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 5 May 2010 02:20 On May 5, 12:51 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:e74170c7-7abf-4d1f-b2d9-c7c15ff109b1(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > [snip] > > > No, that is definitely NOT the topic of this thread... > > What IS the topic? Why does anyone think that the MMX math needs to be > corrected? In what was is it incorrect? > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- If you read the first post of this thread (use Googlegroups), you'll see that the OP means that the MMX math predicted that absolute speed could be detected by rotating an interferometer at different times of the year. He asserts that when drawing the MMX null result (of a moving interferometer relative to space) on paper, "it can only be done by a physical change of leg length(s)." Regards, Harald
From: whoever on 5 May 2010 02:49 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:dbdc2327-6bec-450c-a46d-c27f1cc7ecc7(a)p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On May 5, 12:51 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message >> >> news:e74170c7-7abf-4d1f-b2d9-c7c15ff109b1(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> [snip] >> >> > No, that is definitely NOT the topic of this thread... >> >> What IS the topic? Why does anyone think that the MMX math needs to be >> corrected? In what was is it incorrect? >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > If you read the first post of this thread (use Googlegroups), you'll > see that the OP means that the MMX math predicted that absolute speed > could be detected by rotating an interferometer at different times of > the year. Which MMX math is it. MMX isn't a theory. The math that described it depends on which theory you are using to analyse it. If you assume SR or LET, then you cannot determine the speed > He asserts that when drawing the MMX null result (of a moving > interferometer relative to space) on paper, "it can only be done by a > physical change of leg length(s)." That's just nonsense .. there is no change in lengths. Unless you talk about the measured lengths from some supposed unknown aether frame . If you assume SR, then there is no such aether frame, and so no absolute speed to measure. If you assume ballistic/emission theory there is also no such aether frame, and so no absolute speed to measure. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: harald on 5 May 2010 03:13 On May 5, 8:49 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:dbdc2327-6bec-450c-a46d-c27f1cc7ecc7(a)p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 5, 12:51 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > >> "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >>news:e74170c7-7abf-4d1f-b2d9-c7c15ff109b1(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > >> [snip] > > >> > No, that is definitely NOT the topic of this thread... > > >> What IS the topic? Why does anyone think that the MMX math needs to be > >> corrected? In what was is it incorrect? > > >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > > If you read the first post of this thread (use Googlegroups), you'll > > see that the OP means that the MMX math predicted that absolute speed > > could be detected by rotating an interferometer at different times of > > the year. > > Which MMX math is it. MMX isn't a theory. The math that described it > depends on which theory you are using to analyse it. The MMX theory is well known and it was shown to be wrong by MMX. It is described by M-M here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether > If you assume SR or LET, then you cannot determine the speed M-M did not have such things... > > He asserts that when drawing the MMX null result (of a moving > > interferometer relative to space) on paper, "it can only be done by a > > physical change of leg length(s)." > > That's just nonsense .. there is no change in lengths. Unless you talk > about the measured lengths from some supposed unknown aether frame . He certainly meant the lengths that you measure on your paper after modifying the drawing such that you obtain the required null result. What did you measure? > If you assume SR, then there is no such aether frame, and so no absolute > speed to measure. > If you assume ballistic/emission theory there is also no such aether frame, > and so no absolute speed to measure. The OP assumed: (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) And of course he assumed that readers are able to draw a "moving" Michelson interferometer on a piece of paper, in such a way that they obtain the required "null" result (not sure if you are able to do that). Success! Harald
From: Surfer on 5 May 2010 05:13 On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:07:55 -0700 (PDT), Paul Stowe <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The assumption of existence an independent physical universe which is >not dependent upon the existence of observation. This article >reflects this prespective... > >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603267 > I notice it mentions experiments to detect absolute motion. These papers describe some additional ones. What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? V.V. Demjanov http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with respect to v/c V.V. Demjanov http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103103
From: jem on 5 May 2010 09:03
harald wrote: > On May 4, 5:57 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> harald wrote: >>> On May 2, 7:00 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> In SR you can select ANY inertial frame. There is no need to select one frame >>>> and use it throughout the year. >>> when you change inertial frame, you also declare >>> your earlier measurement as having been done in a "moving" frame. >> So what??? Who cares??? From the standpoint of SR this is irrelevant. > > It would be irrelevant for SR if SR wasn't meant to also apply to > moving objects; and it would be irrelevant for this thread if the > topic concerned objects that are all the time in the same state of > motion. > >> The point at issue is: do the fringes move as the interferometer is rotated? > > No, that is definitely NOT the topic of this thread... > >> NOTHING else matters. > > That says it all: you are incapable of considering the topic that the > OP discusses. Worse, you insist on making inconsistent statements. > > [..] > >>> It's reassuring that you understand that the variation of velocity of >>> the Earth is relevant for stellar aberration. But that makes it even >>> more amazing that you cannot (or refuse to) understand that the >>> variation in velocity is equally relevant for Lorentz >>> contraction in SRT (which the OP called "SRT math"). >> You, too, are confused about what "Lorentz contraction" means in SR -- the arms >> themselves are COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED by "Lorentz contraction". >> > [...] > >>> the OP (DDRR) obviously meant that it is "physically >>> impossible" to get a null result with a *moving* interferometer >>> without a modified length of at least one of the arms, assuming that >>> the speed of light is completely unaffected by the speed of the Earth. >> Again, this is just plain not true -- that statement is implicitly adding >> unstated conditions that erroneously limit what can be considered, and they >> exclude SR inappropriately. SR is a counterexample: in SR the length of the arms >> does not change (even for a *moving* interferometer), the speed of light is >> unaffected by the speed of the earth, and yet SR predicts a null result. >> Note carefully the meanings of the words used: "length of the >> arms" relates to THE ARMS THEMSELVES, and does NOT refer to the >> distance some observer moving relative to the arms might happen >> to measure between their endpoints. > > The meanings of your words are inconsistent: either one discusses an > observation from a system in which the interferometer is moving, or > one discusses it from a system in which it is in rest. You flip-flop > from one system to another in a single description. > > SR predicts a null result for a moving interferometer (which is by > *definition* of the word "moving" *not* measured relative to a co- > moving or "proper" coordinate system), and you know very well that the > length in the direction of motion is shortened in the same system > which was used to define it as "moving". > >> At base, this discussion hinges on the meanings of the words used; you, Paul, >> and DDRR all use unacknowledged PUNS on the meaning of "length" -- the word has >> different meanings at different places in your statements. > > No, it is you - as shown here above. Length (in contrast to "proper > length") means in this context always the length as *measured* in the > same reference system as to which the word "moving" refers. It is > better to be specific, but an intelligent reader should be able to > understand a consistent use of references! If you answer to a newcomer > such as DDRR it requires a minimal effort to follow what he is > thinking, without imposing *your* way of formulating things on him and > then giving replies that are completely besides the point. > >> DON'T DO THAT! If you >> guys were careful about the meanings of the words you use, you >> would not be confused, and would not need this discussion. > > I'm not confused, while you risk to confuse people with your stubborn > flip-flopping between references without any concern for the topic > that they discuss. > >> At base this is due to the >> implicit and unquestioned assumptions that you carry, many of which are wrong. >> You MUST learn to discard this baggage, or you will never be able >> to understand modern physics. >> Just like Paul you need to learn how to read, write, and >> think more accurately. > > Here you gave me good laugh Tom. :-) Did you publish any paper on SRT > and length contraction in a quality peer reviewed journal? > > [..] (Well, you also need to pick one theoretical context >> and stick to it.) > > Tom, the theoretical context of this thread is to consider a *moving* > Michelson interferometer, and the therewith consistent length of the > *moving* arms (which implies that the lengths are *not* described in > rest!). > > If your brain had not lost its flexibility, you could have had a > constructive discussion with the OP by now. > As is continuously demonstrated in this newsgroup, constructive conversations with incorrigible know-it-alls are impossible. Roberts gave you (and your cohorts), in plain English, complete and relevant information re. the thread subject, and some sorely needed advice. Wasted breath. |