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: Dono. on 8 May 2010 23:31 On May 8, 10:17 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > > Well, any experiment that detects absolute motion tends to get > labelled that way. > There is no experiment detecting "absolute motion", Peter. > But Section 4 and Figure 4 in, > > "What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? > V.V. Demjanovhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 > The Demjanov crackpot is repeating the same mistakes as the ones in the paper withdrawn by the PLA editors. > explains a special technique Demjanov found he needed to use in order > to avoid null results. > The fact that you post this with conviction shows how far off in the left field your mind is gone..... > In contrast, > > "A New Experimental Test of Special Relativity" > J. Shamir and R. Fox > Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970) > > which reported a null result, does not mention use of such a > technique. > So, Demjanov is now repeating Cahill's misunderstadings about light propagation in refractive medium. > That and the consistency of Demjanov's results, suggest that they are > more trustworthy. :lol:
From: Dono. on 9 May 2010 13:30 On May 9, 10:28 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Is that it? Is that the only issue? > > Paul Stowe What do you mean, old fart? Falsification by prior experiments (and botching elementary physics) is pretty serious. It took only one week after I wrote to the editors of PLA to their retracting the paper.
From: Dono. on 9 May 2010 23:45 On May 9, 7:05 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > " > Its not relativity if its LET. SR is mainstream physics .. unless Russia is > different to the rest of the world > This is not about LET vs. SR. Demjanov tried (and failed) to write the correct equations describing the experiment in SR. Paulie here doesn't know how to do a simple algebraic substitution even after I showed him the answer.
From: harald on 10 May 2010 05:03 On May 10, 2:00 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0567c8b6-064b-45f1-977c-e7d1def613f3(a)a16g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [..] > > >> > What I see is declaration by fiat', what I don't see is you pointing > >> > out the 'basic algebra error'. Math is unambiguous, please point out > >> > the step where the error occurs. > > >> The algebra is fine .. > > > I know, but apparently Dono did not, as indicated by his > > comment "You need to learn basic algebra."... > > >> that doesn't mean that is you then assign arbitrary > >> meanings to those symbols that the physics is valid. > > > Well we were discussing Demjanov's paper, > > >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.5658v2.pdf > > > and his proposal. I'll ask you the same question. IF! one assumes c - > >> c/n in dielectric media (which he did) shouldn't all > > references to c be replaced by c/n? Not necessarily... > That IS what vhe did in equations 9 & 10... I > > see no logic or math flaw within the framework of his discussion. > > This does not make that proposal right, but simply internally > > consistent. Moreover, and most importantly, he was not > > trying to resolve the equation to the standard formula. > Why is he using an LET interpretation (with a Lorentz contraction) and > calling it a 'standard' interpretation? Perhaps because Lorentz contraction is the standard interpretation of Einstein 1905 and 1907; and also Kennedy-Thorndike used that interpretation in their paper in Physical Review of 1932. > In a valid SR analysis, It is definitely *not* an SR analysis. Obviously a cow is a "wrong" pig. ;-) > there is no > c+v or c-v, and no contraction predicted at all, > regardless of what the net speed of light may be. Wrong again, as rather well explained in the papers that I just mentioned. Except of course if Einstein's 1905 and 1907 papers suddenly are "not SR" - which is simply cheating, as "SR" was introduced by him to mean just that. -> You fell pray to revisionist history. In any case, it is pretty sure that SRT *cannot* explain such results as Demjanov claims to have obtained; and Demjanov does *not* pretend that he stole *his* theory from Einstein. > Fig 1 doesn't look anything like a parabola .. what > are the error bars there? Looks like only 8 experiments done there, nowhere > near enough for any relevant curve fit. What were these different types of > water with different dialectrics? Was the device rotated > and measurements made with the leg axes transposed? Now that is the right kind of questions to ask! In addition: - Is the line that he draws through his experimental data his theoretical curve or just an experimental fit? I can't find it in the text. Such things should be clear in a paper like that. Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 10 May 2010 11:09
Paul Stowe wrote: > 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". >> 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? It means just what it says: a unique frame that in some way or other appears in the dynamical equations (here presumably of light propagation). ANY aether with a rest frame would be in this class. Maxwell's original theory has such a frame; the modern synthesis called classical electrodynamics does not. > Light itself 'participates in the dynamics' of itself... No. You are mixing up model and world. Dynamics is a MODEL. > By any > reasonable definition of aether a uniformly distributed light source > would 'illuminated' the aether rest frame.. How? Why? What do you mean? A searchlight "illuminated" the clouds -- why is it we can see the clouds but not the aether? Indeed, why is it we cannot detect the aether by any means whatsoever (or at least have not yet done so)? The ether of LET cannot be "illuminated" or observed in any way. > If one exists, then > that's all you need to determine absolute motion, period! That's a mighty big "if". And one not in evidence -- there has not been a single observation of any aether or any aether rest frame (counting only those that a scientist would accept as being both reliable and significant). >> 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... Yes, you do, but are completely unaware of doing so. You repeatedly intermix motion wrt the CMBR with motion wrt the "aether". This is your problem, not mine. >>> 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... Again, your problem, not mine. Tom Roberts |