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: eric gisse on 6 May 2010 15:18 Dono. wrote: > On May 6, 11:01 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf >> >> Fringe journal...check >> Claim of detection of ether to first order in v/c which there are dozens >> of other experiments that have failed to see this...check >> > > Stephan Gift is a much worse version of Reg Cahill. He has published a > larger number of "relativity-refuting papers". Look at his website. I see no reason to beat that particular dead horse.
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 6 May 2010 15:40 On May 4, 1:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> (Mere measurement with a ruler does not constitute proof >> because the ruler would also contract.) > You are confused. Such measurements are what we mean by > "identical length". You are attempting to apply some mystical > new meaning to "length" -- don't do that. "Length of an object" > means what it always did: the value obtained by holding a > ruler up to the object and measuring it (which implicitly means > the ruler is at rest relative to the object being measured). > After all, kids in kindergarten are taught not to move the ruler > when making a measurement; do you need to go back and learn that > lesson? At least this is not word salad; however, it runs directly counter to the following from John Wheeler: The MMx null result still allowed TWO alternatives to special relativity: (1) theory A - intrinsic length contraction alone (2) theory B - intrinsic length contraction + intrinsic clock slowing As Wheeler stated, both theories initially physically explained the MMx null result, then the KTx ruled out A whilst still allowing B, and also allowing "the much simpler" (Wheeler's words) relativity theory. [Spacetime Physics, 1963, p. 80] Wheeler admits that theory B still stands; however, theory B, as Wheeler said, has a physical explanation for the MMx null result, whereas SR does not have this physical explanation, nor any other. I have added to this by stating that not only does SR not have a physical explanation, but theory B's physical explanation is necessary, and by no means ad hoc. >> 2. Can you show it on paper? (Can you show the >> MMx null result on paper using identical legs?) > It is trivial, and no math is needed; I'll use the inertial frame > in which the center of the interferometer is at rest [#]. In SR the > speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. Since the > arms have constant lengths, the round-trip time for the light to > traverse each arm is independent of the orientation of the instrument. > So the location of the visible fringes does not vary with orientation > -- a null result. Too trivial to be true. You neglected to show how the speed of light can be isotropically c (in any inertial frame) without of course involving legs of intrinsically different lengths. Your meaningless definition of "identical legs" cannot and does not address the problem of explaining the MMx null result. It is meaningless because, as I said, merely using a ruler to check intrinsic length is a fruitless gesture because the ruler also shrinks. Given truly (or intrinsically) identical legs, here is the math for the MMx: The time t along the horizontal leg must be t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/ c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time 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) Obviously, the only way to get equal times is to change one or both of the L's because you can't monkey with c or v. As John Wheeler said, an intrinsic length contraction can explain the MMx null result, and as ~RA~ said, no other explanation works, and SR has no physical explanation anyway. ~RA~
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 6 May 2010 16:05 "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity" and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm aka kk, aka Kurt Kingston, aka Dark Energy, aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus, aka TymBuk2, aka Cadwgan Gedrych, aka 2ndPostulateDude, aka SRdude, aka Edward Travis, aka Ron Aikas, aka Roy Royce, aka John Reid, aka Martin Miller aka Wings of Truth aka delta-T wrote in message news:86d34be7-c6ab-4c17-9ac6-d6c0b80c481a(a)j15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > On May 4, 1:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >>> (Mere measurement with a ruler does not constitute proof >>> because the ruler would also contract.) >> You are confused. Such measurements are what we mean by >> "identical length". You are attempting to apply some mystical >> new meaning to "length" -- don't do that. "Length of an object" >> means what it always did: the value obtained by holding a >> ruler up to the object and measuring it (which implicitly means >> the ruler is at rest relative to the object being measured). >> After all, kids in kindergarten are taught not to move the ruler >> when making a measurement; do you need to go back and learn that >> lesson? > > At least this is not word salad Shouldn't you find another hobby, Brian? Dirk Vdm
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 6 May 2010 17:22 On Thu, 6 May 2010 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT), Da Do Ron Ron <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On May 4, 1:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >Wheeler admits that theory B still stands; however, theory B, as >Wheeler >said, has a physical explanation for the MMx null result, whereas SR >does >not have this physical explanation, nor any other. > >I have added to this by stating that not only does SR not have a >physical >explanation, but theory B's physical explanation is necessary, and by >no >means ad hoc. > >>> 2. Can you show it on paper? (Can you show the >>> MMx null result on paper using identical legs?) > >> It is trivial, and no math is needed; I'll use the inertial frame >> in which the center of the interferometer is at rest [#]. In SR the >> speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. Since the >> arms have constant lengths, the round-trip time for the light to >> traverse each arm is independent of the orientation of the instrument. >> So the location of the visible fringes does not vary with orientation >> -- a null result. > >Too trivial to be true. You neglected to show how the speed of >light can be isotropically c (in any inertial frame) without of >course involving legs of intrinsically different lengths. > >Your meaningless definition of "identical legs" cannot and does not >address the problem of explaining the MMx null result. It is >meaningless >because, as I said, merely using a ruler to check intrinsic length is >a fruitless gesture because the ruler also shrinks. > >Given truly (or intrinsically) identical legs, here is the math for >the >MMx: > >The time t along the horizontal leg must be t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/ >c^2)), >whereas the vertical leg time 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) > >Obviously, the only way to get equal times is to change one or both >of >the L's because you can't monkey with c or v. > >As John Wheeler said, an intrinsic length contraction can explain the >MMx null result, and as ~RA~ said, no other explanation works, and SR >has no physical explanation anyway. SRs explanation is just plain ballistic theory. Light moves at c wrt everything at rest wrt the source.....as are all the components of the MMX apparatus at all times. There is NO single 'absolute aether frame'. Where would it end? >~RA~ Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 6 May 2010 17:27
On May 6, 4:22 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > There is NO single 'absolute aether frame'. Where would it end? > Why do you think a frame has boundaries? We're not talking about a doorframe or a photoframe here, Ralph. |