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: GogoJF on 27 Apr 2010 19:45 On Apr 22, 10:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > funkenstein wrote: > > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs must > >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. > > > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? > > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the > > apparatus. > > Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length in the rest > frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical legs", which > inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same frame. > > > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to > > consider the heliocentric rest frame. > > > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), > > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter > > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict > > the null result. > > Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. > > Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" are > mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is measured > to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs themselves, > which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the relationship > here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in this > frame, not the legs themselves. > > > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the > > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two > > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length > > contraction is required to predict the null result. > > "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full Lorentz > transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light pulse, > the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except in the rest > frame of the apparatus). > > OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the > apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. > > Tom Roberts Tom, when Michelson first performed this experiment, time dilation and length contraction were not considered- they did not exist. Michelson fully expected to be able to measure a ether. This was in compliance with finite light- that light must require time- a delay c, in order for the event to be observed. When this did not happen, it at first seemed damning of this finite nature- this relativity. It wasn't until time dilation and length contraction MUST occur, in order for finite measure- to continue to be believed in.
From: Inertial on 27 Apr 2010 20:42 "GogoJF" <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0258e897-65d7-4004-900a-7fb042aebd55(a)v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 22, 10:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> funkenstein wrote: >> > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs >> >> must >> >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. >> >> > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? >> > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the >> > apparatus. >> >> Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length in >> the rest >> frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical legs", >> which >> inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same frame. >> >> > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to >> > consider the heliocentric rest frame. >> >> > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), >> > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter >> > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict >> > the null result. >> >> Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. >> >> Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" >> are >> mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is >> measured >> to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs >> themselves, >> which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the >> relationship >> here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in >> this >> frame, not the legs themselves. >> >> > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the >> > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two >> > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length >> > contraction is required to predict the null result. >> >> "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full >> Lorentz >> transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light >> pulse, >> the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except in >> the rest >> frame of the apparatus). >> >> OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the >> apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. >> >> Tom Roberts > > Tom, when Michelson first performed this experiment, time dilation and > length contraction were not considered- they did not exist. No .. they weren't kNOWN ABOUT .. that is different to not existing > Michelson > fully expected to be able to measure a ether. Yeup .. it is one of the most famous and important experimental 'failures' :) > This was in compliance > with finite light- that light must require time- a delay c, in order > for the event to be observed. Which was long known to be the case, and still is. Though the delay isn't 'c' .. light transmission is certainly finite in time. > When this did not happen, it at first > seemed damning of this finite nature No .. it wasn't at all .. that finiteness was well established and MMX didn't show otherwise.. >- this relativity. There was no 'relativity', other than galillean relativity - know about at that time. > It wasn't > until time dilation and length contraction MUST occur, in order for > finite measure- to continue to be believed in. Sorry .. those conclusions cannot be drawn from MMX alone.
From: GogoJF on 27 Apr 2010 20:45 On Apr 27, 6:45 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 22, 10:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > funkenstein wrote: > > > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs must > > >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. > > > > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? > > > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the > > > apparatus. > > > Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length in the rest > > frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical legs", which > > inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same frame.. > > > > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to > > > consider the heliocentric rest frame. > > > > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), > > > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter > > > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict > > > the null result. > > > Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. > > > Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" are > > mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is measured > > to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs themselves, > > which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the relationship > > here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in this > > frame, not the legs themselves. > > > > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the > > > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two > > > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length > > > contraction is required to predict the null result. > > > "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full Lorentz > > transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light pulse, > > the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except in the rest > > frame of the apparatus). > > > OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the > > apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. > > > Tom Roberts > > Tom, when Michelson first performed this experiment, time dilation and > length contraction were not considered- they did not exist. Michelson > fully expected to be able to measure a ether. This was in compliance > with finite light- that light must require time- a delay c, in order > for the event to be observed. When this did not happen, it at first > seemed damning of this finite nature- this relativity. It wasn't > until time dilation and length contraction MUST occur, in order for > finite measure- to continue to be believed in. Tom says, " Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" are mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is measured to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs themselves, which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the relationship here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in this frame, not the legs themselves. Tom, I understand what you are trying to say- everything is instrumental- like we are in a submarine, deep in the sea- and we have only our dials to use to measure, to survive, to know reality. This reality keeps telling us over and over again that what we measure contains time dilation and length contraction. To be able to tell the future depends on telling the past- but still, I keep thinking- that maybe, we've made a mistake somewhere.
From: GogoJF on 27 Apr 2010 20:59 On Apr 27, 7:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:0258e897-65d7-4004-900a-7fb042aebd55(a)v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> funkenstein wrote: > >> > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the legs > >> >> must > >> >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. > > >> > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? > >> > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the > >> > apparatus. > > >> Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length in > >> the rest > >> frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical legs", > >> which > >> inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same frame. > > >> > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to > >> > consider the heliocentric rest frame. > > >> > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), > >> > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter > >> > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict > >> > the null result. > > >> Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. > > >> Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other leg" > >> are > >> mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is > >> measured > >> to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs > >> themselves, > >> which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the > >> relationship > >> here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in > >> this > >> frame, not the legs themselves. > > >> > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the > >> > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two > >> > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length > >> > contraction is required to predict the null result. > > >> "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full > >> Lorentz > >> transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light > >> pulse, > >> the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except in > >> the rest > >> frame of the apparatus). > > >> OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the > >> apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous.. > > >> Tom Roberts > > > Tom, when Michelson first performed this experiment, time dilation and > > length contraction were not considered- they did not exist. > > No .. they weren't kNOWN ABOUT .. that is different to not existing > > > Michelson > > fully expected to be able to measure a ether. > > Yeup .. it is one of the most famous and important experimental 'failures' > :) > > > This was in compliance > > with finite light- that light must require time- a delay c, in order > > for the event to be observed. > > Which was long known to be the case, and still is. Though the delay isn't > 'c' .. light transmission is certainly finite in time. > > > When this did not happen, it at first > > seemed damning of this finite nature > > No .. it wasn't at all .. that finiteness was well established and MMX > didn't show otherwise.. > > >- this relativity. > > There was no 'relativity', other than galillean relativity - know about at > that time. > > > It wasn't > > until time dilation and length contraction MUST occur, in order for > > finite measure- to continue to be believed in. > > Sorry .. those conclusions cannot be drawn from MMX alone. Inertial, I expected this kind of response. It is what I would have answered if I were talking to myself. But truly, Michelson was no imbicile. If length contraction and time dilation do exist, then this would have to qualify for one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century. Where is it? Where is the celebration?
From: Inertial on 27 Apr 2010 21:12
"GogoJF" <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ac07efcc-6b3f-4e61-b156-510752f71b2c(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 27, 7:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0258e897-65d7-4004-900a-7fb042aebd55(a)v14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 22, 10:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> funkenstein wrote: >> >> > On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. Indeed, in SR the >> >> >> legs >> >> >> must >> >> >> not change for the predicted null result to hold. >> >> >> > Doesn't this depend on what reference frame you are in? >> >> > The legs are only identical (in length) in the rest frame of the >> >> > apparatus. >> >> >> Hmmm. The apparatus was constructed so the arms have the same length >> >> in >> >> the rest >> >> frame of the apparatus. That is implicit in the phrase "identical >> >> legs", >> >> which >> >> inherently means comparing them when they are at rest in the same >> >> frame. >> >> >> > Because we are considering the motion of the Earth, it is natural to >> >> > consider the heliocentric rest frame. >> >> >> > Now in this frame, according to SR (correct me if I'm wrong please), >> >> > the leg that is oriented parallel to the Earth's motion is shorter >> >> > than the other leg. This difference is required in order to predict >> >> > the null result. >> >> >> Sure. But see above for the meanings of my words. >> >> >> Your words "in this frame ... the leg ... is shorter than the other >> >> leg" >> >> are >> >> mildly ambiguous -- rather than saying "is shorter" you should say "is >> >> measured >> >> to be shorter". The word "is" implies this is an aspect of the legs >> >> themselves, >> >> which is not correct; the phrase "is measured to be" captures the >> >> relationship >> >> here. After all, it is the MEASUREMENT of their lengths that occurs in >> >> this >> >> frame, not the legs themselves. >> >> >> > Of course, all reference frames need to agree on the result of the >> >> > experiment. There is only one frame in which the length of the two >> >> > legs is equal. Therefore, it makes sense to say that length >> >> > contraction is required to predict the null result. >> >> >> "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full >> >> Lorentz >> >> transform between frames. For instance, when considering a short light >> >> pulse, >> >> the reflections at the ends of the arms are not simultaneous (except >> >> in >> >> the rest >> >> frame of the apparatus). >> >> >> OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the >> >> apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. >> >> >> Tom Roberts >> >> > Tom, when Michelson first performed this experiment, time dilation and >> > length contraction were not considered- they did not exist. >> >> No .. they weren't kNOWN ABOUT .. that is different to not existing >> >> > Michelson >> > fully expected to be able to measure a ether. >> >> Yeup .. it is one of the most famous and important experimental >> 'failures' >> :) >> >> > This was in compliance >> > with finite light- that light must require time- a delay c, in order >> > for the event to be observed. >> >> Which was long known to be the case, and still is. Though the delay >> isn't >> 'c' .. light transmission is certainly finite in time. >> >> > When this did not happen, it at first >> > seemed damning of this finite nature >> >> No .. it wasn't at all .. that finiteness was well established and MMX >> didn't show otherwise.. >> >> >- this relativity. >> >> There was no 'relativity', other than galillean relativity - know about >> at >> that time. >> >> > It wasn't >> > until time dilation and length contraction MUST occur, in order for >> > finite measure- to continue to be believed in. >> >> Sorry .. those conclusions cannot be drawn from MMX alone. > > Inertial, I expected this kind of response. It is what I would have > answered if I were talking to myself. :) > But truly, Michelson was no > imbicile. I never said, nor implied, that he was > If length contraction and time dilation do exist, Experimental evidence supports the claim that they do. > then > this would have to qualify for one of the greatest discoveries of the > 20th century. Where is it? Where is the celebration? Time dilation has long been shown to occur experimentally. There have been hundreds of experiments performed showing that the SR predictions are correct. The 'celebration' was ongoing and quite a while ago. Why do you think there would need to be a big party .. are you upset that you missed it? Maybe your invitation was lost in the mail? :):) |