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: Inertial on 20 May 2010 22:54 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:aeac5075-94c5-40bd-9f48-071546a8a9a1(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > 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. Subsequent experiments are. > 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". Yeup .. and found no 'aether wind' From that you can conclude that, if there is a stationary aether, that motion thru the aether affects measurements OR that the aether is not stationary OR that no aether is involved As the prevailing understanding was that there WAS a stationary aether and that measurements are not affected by motion (ie purely Galilean transforms), then the MMX results (along with other experiments) meant a change in thinking about how light propagates. > See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson�Morley_experiment
From: harald on 21 May 2010 03:10 On May 21, 4:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message [..] > > 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. Here you can find the "MMX math" that Ron refers to (as if you didn't know it!): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether - American Journal of Science 34: 333345.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 21 May 2010 06:41 On 21.05.2010 00:31, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > 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: >>> 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. Ralph, your stupidity and ignorance has ceased to amaze, but it's still amusing. :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: harald on 21 May 2010 09:57 On May 21, 9:10 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [...] > There is no 'MMX Math' .. MMX is not a theory. Here you can find the "MMX math" that Ron refers to (as if you didn't know it!): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether - American Journal of Science 34: 333345. In addition, as at least 90% (perhaps even 99%) of the posts in this thread don't relate to the OP's question, I'll now "translate" it for those who apparently were unable to understand his simple words. Michelson&Morley considered that light propagates at a speed c relative to an inertial frame which they assumed to be the physical reference of light waves. They argued that over the course of a year, their set-up has a max. speed of at least 30 km/s relative to such an inertial reference (whichever), because of the earth's orbit around the sun. Depending on the variations of orientations, the max. speed v parallel to the plane of rotation of their device must still be more than at least a few km/s. The OP reminded us of the fact that in SRT this is still valid, even though SRT does not postulate a physical reference frame for light and we may choose for the observed phenomena any inertial frame; no single one is "preferred". We can take the "solar frame" as example, just as also M-M did for their calculation. The OP invited people to make a sketch of the moving apparatus (of course "moving" means for the case that v>0, for example in the solar frame) and draw the light paths in it. Now, he claimed that the *only* way we can obtain the MMX "null" result is if we make the lengths of the legs in our sketch different from each other - if indeed we assume that the speed of light is everywhere in vacuum constant. Such a consideration and associated sketch are nothing extraordinary, and one may even say that it's the "A" of the "ABC" of SRT. A possible argument concerns his claim that no other possibility exists. Let's hope that this helps... Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 21 May 2010 17:10
Inertial wrote: > [...] > 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. Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for any arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be marked simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary pair of events. Tom Roberts |