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: Da Do Ron Ron on 10 May 2010 14:17 [from a Roberts prior post] > It boggles the mind to think you don't accept that two legs have > identical lengths if when you hold them up next to each other their > ends line up [or when a ruler measures them as equal]. Let's try to attain some common ground by using the math: The horizontal leg time is t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time is t' = (2L'/c)(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), a time that is shorter than t. (L = horiz. leg, L' = vert. leg) You seem to be saying that L = L'. However, if L = L', then the travel times are different, which is a positive result, not a null result. And, as we all know, the MMx had a null result. [gleaned from Roberts' current comments] >Irrelevant -- there is no "outside viewpoint" here. Einstein disagrees. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun. http://www.bartleby.com/173/16.html ~RA~
From: Surfer on 10 May 2010 15:13 On Sun, 9 May 2010 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >The Demjanov "theory" has been long falsified experimentally: > ># Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258. > >A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), >and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a >null result with an upper limit on v�ther of 6.64 km/s. > The interference fringes observed by Shamir and Fox could have been formed by reflection of light from the ends of the perspex rods. If that were the case, the light paths responsible for the fringes would have consisted of only a few centimeters through air. That would make the fringes almost totally insensitive to absolute motion effects. Demjanov says to avoid that problem he cut the ends of his solid media at an angle so that the surfaces were not perpendicular to the light path. Details in Section 4 of: What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? V.V. Demjanov http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899
From: Surfer on 10 May 2010 15:38 On Mon, 10 May 2010 10:00:32 +1000, "whoever" <whoever(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > Fig 1 doesn't look anything like a parabola .. > Because the vertical axis is logarithmic. > >what are the error bars there? > The size of noise fluctuations (delta Xns) is indicated by the vertical width of the gray bar along the horizontal axis. (About +/- 1 mm.) > >Looks like only 8 experiments done there, nowhere >near enough for any relevant curve fit. He doesn't claim to have found a formula that exactly fits. Only to have found a formula that "reproduces in essential features the experimental curve". > >What were these different types of water with different dialectrics? > The refractive index of water varies with wavelength. To get three different refractive indexes for water he used wavelengths of 9000 nm, 900 nm and 300 nm. (That is explained in the paper published in Physics Letters A, but was omitted from the preprint in arXiv.) (NB 9000 nm is an infrared wavelength and 300 nm is ultraviolet.) > >Was the device rotated and measurements made with the leg axes transposed? > In the following paper, which provides much more detail, What and how does a Michelson interferometer measure? V.V. Demjanov http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2899 he mentions "turning the platform of the rotary cross-like interferometer". So the answer to your question is "yes". ----
From: Surfer on 10 May 2010 16:08 On Mon, 10 May 2010 02:03:56 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > >- 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. > He doesn't claim to have found a formula that exactly fits. Only to have found a formula that "reproduces in essential features the experimental curve". The line drawn in Figure 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5658 looks like an experimental fit. I was able to make a computer plot of his formula (with a logarithmic vertical axis) which would fit his data fairly well, but not as closely as his hand drawn line.
From: Dono. on 10 May 2010 16:40
On May 10, 12:13 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Sun, 9 May 2010 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >The Demjanov "theory" has been long falsified experimentally: > > ># Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258. > > >A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), > >and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a > >null result with an upper limit on væther of 6.64 km/s. > > The interference fringes observed by Shamir and Fox could have been > formed by reflection of light from the ends of the perspex rods. > Keep trying , Peter The difference between you ans scientists is that you are not. > > Demjanov says to avoid that problem he cut the ends of his solid media > at an angle so that the surfaces were not perpendicular to the light > path. > Demjanov is a kook who doesn't even know how to write the SR speed composition. |