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: Darwin123 on 19 May 2010 23:38 On Apr 27, 5:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:53:51 -0700 (PDT), funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > > >> > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > >> > following two facts: > > >> Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. > > >> But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light (Maxwell's > >> theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory known > >> as "classical electrodynamics" today). > > >> > (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due to its source > >> > independency) > >> > (ii) the value of this speed is known to be c (from Maxwell's > >> > equations) > > >> You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify your > >> theoretical context. > > >> In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only one > >> inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell presented > >> his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your (i-ii) > >> hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the aether > >> frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be > >> anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day and the > >> year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus determine > >> the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously orbits the > >> sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. > > >> Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That implies that > >> your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. > > >> > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > >> > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; > > >> This is a GREAT oversimplification. > > >> > therefore, > >> > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > >> > things must change. > > >> Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration, but > >> did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a null > >> result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in any way. > > >> > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > >> > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > > >> But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was > >> specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. > > >> > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > >> > different. > > >> But that presupposes your logic is correct and valid. It isn't. Relativity does > >> not conform to your math or your logic. > > >> > Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > >> > the legs different. > > >> No. 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. > > >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. > > >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. > > There is no aether. Thereare no LTs. SR is bullshit from start tom finish.. > Light is ballistic like everything else. The CERN experiment in 1964 showed that light is not ballistic. The source of light used were neutral pions traveling at 0.99975c in the frame of a beryllium target. The results show that the speed of light is independent of source velocity for up to four decimal places. In other words, if c'=c+kv, then |k|<1.3x10^-4 where v is the velocity of the source in the inertial frame where the speed of light, c', is measured. This is an experiment that is independent of the MMX experiment. R. Alvager, J. M. Bailey,et al. Phys. Lett. 12, 260 (1964); Ark. Fys. 31, 145 (1965). > > The MMX was always destined to produce a null result for that reason. The MMX experiment under Newtonian laws of mechanics would show null results only if k=1.
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 00:37 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:9d5956c0-7fc4-43f9-a0e4-f08b5b94349f(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Tom Roberts" <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> news:FvydnTf4XejxDmnWRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... >> >> >> >> > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> >> On May 13, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> The intrinsic length of an object means the length that the object >> >>> itself inherently has, without relation to anything else. That can >> >>> only >> >>> mean the length measured by a ruler held directly up to the object >> >>> without slipping -- i.e. its proper length. >> >> >>> I repeat: this does not change if you think that objects do "shrink" >> >>> due >> >>> to >> >>> their "absolute motion" -- the ruler and object will necessarily be >> >>> affected the same, and the value obtained will still be correct. >> >> >> Of course, the ruler and the object will be samely affected, but this >> >> means that the shrunken ruler now reads incorrectly. >> >> > You sure use words funny. No wonder it's so difficult to communicate >> > with >> > you. >> > Here you say "incorrectly" when you mean "correctly" -- that is, >> > because >> > as you >> > say "ruler and the object will be samely affected", the ruler reads the >> > CORRECT >> > value for the intrinsic length of the object, using YOUR notions. >> >> >> For example, a 10-meter ruler can still read 10 meters for an object >> >> that >> >> is in fact now only 5 meters long. >> >> > You are confused; this cannot possibly happen because the ruler is >> > being >> > held >> > right against the object, so the ruler "now" reads the correct length >> > of >> > the >> > object. THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. In this case, using YOUR >> > notions, >> > the length of the object measured this way is the intrinsic length of >> > the >> > object, independent of the "absolute motion" of ruler and object. >> >> > And you assume "facts" not in evidence. If in this situation the >> > ruler reads 10 meters, then that is IN FACT the length of the >> > object. So the object cannot be "now only 5 meters long". >> >> > As I said before, you repeatedly and continually confuse yourself by >> > attempting >> > to apply some poorly-thought-out notion that objects somehow "shrink" >> > due >> > to >> > "absolute motion". You cannot even write two paragraphs in a row that >> > are >> > self-consistent, because you are so confused. >> >> It depends on whether you are talking about SR or LET. >> >> Though both theories predict the same measurements, LET says this is due >> to >> both co-moving ruler and object both physically absolutely shrinking by >> the >> same amount (and clocks running absolutely slower and clocks getting >> absolutely out of sync) due to their motion through an aether (which is >> somehow able to make all objects shrink and all processes slow when >> things >> move through it). In SR there is no shrinking, and no absolute length, >> time, or sync involved. >> > > ============== > >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving >> observer will measure. In SR this is due to how spacetime behaves (which >> is >> as modeled by a projection using Minkowski geometry). In LET it is due >> to >> how the 'distorted' measurements of space and time relate (with the same >> geometry as SR). In both LET and SR, all observers will calculate the >> same >> proper length (interval) and this will be the same as the length measured >> by >> a commoving ruler. > > No... Einstein's relativity (~1918 with Minkowski) does not > predict this. Wrong. Proper length (or interval) is the same value as rest length in SR. You also seem confused about what SR says. > That is why the "Bell's Spaceship quacks > refuse to show their work with four-vectors. It breaks > the parlour trick. If the imaginaries and reals are > preserved with the imaginary operato or in the tensor calculus > they can be recovered so that temporal and spatial components > are not mixed improperly. No trick involved. Just physics. You should study it sometime. > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html > >> >> DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! :)
From: eric gisse on 20 May 2010 01:32 Inertial wrote: [...] Why argue with the quoting station? Sue can't say anything that isn't on a bookmarked page.
From: Sue... on 20 May 2010 02:10 On May 20, 12:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:9d5956c0-7fc4-43f9-a0e4-f08b5b94349f(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Tom Roberts" <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > >>news:FvydnTf4XejxDmnWRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > > >> > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >> >> On May 13, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>> The intrinsic length of an object means the length that the object > >> >>> itself inherently has, without relation to anything else. That can > >> >>> only > >> >>> mean the length measured by a ruler held directly up to the object > >> >>> without slipping -- i.e. its proper length. > > >> >>> I repeat: this does not change if you think that objects do "shrink" > >> >>> due > >> >>> to > >> >>> their "absolute motion" -- the ruler and object will necessarily be > >> >>> affected the same, and the value obtained will still be correct. > > >> >> Of course, the ruler and the object will be samely affected, but this > >> >> means that the shrunken ruler now reads incorrectly. > > >> > You sure use words funny. No wonder it's so difficult to communicate > >> > with > >> > you. > >> > Here you say "incorrectly" when you mean "correctly" -- that is, > >> > because > >> > as you > >> > say "ruler and the object will be samely affected", the ruler reads the > >> > CORRECT > >> > value for the intrinsic length of the object, using YOUR notions. > > >> >> For example, a 10-meter ruler can still read 10 meters for an object > >> >> that > >> >> is in fact now only 5 meters long. > > >> > You are confused; this cannot possibly happen because the ruler is > >> > being > >> > held > >> > right against the object, so the ruler "now" reads the correct length > >> > of > >> > the > >> > object. THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. In this case, using YOUR > >> > notions, > >> > the length of the object measured this way is the intrinsic length of > >> > the > >> > object, independent of the "absolute motion" of ruler and object. > > >> > And you assume "facts" not in evidence. If in this situation the > >> > ruler reads 10 meters, then that is IN FACT the length of the > >> > object. So the object cannot be "now only 5 meters long". > > >> > As I said before, you repeatedly and continually confuse yourself by > >> > attempting > >> > to apply some poorly-thought-out notion that objects somehow "shrink" > >> > due > >> > to > >> > "absolute motion". You cannot even write two paragraphs in a row that > >> > are > >> > self-consistent, because you are so confused. > > >> It depends on whether you are talking about SR or LET. > > >> Though both theories predict the same measurements, LET says this is due > >> to > >> both co-moving ruler and object both physically absolutely shrinking by > >> the > >> same amount (and clocks running absolutely slower and clocks getting > >> absolutely out of sync) due to their motion through an aether (which is > >> somehow able to make all objects shrink and all processes slow when > >> things > >> move through it). In SR there is no shrinking, and no absolute length, > >> time, or sync involved. > > > ============== > > >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will > >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving > >> observer will measure. In SR this is due to how spacetime behaves (which > >> is > >> as modeled by a projection using Minkowski geometry). In LET it is due > >> to > >> how the 'distorted' measurements of space and time relate (with the same > >> geometry as SR). In both LET and SR, all observers will calculate the > >> same > >> proper length (interval) and this will be the same as the length measured > >> by > >> a commoving ruler. > > > No... Einstein's relativity (~1918 with Minkowski) does not > > predict this. > > Wrong. Proper length (or interval) is the same value as rest length in SR. > You also seem confused about what SR says. You are telling us what LET says. Read your own posting then check a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory I think you have lost that argument before but just in case PD is sharing his medicine with you we can repeat what Einstein's relativity says: << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > > That is why the "Bell's Spaceship quacks > > refuse to show their work with four-vectors. It breaks > > the parlour trick. If the imaginaries and reals are > > preserved with the imaginary operato or in the tensor calculus > > they can be recovered so that temporal and spatial components > > are not mixed improperly. > > No trick involved. Just physics. You should study it sometime. Mathematical absurdity is not physics. <<...circularity in the definition of inertia and the inability to justify the privileged position held by inertial worldlines in special relativity were among the problems that led Einstein in the years following 1905 to seek a broader and more coherent context for the laws of physics. In the introduction of his 1916 review paper on general relativity he wrote The weakness of the principle of inertia lies in this, that it involves an argument in a circle: a mass moves without acceleration if it is sufficiently far from other bodies; we know that it is sufficiently far from other bodies only by the fact that it moves without acceleration.>> << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm Sue... http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html > > >> DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. > > > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! > > :)
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 03:46
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:7b19cd7d-3e9b-449c-8b13-96e10e87bca4(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > On May 20, 12:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:9d5956c0-7fc4-43f9-a0e4-f08b5b94349f(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Tom Roberts" <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:FvydnTf4XejxDmnWRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... >> >> >> > Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> >> >> On May 13, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>> The intrinsic length of an object means the length that the object >> >> >>> itself inherently has, without relation to anything else. That can >> >> >>> only >> >> >>> mean the length measured by a ruler held directly up to the object >> >> >>> without slipping -- i.e. its proper length. >> >> >> >>> I repeat: this does not change if you think that objects do >> >> >>> "shrink" >> >> >>> due >> >> >>> to >> >> >>> their "absolute motion" -- the ruler and object will necessarily >> >> >>> be >> >> >>> affected the same, and the value obtained will still be correct. >> >> >> >> Of course, the ruler and the object will be samely affected, but >> >> >> this >> >> >> means that the shrunken ruler now reads incorrectly. >> >> >> > You sure use words funny. No wonder it's so difficult to communicate >> >> > with >> >> > you. >> >> > Here you say "incorrectly" when you mean "correctly" -- that is, >> >> > because >> >> > as you >> >> > say "ruler and the object will be samely affected", the ruler reads >> >> > the >> >> > CORRECT >> >> > value for the intrinsic length of the object, using YOUR notions. >> >> >> >> For example, a 10-meter ruler can still read 10 meters for an >> >> >> object >> >> >> that >> >> >> is in fact now only 5 meters long. >> >> >> > You are confused; this cannot possibly happen because the ruler is >> >> > being >> >> > held >> >> > right against the object, so the ruler "now" reads the correct >> >> > length >> >> > of >> >> > the >> >> > object. THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY THESE WORDS. In this case, using YOUR >> >> > notions, >> >> > the length of the object measured this way is the intrinsic length >> >> > of >> >> > the >> >> > object, independent of the "absolute motion" of ruler and object. >> >> >> > And you assume "facts" not in evidence. If in this situation the >> >> > ruler reads 10 meters, then that is IN FACT the length of the >> >> > object. So the object cannot be "now only 5 meters long". >> >> >> > As I said before, you repeatedly and continually confuse yourself by >> >> > attempting >> >> > to apply some poorly-thought-out notion that objects somehow >> >> > "shrink" >> >> > due >> >> > to >> >> > "absolute motion". You cannot even write two paragraphs in a row >> >> > that >> >> > are >> >> > self-consistent, because you are so confused. >> >> >> It depends on whether you are talking about SR or LET. >> >> >> Though both theories predict the same measurements, LET says this is >> >> due >> >> to >> >> both co-moving ruler and object both physically absolutely shrinking >> >> by >> >> the >> >> same amount (and clocks running absolutely slower and clocks getting >> >> absolutely out of sync) due to their motion through an aether (which >> >> is >> >> somehow able to make all objects shrink and all processes slow when >> >> things >> >> move through it). In SR there is no shrinking, and no absolute >> >> length, >> >> time, or sync involved. >> >> > ============== >> >> >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will >> >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving >> >> observer will measure. In SR this is due to how spacetime behaves >> >> (which >> >> is >> >> as modeled by a projection using Minkowski geometry). In LET it is >> >> due >> >> to >> >> how the 'distorted' measurements of space and time relate (with the >> >> same >> >> geometry as SR). In both LET and SR, all observers will calculate the >> >> same >> >> proper length (interval) and this will be the same as the length >> >> measured >> >> by >> >> a commoving ruler. >> >> > No... Einstein's relativity (~1918 with Minkowski) does not >> > predict this. >> >> Wrong. Proper length (or interval) is the same value as rest length in >> SR. >> You also seem confused about what SR says. > > You are telling us what LET says. Nope. I mentioned both LET and SR .. what I say that applies to SR does indeed apply to SR > Read your own > posting then check a reference. No need > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Irreelvant to what I said about SR > I think you have lost that argument before Nope > but > just in case PD is sharing his medicine with you > we can repeat what Einstein's relativity says: [snip irrelevant quote] >> > That is why the "Bell's Spaceship quacks >> > refuse to show their work with four-vectors. It breaks >> > the parlour trick. If the imaginaries and reals are >> > preserved with the imaginary operato or in the tensor calculus >> > they can be recovered so that temporal and spatial components >> > are not mixed improperly. >> >> No trick involved. Just physics. You should study it sometime. > > Mathematical absurdity is not physics. You wouldn't know [snip irrelevant quote] |