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: harald on 1 May 2010 20:03 On May 1, 9:57 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 9:26 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 4:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a null result for the > > > > > > MMX. Look in any SR textbook. > > > > > > > Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is > > > > > > isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its > > > > > > center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position > > > > > > of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe > > > > > > shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the > > > > > > non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly > > > > > > smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to date. > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > If light is always isotropic then what is the basis for the roots (1 - > > > > > v/c) & (1 + (v/c) in (1 - [v/c]^2)? > > > > > > In Lorentz's version it's logically explained, and how it works but > > > > > light isn't isotropic c. BUT!... you can pretend it is by using > > > > > Einstein's clock synchronization definition and the inherent symmetry > > > > > of the contraction. > > > > > > However, if you 'assume' this the form of the Lorentz transform is > > > > > just PFA a fudge that just happens to have an asymmetry for its > > > > > roots. > > > > > Oh good heavens, Paul, are you serious? > > > > If you see a term in an expression that can be written (1-v/c) or (1+v/ > > > > c), this means to you that anisotropy of the speed of light must be > > > > implied by the theory? Even if the derivation DIRECTLY STEMS from an > > > > assumption of the isotropy of the speed of light? You don't see a > > > > problem with that kind of analysis??? > > > > So, there's a conflict between the 'assumption' and mathematical > > > form. I'll take the math over 'assumption' every time. Especially > > > given that in Poincare/Lorentz version of the derivation it has > > > logical, derivable, basis. As, you should be aware, that basis isn't > > > isotropy of light speed. > > > > Paul Stowe > > > Paul, this started apparently with a misunderstanding by Tom Roberts > > of what DDRR meant; and he insisted in keeping that misunderstanding > > (as MMX is repeated at different times of the year, at least at some > > times the interferometer has a speed v relative to the chosen frame > > and the arms are then *not* identical in the sense that one is shorter > > than the other). > > Not sure what you mean here since material systems consist of a stable > equilibrium lattice of interlocked EM fields those fields will always > be asymmeterical because nothing we can access is actually 'at rest'. > The problem isn't that because this causes every fiber of every > substance to 'be shorter' or not identical in the direction of > motion. No, I just reminded you of what the OP discusses while both of you apparently forgot what the discussion was about... > > Next you added to the confusion by simply talking about "isotropy" of > > the speed light, while you probably (and as I now see, certainly) mean > > that the one-way closing speed of light is anisotropic.) > > No, I mean that, > > c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 In SRT there is only c... c is a vacuum constant, it's not affected by motion. Anyway I cannot understand your claims differently than as relating to the speed of light *relative* to a moving object - the one- way closing speed. For that is what Einstein discussed in his derivation and what you cited as "anisotropic", while you omitted relative to what. > and given v is along the x axis, the magnitude of v at any angle t > (v') relative to t = 0 in the direction of motion is > > v' = v Cos t I'm lost... > Thus the above equation for any arbitrary plane is, > > c' = c[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > > What happens as a result of this physical fact is, that to remain > internally consistent, all fields take a form consistent to this, > a.k.a., the Lorentz contraction. Since c is, by definition, dx/dt > light speed is alway dx'/dt' or, > > dx[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > -------------------- > dt[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > > which, in turn, make c 'appear' invariant since clearly the distortion > factors cancel each other out. At least you managed to come back to the topic of this thread - indeed no measurement of V-light = c at speed v without "distortion". > HOWEVER! > the mathematical roots of what is actually happening is rather > apparent & obvious if you examine the process. > > > Usually people > > talk in this context about the operational two-way speed of light, > > which is supposed to remain isotropic. > > And that is again different from what is meant in a general > > discussion: > > Lorentz and Einstein based their derivations on the assumption of an > > isotropic, constant speed of light in whatever "rest" system; that > > stemmed logically from Maxwell's theory and Einstein turned it into a > > postulate. > > While Einstein apparently came to realize this many still do not. It is hopefully going to improve as a few papers were published (for example in the AJP) to correct misunderstandings ("myths") on that issue. > So, while OWLS is actually anisotropic and experiments like Roland > DeWitte's clearly showed this, one can come up with a defined system > of measure that can define this away. Lorentz showed how in 1904, > nearly a year earlier than Einstein. What's the really sad part of > this? That rational people will accept logical inconsistencies, like > actually believing that c can actually be isotropic in differently > moving systems at the very same time and also be a gobally invariant > value which is independent of emission speed. Hell, at least the > ballistic advocates understand that both can't be true simulatneously. > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe I wonder if people don't understand that it's inconsistent to state that something is really at rest at speed v. ;-) Regards, Harald
From: Androcles on 1 May 2010 20:06 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:83de3988-90af-4bdd-ad35-cee5d3456bb6(a)l32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On May 1, 9:57 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 9:26 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 4:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a > > > > > > null result for the > > > > > > MMX. Look in any SR textbook. > > > > > > > Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is > > > > > > isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its > > > > > > center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position > > > > > > of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe > > > > > > shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the > > > > > > non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly > > > > > > smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to > > > > > > date. > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > If light is always isotropic then what is the basis for the roots > > > > > (1 - > > > > > v/c) & (1 + (v/c) in (1 - [v/c]^2)? > > > > > > In Lorentz's version it's logically explained, and how it works > > > > > but > > > > > light isn't isotropic c. BUT!... you can pretend it is by using > > > > > Einstein's clock synchronization definition and the inherent > > > > > symmetry > > > > > of the contraction. > > > > > > However, if you 'assume' this the form of the Lorentz transform is > > > > > just PFA a fudge that just happens to have an asymmetry for its > > > > > roots. > > > > > Oh good heavens, Paul, are you serious? > > > > If you see a term in an expression that can be written (1-v/c) or > > > > (1+v/ > > > > c), this means to you that anisotropy of the speed of light must be > > > > implied by the theory? Even if the derivation DIRECTLY STEMS from an > > > > assumption of the isotropy of the speed of light? You don't see a > > > > problem with that kind of analysis??? > > > > So, there's a conflict between the 'assumption' and mathematical > > > form. I'll take the math over 'assumption' every time. Especially > > > given that in Poincare/Lorentz version of the derivation it has > > > logical, derivable, basis. As, you should be aware, that basis isn't > > > isotropy of light speed. > > > > Paul Stowe > > > Paul, this started apparently with a misunderstanding by Tom Roberts > > of what DDRR meant; and he insisted in keeping that misunderstanding > > (as MMX is repeated at different times of the year, at least at some > > times the interferometer has a speed v relative to the chosen frame > > and the arms are then *not* identical in the sense that one is shorter > > than the other). > > Not sure what you mean here since material systems consist of a stable > equilibrium lattice of interlocked EM fields those fields will always > be asymmeterical because nothing we can access is actually 'at rest'. > The problem isn't that because this causes every fiber of every > substance to 'be shorter' or not identical in the direction of > motion. No, I just reminded you of what the OP discusses while both of you apparently forgot what the discussion was about... > > Next you added to the confusion by simply talking about "isotropy" of > > the speed light, while you probably (and as I now see, certainly) mean > > that the one-way closing speed of light is anisotropic.) > > No, I mean that, > > c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 In SRT there is only c... ================================================= Bullshit, in SRT there is a universal frame. "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' "Let us in ``stationary'' space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. " You are lying, there is much more than c.
From: Paul Stowe on 1 May 2010 20:20 On May 1, 3:21 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > On May 1, 11:56 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Yes, but Einstein used the phrase "rest system" merely as a means of > >> distinguishing this frame from others, and ANY inertial frame can be used as his > >> "rest system". This differs from Maxwell and Lorentz, for whom "rest system" > >> implicitly means the ether frame of their respective theories. The difference is > >> essential, and profound. > > > Essential yes, as it is to Einstein's work but, in what way practical > > way is it profound to Lorentz's version? > > Look right up there, my last sentence quoted: I said "The DIFFERENCE is > essential, and profound [emphasis added]." You need to READ MORE CAREFULLY, > because as I said, it is the DIFFERENCE that is profound -- thus it is not > "profound to Lorentz's version", but rather what is profound is the COMPARISON > between Einstein and Maxwell & Lorentz, and how they use similar phrases in VERY > DIFFERENT WAYS. Not only did you miss my meaning completely, you also show that > you failed to understand this difference in the original authors' words and > approach. > > Ask yourself whether it really makes sense for you to try to > discuss complicated and subtle theories, when you repeatedly > make such elementary mistakes in reading. AFAICT most if not > all of your questions and confusions around here are due to > such simple mistakes in reading (both of original books and > papers, and of posts around here). It seems to me that much of > what you think you know about relativity is just plain wrong. > Unlike many around here, you seem to make an honest effort, > but that is not sufficient -- you must learn how to make an > ACCURATE effort. > > Tom Roberts No Tom, I did not misunderstand so, let me make myself more clear. The only difference between Lorentz/Poincare's version and Einstein's is that there IS a aether that regulates and causes the existence and properties of both relativity and give light speed its characteristics. What Einstein took for 'granted' they simply understood was already quantified by the then existing aether model. Such as, finite velocity of light, source independence, Doppler shifts, ... etc. There IS! nothing essential to Einstein's version or profoundly difference. Lorentz in 1904 already showed that only the delta change in velocity was necessary to computations and that, by the way we define speed c would be measured as the same value and that this fact caused local observers to experience 'local time'. The length contraction was already well understood so NO! in any practical sense there is nothing essential or profound in Einstein's metaphysical interpretation. The fact that there is nothing mathematically different and that both Lorentz and Poincare had priority in publishing all the 'essential' elements of Relativity prior to Einstein and that Lorentz's definition of 'local frame' matches Einstein's definition of 'rest frame' suggest that there is NO! practical difference either. So, again, what is 'profoundly' different? That there is an aether underpinning Lorentz's model? Well by 1920 Einstein had come to the same conclusion on that too... Paul Stowe
From: Dono. on 1 May 2010 20:28 On May 1, 12:57 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, I mean that, > > c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 > You are still an old idiot, Paulie. Light speed does not beahve as in your above delusions. > and given v is along the x axis, the magnitude of v at any angle t > (v') relative to t = 0 in the direction of motion is > > v' = v Cos t > > Thus the above equation for any arbitrary plane is, > > c' = c[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > Still wrong , old fart. You are devolving into Marcel Luttgens. > What happens as a result of this physical fact is, that to remain > internally consistent, all fields take a form consistent to this, > a.k.a., the Lorentz contraction. Since c is, by definition, dx/dt > light speed is alway dx'/dt' or, > > dx[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > -------------------- > dt[Sqrt(1 - [v'/c]^2)] > :lol: > While Einstein apparently came to realize this many still do not. So, > while OWLS is actually anisotropic Experiment says that you are wrong, old fart: * Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. * Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731â734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. * Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255. Uses a rotating M�ssbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. * Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. Uses a rotating source and fixed M�ssbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s. * Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767. A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR. * T.W. Cole, âAstronomical Tests for the Presence of an Etherâ, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P. Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an �ther are described. No �ther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s. * Ragulsky, âDetermination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagationâ, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. A âone-wayâ test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s. > and experiments like Roland DeWitte's clearly showed this, The "Roland De Witte experiment" could not be duplicated, meaning that the guy fudged the data.
From: Tom Roberts on 2 May 2010 01:00
harald wrote: > On May 1, 8:56 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> all you need to do is LOOK at the MMX apparatus -- the two arms are indeed >> identical in the sense that they have the same length. As I have stated before, >> and is implicit in what we mean by "identical", the comparison is performed in >> the rest frame of the arms. > > As I stated before, the essence of the MMX was that the test must be > done at different times of the year, in order to guarantee at least > some of the time a significant velocity v, according to stationary > ether theory. Looking back at it through SRT that translates to at > least some of the time a significant velocity v relative to the frame > of choice (usually the solar frame, but any inertial frame will do). In SR you can select ANY inertial frame. There is no need to select one frame and use it throughout the year. As I said, it is simplest to select the rest frame of the instrument for any given measurement; that is necessarily a different frame for each measurement. But still, the prediction of a null result FOR EACH MEASUREMENT is clear and obvious. If each measurement is null, that applies for measurements done at different times of the year. > Again, it's an essential aspect of MMX that it works in different > seasons; if you were right then the Earth would be always considered > to be "in rest" so that stellar aberration would be zero! That is not essential to the MMX at all, because if the motion of the instrument relative to the ether cannot be measured at any time of the year, time of year is irrelevant. Yes it is essential for stellar aberration -- it is the non-inertial nature of earth's orbit that gives rise to stellar aberration (or rather to its measurability). Tom Roberts |