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: harald on 23 May 2010 14:49 On 23 mei, 17:58, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:6c16c2be-b13a-4c0d-a797-7701243ebece(a)m21g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > > 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!): > > There is no 'MMX math' .. [Inertial deleted the link to the MMX paper - the math of which the OP described as "MMX math"] You will remain blind as long as you refuse to see. :-))
From: Paul Stowe on 23 May 2010 15:01 On May 23, 11:34 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On 22 mei, 04:41, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 6:57 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > [...] > > > > 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. > > In principle (as follows from this "gedanken"), those effects should > be measurable with the chosen coordinate system in which the sun is in > rest. > > > 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'. > > Do you mean that some people pretend that Einstein was *not* an SRT > theorist? > > > > 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 > > I take not that you also did not comment on his claim. > > Regards, > Harald To be honest Harald way too much importance has been assigned to TWLS experiments. Once you really understand the nature of matter the null result for inertial states is rather obvious. That does not mean that measuring absolute velocity wrt to the aether is impossible, or, even difficult. It just means that you have to use OWLS timing like DeWitte Rolands did. Even simpler is just looking at the natural aether background noise (the CMBR) To me, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. But, I tried to explain why. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: harald on 23 May 2010 15:15 On 23 mei, 21:01, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 11:34 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 mei, 04:41, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 21, 6:57 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > 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. > > > In principle (as follows from this "gedanken"), those effects should > > be measurable with the chosen coordinate system in which the sun is in > > rest. > > > > 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'. > > > Do you mean that some people pretend that Einstein was *not* an SRT > > theorist? > > > > > 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 > > > I take not that you also did not comment on his claim. [oops that should have been: I take note that you also did not comment on his claim.] > > Regards, > > Harald > > To be honest Harald way too much importance has been assigned to TWLS > experiments. Once you really understand the nature of matter the null > result for inertial states is rather obvious. Yes that's very obvious. Do you agree with the SRT sketch? I do, on the assumption that the LT are correct. > That does not mean that > measuring absolute velocity wrt to the aether is impossible, or, even > difficult. It just means that you have to use OWLS timing like > DeWitte Rolands did. If Lorentz was right, then DeWitte could not have measured what he thought he measured. Scientists are open minded but sceptical. ;-) > Even simpler is just looking at the natural > aether background noise (the CMBR) Only if you assume that the CMBR corresponds to "the natural aether background noise". Occam would favour that assumption, but it's just an assumption. > To me, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. But, I tried to > explain why. What whole thing? It appears that most people can't even make an SRT sketch of a moving M-M interferometer, let alone consider alternative sketches. Cheers, Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 23 May 2010 17:30 On May 23, 12:15 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On 23 mei, 21:01, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > 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. > > > > In principle (as follows from this "gedanken"), those effects should > > > be measurable with the chosen coordinate system in which the sun is in > > > rest. > > > > > 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'. > > > > Do you mean that some people pretend that Einstein was *not* an SRT > > > theorist? > > > > > > 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 > > > > I take not that you also did not comment on his claim. > > [oops that should have been: I take note that you also did not comment > on his claim.] > > > > Regards, > > > Harald > > > To be honest Harald way too much importance has been assigned to TWLS > > experiments. Once you really understand the nature of matter the null > > result for inertial states is rather obvious. > > Yes that's very obvious. Do you agree with the SRT sketch? I do, on > the assumption that the LT are correct. I am unfamiliar with the term 'SRT Schetch'? I am intimately familiar with how extended 'fields' conform to a form who radii for its center (r') is r' = Sqrt(1 - unv'^2) and v' = v Cos t Where t is any angle subtended relative to the line of motion. Therefore for any given r' the change in r' is simply related directly to the corresponding change in v. Thus the radial length (L) when moving for anything consisting of fields is, L = L (Sqrt(1 - unv'^2)) o At angles 90 & 270 relative to the line of motion L = L o Therefore, for the round trip at any angle the total path length remains exactly equal. Thus, since we define speed as distance traversed divided by time it takes. Thus the measure of speed at any angle must in turn be equal. The rest of the so-called Lorentz Transforms are simple trigometric expressions relating transverse speed to actual speed. This is, c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 -> c'^2 = c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) -> c'/c = Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) If the hypotenuse path P is related to the transverse path (L ) by Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) such that, P = L /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) o and if c is constant the the time to traverse distance P for any given L at any speed v is, t = t /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) o Finally therefore, L /t = P/t o o Thus one can choose any baseline wish by simply declaring that its initial velocity is to be 'defined' as zero. This process is called normalizing to the baseline. For example Earth's atmospheric pressure is defined as 14.7 psi but is also known as 0 psig, or the normalized base for the gauge system. Doing so however does not make the Earth's atmosphere dissapear. Likewise, declaring the local velocity to be zero does not make the aether dissapear. This is evident by the fact that u (permeability) and n (permittivity) are still present and not zero. This is why I cast r' in terms of these more fundamental properties. > > That does not mean that > > measuring absolute velocity wrt to theaetheris impossible, or, even > > difficult. It just means that you have to use OWLS timing like > > DeWitte Rolands did. > > If Lorentz was right, then DeWitte could not have measured what he > thought he measured. Scientists are open minded but sceptical. ;-) In the direction of motion the one-way paths are not symmetrical. You can 'define' them to be by an appropriate clock synchronization process but, that won't change the underlying physics. Even with the 'contraction' the time to traverse each way is along the axis of motion should be (if Lorentz was right), t' = L/(c - v) and t'' = L/(c + v) So, as v changes so does t' (the outbound leg) and t'' (the inbound leg). So, if the source is sending a steady periodic pulse of a known dt at a given location at some distance L the receiving signal pulse spacing should vary as the relative speed changes. This is what DeWitte Rolands was measuring. > > Even simpler is just looking at the natural > >aetherbackground noise (the CMBR) > > Only if you assume that the CMBR corresponds to "the naturalaether > background noise". Occam would favour that assumption, but it's just > an assumption. > > > To me, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. But, I tried to > > explain why. > > What whole thing? It appears that most people can't even make an SRT > sketch of a moving M-M interferometer, let alone consider alternative > sketches. The whole 'thing' is the fixation on the TWLS measurements. It is such an insignificant aspect of the overall physics picure. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 23 May 2010 18:09
On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:05:47 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> 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 > >You were the one who said it, dipshit. No I wasn't, idiot... Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. |