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 21:36 On Apr 27, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(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? :):) No, but I would have liked to see it on the history channel- but, more importantly, to go from common sense to uncommon sense is a big thing to me- I don't know about you. When we decided to believe in time dilation and length contraction- this was, at the same time, when we started to say that we shouldn't trust our senses. What we see, we shouldn't believe, necessarily, what is nonsensical- where does time dilation and length contraction come in this situation?
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 28 Apr 2010 03:15 On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:39:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 20.04.2010 19:46, Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> On Apr 20, 12:17 pm, harald<h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >>> On Apr 19, 7:59 pm, Da Do Ron Ron<ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> snip >>>> The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both >>>> legs. >>> >>> There were still too many alternative explanations possible to call >>> that a proof; but it surely was a plausible hypothesis. More >>> sophisticated experiments such as by Kennedy-Thorndike and experiments >>> with clocks provided a better case for such an assertion. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Harald >> >> Looks like my "needless" repetition did not work after all, huh? >> >> You cannot show the MMx null result on paper without showing >> different length legs. Can you not see that this is a proof? > >Why do you need different length of the legs? > >Given the following two facts: > (i) light's speed in vacuo never varies (due to its source > independency) speed wrt what? > (ii) the value of this speed is known to be c (from Maxwell's > equations) It is c wrt its source. > >Which means that the speed of light is isotropic. Of course it is. It is ballistic... and all apparatus components are at rest wrt the source.. >So the length of the arms must be exactly the same for >the transit times to be equal along both arms. > > >BTW, Have you got your method for absolute synchronization >of clocks patented yet, Brian? Einstein already stole the most practical method from Ritz. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: whoever on 28 Apr 2010 03:24 "GogoJF" <jfgogo22(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b6db016a-db92-42fa-a59a-346ff32008d0(a)g23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 27, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "GogoJF" <jfgog...(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? :):) > > No, but I would have liked to see it on the history channel- but, more > importantly, to go from common sense to uncommon sense is a big thing > to me- I don't know about you. SR is perfectly logical. But it is in situations that you never experience in your everyday life .. just like electron particles diffracting in a double slit experiment is outside of our every-day experience. > When we decided to believe in time > dilation and length contraction- You mean when we found out that it happens > this was, at the same time, when we > started to say that we shouldn't trust our senses. But it is our senses that detect it. If you believe your senses (or at least those who have performed the experiments and made observations), then you would believe time dilation etc happens. > What we see, we > shouldn't believe, of course we should (except if you're talking about optical illusions) > necessarily, what is nonsensical- What do you think is nonsensical. > where does time > dilation and length contraction come in this situation? Nowhere .. its neither nonsensical, nor something that can't be 'observed' --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: PD on 28 Apr 2010 10:25 On Apr 27, 8:36 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 27, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "GogoJF" <jfgog...(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? :):) > > No, but I would have liked to see it on the history channel- but, more > importantly, to go from common sense to uncommon sense is a big thing > to me- I don't know about you. When we decided to believe in time > dilation and length contraction- this was, at the same time, when we > started to say that we shouldn't trust our senses. What we see, we > shouldn't believe, necessarily, what is nonsensical- where does time > dilation and length contraction come in this situation? This is precisely right. The great advance of the 20th century was instrumentation to explore the region of our universe outside the sensitive region of our senses. Much to our surprise, we find that most of the universe is totally unlike what we are accustomed to from the narrow slice of reality we are familiar with. This isn't to say that we shouldn't trust our senses. Our senses are fine, over the realm that are senses are tuned to. And over that domain, the rules that we infer from our senses are also generally reliable. The problem comes when we attempt to claim that those rules apply universally and are just as valid beyond the realm of our senses. This is where we've learned this isn't the case at all.
From: PD on 28 Apr 2010 10:27
On Apr 27, 4:35 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 MMX was always destined to produce a null result for that reason. > > >Cheers - > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. Henry is under the impression that if an experiment is consistent with Model X, then this stands as experimental proof that Model X is correct. PD |