX experimental design was based > > on those two statements being WRONG. That is, the MMX was designed to > > detect the *dependence* of the speed of light on the apparatus's > > motion through the ether. > > > There were several candidate ideas for why, despite being designed to > > measure this dependence, none was found. > > > The rest of your "analysis" below hinges on this error and therefore > > needs to be chucked wholesale. > > > You may start over and try again. > > Can we please have someone who is competent reply? > (For example, someone who knows that Maxwell preceded > the MMx -- Maxwell 1865 -- MMx 1887) Maxwell did not make the statements above, although someone well after 1887 or 1865 did make the leap that Maxwell's equations should be frame-dependent. I don't think you should conclude that if someone makes conclusions in year Y based on equations formulated in year X, then the conclusions were in fact made in year X. Furthermore, you'll note once again that Michelson and Morley designed their experiment to look for motion through the aether. This fact is not changed by Maxwell's equations suggesting a different account.
From: dlzc on 19 Apr 2010 17:58 Dear Da Do Ron Ron: On Apr 19, 1:28 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment > > > (MMx) was based on the following two facts: > > > > (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due > > > to its source independency) > > > (ii) the value of this speed is known to be > > > c (from Maxwell's equations) Actually, it is known to be *constant* from Maxwell's equations. The value of that constant is left to experiment to determine. > > First of all, this is an erroneous statement > > of historical fact. The MMX was performed almost > > 20 years before those two statements above > > were written down. And in fact, the MMX > > experimental design was based on those two > > statements being WRONG. That is, the MMX was > > designed to detect the *dependence* of the > > speed of light on the apparatus's motion > > through the ether. > > > There were several candidate ideas for why, > > despite being designed to measure this > > dependence, none was found. > > > The rest of your "analysis" below hinges on > > this error and therefore needs to be chucked > > wholesale. > > > You may start over and try again. > > Can we please have someone who is competent reply? > (For example, someone who knows that Maxwell preceded > the MMx -- Maxwell 1865 -- MMx 1887) Mr. Draper has read what they wrote. Their experimental results are available a few places. Have you read them, or have you dug them up and reanimated them, so that you know better what they thought? David A. Smith
From: Paul B. Andersen on 20 Apr 2010 15:39 On 20.04.2010 19:46, Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > On Apr 20, 12:17 pm, harald<h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Apr 19, 7:59 pm, Da Do Ron Ron<ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > snip >>> The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both >>> legs. >> >> There were still too many alternative explanations possible to call >> that a proof; but it surely was a plausible hypothesis. More >> sophisticated experiments such as by Kennedy-Thorndike and experiments >> with clocks provided a better case for such an assertion. >> >> Regards, >> Harald > > Looks like my "needless" repetition did not work after all, huh? > > You cannot show the MMx null result on paper without showing > different length legs. Can you not see that this is a proof? Why do you need different length of the legs? Given the following two facts: (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due to its source independency) (ii) the value of this speed is known to be c (from Maxwell's equations) Which means that the speed of light is isotropic. So the length of the arms must be exactly the same for the transit times to be equal along both arms. BTW, Have you got your method for absolute synchronization of clocks patented yet, Brian? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: BURT on 20 Apr 2010 16:47 On Apr 19, 10:59 am, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > following two facts: > > (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due to its source > independency) > (ii) the value of this speed is known to be c (from Maxwell's > equations) > > Given these simple facts, the time t along the horizontal leg must be > t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time t' must be > t' = (2L/c)(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), a time that is shorter than t. (v is > of > course Earth's unknown speed in space, which cannot be zero except > for a brief period each year). > > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > viz., > (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; therefore, > in > order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > things > must change. > > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > thus, > something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > different. > > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > the legs different. > > This cannot be done by some outside observer viewing the legs; it can > only be done by a physical change of leg length(s). > > The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both > legs. > > ~~RA~~ To what degree of accuracy can we measure the speed of light? And would we know? Mitch Raemsch
From: Tom Roberts on 22 Apr 2010 11:43
funkenstein wrote: > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs must >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. > > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the > apparatus. Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length in the rest frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical legs", which inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same frame. > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to > consider the heliocentric rest frame. > > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict > the null result. Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" are mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is measured to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs themselves, which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the relationship here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in this frame, not the legs themselves. > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length > contraction is required to predict the null result. "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full Lorentz transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light pulse, the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except in the rest frame of the apparatus). OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. Tom Roberts |