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: Paul Stowe on 21 May 2010 22:41 On May 21, 6:57 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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... > - 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. That's because that question was based upon not understanding basics... > 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 Ummm, actually, 60 km/sec... +/- 30 km/sec > 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. How'bout adding in the ~20X greater speed as measured by the CMBR background... > 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 only real difference between SRT and LR (Lorentzian Relativity) is SRT assumed that the normalized inertial frame (the one at 'relative' rest) IS 'at rest'. In other words, SRT simply renormalizes the rest frame ad hoc, LR considers it normalizable but, realizes that, for light speed to be independent of emission, there must exist the underlying physical frame controlling that behavior. BUT! the results are IDENTICAL! All matter & fields obey the Lorentz Transforms AT EVER INSTANT! So, it does not matter that the Earth speed changes, the fields will too, thus no measurable difference. > 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. The problem is, since you and everything else changes automatically according to the LT as speed changes YOU! can't see or measure those changes. There in lies the problem... THAT! is what everyone has been trying to tell you and OP.... Since SRT theorists deny any physical reality to the 'contraction' ascribing it to a 'geometric rotation' in the relative moving 'frame'. > 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... Paul Stowe
From: Jerry on 22 May 2010 04:56 On May 21, 11:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. No. Jerry
From: Androcles on 22 May 2010 05:15 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a789c6d6-d5a8-4b11-9874-4abd491b937f(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... On May 20, 6:31 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 19 May 2010 20:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123 <drosen0...(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: > > >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 pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. Where and when?
From: eric gisse on 22 May 2010 15:53 ...@..(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. How do you know? > >>> 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: Henry Wilson DSc on 22 May 2010 17:17
On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On May 21, 11:51�pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> � � �The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. > >No. > >Jerry kook fight Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. |