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: funkenstein on 22 Apr 2010 05:53 On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > > following two facts: > > Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. > > But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light (Maxwell's > theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory known > as "classical electrodynamics" today). > > > (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) > > You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify your > theoretical context. > > In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only one > inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell presented > his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your (i-ii) > hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the aether > frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be > anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day and the > year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus determine > the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously orbits the > sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. > > Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That implies that > your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. > > > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; > > This is a GREAT oversimplification. > > > therefore, > > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > > things must change. > > Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration, but > did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a null > result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in any way. > > > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > > But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was > specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. > > > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > > different. > > But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. Relativity does > not conform to your math or your logic. > > > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > > the legs different. > > No. 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. 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. 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. Cheers -
From: harald on 22 Apr 2010 09:05 On Apr 22, 11:53 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > > > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > > > following two facts: > > > Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. > > > But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light (Maxwell's > > theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory known > > as "classical electrodynamics" today). > > > > (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) > > > You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify your > > theoretical context. > > > In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only one > > inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell presented > > his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your (i-ii) > > hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the aether > > frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be > > anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day and the > > year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus determine > > the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously orbits the > > sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. > > > Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That implies that > > your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. > > > > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > > > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; > > > This is a GREAT oversimplification. > > > > therefore, > > > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > > > things must change. > > > Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration, but > > did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a null > > result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in any way. > > > > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > > > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > > > But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was > > specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. > > > > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > > > different. > > > But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. Relativity does > > not conform to your math or your logic. > > > > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > > > the legs different. > > > No. 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. > > 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. That is correct: with identically constructed legs, only in a conveniently chosen reference system the legs will be (for a short time!) the same length while in an infinite number of reference systems this will not be the case. > 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. Right - and that is exactly what experimentalists such as Kennedy and Thorndike explained. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v42/i3/p400_1 Cheers, Harald
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 Apr 2010 17:35 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:53:51 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 20, 7:43�pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> >> > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the >> > following two facts: >> >> Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. >> >> But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light (Maxwell's >> theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory known >> as "classical electrodynamics" today). >> >> > (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) >> >> You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify your >> theoretical context. >> >> In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only one >> inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell presented >> his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your (i-ii) >> hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the aether >> frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be >> anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day and the >> year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus determine >> the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously orbits the >> sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. >> >> Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That implies that >> your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. >> >> > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, >> > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; >> >> This is a GREAT oversimplification. >> >> > therefore, >> > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two >> > things must change. >> >> Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration, but >> did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a null >> result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in any way. >> >> > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; >> > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. >> >> But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was >> specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. >> >> > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs >> > different. >> >> But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. Relativity does >> not conform to your math or your logic. >> >> > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making >> > the legs different. >> >> No. 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. > >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. > >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. There is no aether. Thereare no LTs. SR is bullshit from start tom finish. Light is ballistic like everything else. The MMX was always destined to produce a null result for that reason. >Cheers - Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 27 Apr 2010 18:38 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] Who are you targeting this nonsense to, at this point? Nobody takes you seriously, and haven't for a very long time. Can you tell me the difference between you spewing for another decade, and you writing your blather on toilet paper and flushing it?
From: Inertial on 27 Apr 2010 19:41
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:p1met55criaeh7ou4h1244mle16g95cvan(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:53:51 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein > <luke.saul(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >>> >>> > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the >>> > following two facts: >>> >>> Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. >>> >>> But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light >>> (Maxwell's >>> theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory >>> known >>> as "classical electrodynamics" today). >>> >>> > (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) >>> >>> You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify >>> your >>> theoretical context. >>> >>> In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only >>> one >>> inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell >>> presented >>> his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your >>> (i-ii) >>> hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the >>> aether >>> frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be >>> anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day >>> and the >>> year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus >>> determine >>> the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously >>> orbits the >>> sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. >>> >>> Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That >>> implies that >>> your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. >>> >>> > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, >>> > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; >>> >>> This is a GREAT oversimplification. >>> >>> > therefore, >>> > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two >>> > things must change. >>> >>> Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive >>> enumeration, but >>> did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a >>> null >>> result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in >>> any way. >>> >>> > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; >>> > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. >>> >>> But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it >>> was >>> specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. >>> >>> > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs >>> > different. >>> >>> But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. >>> Relativity does >>> not conform to your math or your logic. >>> >>> > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making >>> > the legs different. >>> >>> No. 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. >> >>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. >> >>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. > > There is no aether. Thereare no LTs. SR is bullshit from start tom finish. > Light is ballistic like everything else. Shame that experiment proves it isn't > The MMX was always destined to produce a null result for that reason. MMX says nothing about whether or not light is ballistic. Other experiments prove it isn't. Very simple |