Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: harald on 20 May 2010 12:07 On May 20, 5:04 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > >It's reassuring that you understand that the variation of velocity of > >the Earth is relevant for stellar aberration. But that makes it even > >more amazing that you cannot (or refuse to) understand that the > >variation in velocity is equally relevant for Lorentz contraction in > >SRT (which the OP called "SRT math"). No motion = nothing to discuss > >or consider; > > I don't understand that point. Even if you ignore the orbital motion > of the Earth, the surface of the Earth is moving at over 400 meters > per second. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY The original MMX (even no.2) was even with "Galilean" theory not sensitive enough to detect the rotation of the earth. MMX explicitly takes the orbital motion of the Earth into account, and as it is purposefully performed at different times of the year and at different locations, a number of the experiments are performed at >= 30 km/s relative to any inertial "frame" - incl. that of the hypothetical "stationary ether". See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experiment Harald
From: glird on 20 May 2010 13:09 On Apr 22, 11:43 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >< 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. > To do that one uses a measuring rod. The measuring rod's length will change exactly as the length it is measuring. Therefore the lengths of identical rods measured that way will remain constant, even though they are not. >< The 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". > T R(ex) is the one who is being ambiguous here. >< 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. > In the M&M experiments, the pre-measured lengths of the arms were identical. Regardless of any change in the velocity of the apparatus, the null result occurs whether or not anyone measures the length of each leg then or later. >< "Length contraction" is INSUFFICIENT -- you need to apply the full Lorentz transform between frames. " Length contraction IS fully sufficient. The Lorentz transforms didn't even exist until 30 years AFTER the null results happened. >< 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). > So what? The arms canchange length by any amiunt at all, s long as those in the direction of the systems motion end up q shorter than those in the perpendicular directions. If - as Lorentz wrote in his 1904 paper - the legs shrink in X,Y,Z by Q,q,q (Q = q^2 = c^2-v^2), no rate changes and no LTE are needed to explain the null results and the Lorentz transforms are inapplicable, So are T R's mythical "rotations" of the X' axis of a viewed system. glird > > OK, in other frames there are two discrete orientations of the > apparatus for which those reflections are simultaneous. > > Tom Roberts
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 20 May 2010 18:31 On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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 pions had stopped in the berylium block before they decayed. >> 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. Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 22:44 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:89ec6ceb-d49e-4b51-8f87-76b2d414550c(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On May 20, 6:55 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On May 20, 5:06 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > On May 19, 10:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> [..] >> >> > > DDRR seems to be confusing the two theories. >> >> > I'm shocked, shocked to find that confusion is going on in here! >> >> > Sue... > > ========== > >> >> Hi Sue, don't you think it's amusing? > > It is slighly more amusing than alcohol and drug > addiction. In a moment of sobriety the victim > can see the absurdity of his actions but that insight > never last long enough to overcome the sense of > power and well being that self-delusion can create. > > The Lorentz etherists are impotent without their > parlour tricks and paradoxes so it is pointless > to offer logical interpretation. You seem to be confused about SR and thing it is LET. you need to study some physics and think about it instead of blindly quoting from sources you do not understand. > What magical power can one wield uttering mundane > statements like: > > "All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments." > > Two kids playing a game of catch-ball on an > aeroplane won't even be impressed with that. ;-) But they'll agree with it.
From: Inertial on 20 May 2010 22:45
"harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:3423da45-d3ff-4c6d-b2da-989f7585058c(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > On May 20, 2:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message >> >> news:64d3e64f-1294-4ea2-90d8-93335f47f715(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 20, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message >> >> >>news:0acfa033-9d0d-4e1d-8f78-0cf9d9bad4db(a)i31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On May 20, 1:30 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> messagenews:1e5a95e0-312d-431a-9822-3995e7355f0f(a)e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On May 17, 9:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> >> messagenews:00cb267f-d23d-43d4-a877-28e163decae6(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >>>and the null result did not change anything about light, >> >> >> >>it changed what was known about light >> >> >> >> > Like what? >> >> >> >> Study up on the history of aether theory and of EMR if you >> >> >> don't know. The >> >> >> very fact that the result was unexpected meant there need to be >> >> >> a change in how light was understood. >> >> >> > Wrong, >> >> >> Nope. Stop deluding yourself. >> >> >> > instead the understanding of mechanics theory was changed. The >> >> > special theory of relativity has crystallised out from the Maxwell- >> >> > Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena. All facts of >> >> > experience which support the electromagnetic theory also >> >> > support the theory of relativity. >> >> >> > Harald >> >> > As I cited from Einstein it's you who is deluding yourself. But I >> > don't care if you continue with that. ;-) >> >> I don't care who you misquote or think you are citing .. MMx changed >> how light was thought about. Get over it. > > Evidently you have something to "get over"! Nope > As Einstein emphasized, > SRT *kept* Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics (although it was later > enhanced with QM). Of course it did > MMX did *not* change how Lorentz and Einstein > thought about light. SR and LET were AFTER MMX .. not before. So yes .. it would have had some impact on how they thought about light > Evidently MMX affected how *you* think about > light, but that's irrelevant in a discussion about how SRT "corrected > the MMX math". ;-) There is no 'MMX Math' .. MMX is not a theory. |