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: Inertial on 7 May 2010 19:42 "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cd55346e-271a-49db-8c73-7e8620ca7c4e(a)a34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 2:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >>> As John Wheeler said, an intrinsic length contraction can explain the >>> MMx null result, > >> Yes, when computed CORRECTLY. The full developed theory is known as LET, >> and it includes more than just "intrinsic length contraction". > > I see that you did not properly read what Wheeler wrote. > > Here it is again: > > Wheeler said that the MMx null result was physically explained by two > theories, > namely, theory A and theory B. The former has a real, physical, > intrinsic leg > contraction, and the latter added real clock slowing to this. (Only > after the > second version of the MMx - the timed round-trip experiment - was > theory A > shot down, but theory B remains viable, with its double-barreled full > physical > explanation of the full round-trip null result. > >> You remain confused. The explanation of SR does indeed work. There's no >> need >> for a "physical explanation" of SR, because it is essentially geometry. > >> What is the "physical explanation" for the sum of the lengths >> of two sides of a triangle being larger than the length of the >> third side? Or of the circumference of a circle being pi times >> its diameter? At base, you'll ultimately need to invoke >> Euclidean geometry, which has no "physical explanation" at all. > >> Tom Roberts > > The SR "explanation" cannot work because SR pertains only to an > outside > observer's view of the MMx apparatus. Nope. It applies for any inertial observer, whether in the lab, or outside. > No mere outside viewpoint can > possibly control or affect any part of this closed-lab experiment. Within the closed lab there is no contraction of legs .. there doesn't need to be .. The light source is fixed in the lab and its speed is isotropic. .. if one leg DID contract (compared to the other) in the closed lab frame you would not get a null results.
From: Tom Roberts on 8 May 2010 19:17 Paul Stowe wrote: > Detection of absolute motion is easy, This depends STRONGLY on what one means by "absolute motion". If one means either of these, then I agree it's easy to detect: * motion relative to a preferred frame defined by a symmetry of the universe * motion relative to some objects that appear to define a global frame, such as the "fixed stars", the local CMBR dipole=0 frame, or the average of the distant galaxies. But if one means this, then it is not easy at all, and has never been done: * motion relative to a frame that participates in the dynamics (e.g. an "aether frame") One of your problems is that you intermix these different meanings; such PUNs destroy your arguments. > accepting that fact is > psychologically impossible for some, Tom Roberts being one. You REALLY do not understand me at all. > All one has to do is open their eyes and look around :)... First one must learn to think and speak more accurately, so one knows what one is looking for. Tom Roberts
From: Paul Stowe on 8 May 2010 19:34 On May 8, 4:17 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > > Detection of absolute motion is easy, > > This depends STRONGLY on what one means by "absolute motion". > > If one means either of these, then I agree it's easy to detect: > * motion relative to a preferred frame defined by a symmetry of the > universe > * motion relative to some objects that appear to define a global > frame, such as the "fixed stars", the local CMBR dipole=0 frame, > or the average of the distant galaxies. > > But if one means this, then it is not easy at all, and has never been done: > * motion relative to a frame that participates in the dynamics > (e.g. an "aether frame") What the heck does 'frame that participates in the dynamics' mean? Light itself 'participates in the dynamics' of itself... By any reasonable definition of aether a uniformly distributed light source would 'illuminated' the aether rest frame... If one exists, then that's all you need to determine absolute motion, period! All other methods are simply not needed... > One of your problems is that you intermix these different meanings; such PUNs > destroy your arguments. No Tom, I am consistent in the use of the meaning of of words phrases... I do not redefine them to suit my fancy... > > accepting that fact is > > psychologically impossible for some, Tom Roberts being one. > > You REALLY do not understand me at all. > > > All one has to do is open their eyes and look around :)... > > First one must learn to think and speak more accurately, so one knows what one > is looking for. Indeed you do... Paul Stowe
From: Tom Roberts on 8 May 2010 19:34 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > On May 7, 2:00 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> You remain confused. The explanation of SR does indeed work. There's no need >> for a "physical explanation" of SR, because it is essentially geometry. > > The SR "explanation" cannot work because SR pertains only to an > outside observer's view of the MMx apparatus. You are REALLY confused. SR is a MODEL for a rather wide domain of the world we inhabit; it is not "outside" in any sense, nor is it a "viewpoint". SR [%] describes what the observer [#] ought to observe if the theory accurately corresponds to the aspects of the world that the experiment tests [@]. And yes, the predictions of SR are in agreement with the observations in the MMX and the many repetitions of it. [%] Technically one must include classical electrodynamics in the model, usually in the wave optics approximation. [#] The observer looking into the interferometer and recording fringe positions; this observer is an integral part of the MMX, and is not "outside" at all. [@] SR predicts that the fringes in an ideal interferometer will not visibly move as it is rotated in a lab on earth. > No mere outside viewpoint can > possibly control or affect any part of this closed-lab experiment. Trivial -- no "viewpoint" can possibly "control or affect" anything except observations made from the viewpoint. Irrelevant -- there is no "outside viewpoint" here. Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 8 May 2010 21:37
Surfer wrote: [...] > explains a special technique Demjanov found he needed to use in order > to avoid null results. That you can say this in a 100% serious manner is amusing. [...] |