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: John Polasek on 28 Apr 2010 16:03 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT), Da Do Ron Ron <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the >following two facts: > >(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) > >Given these simple facts, the time t along the horizontal leg must be >t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time t' must be >t' = (2L/c)(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), a time that is shorter than t. (v is >of >course Earth's unknown speed in space, which cannot be zero except >for a brief period each year). > >As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, >viz., >(a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; therefore, >in >order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two >things >must change. > >As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; >thus, >something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > >The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs >different. > >Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making >the legs different. > >This cannot be done by some outside observer viewing the legs; it can >only be done by a physical change of leg length(s). > >The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both >legs. > >~~RA~~ As I recall the purpose of the MM experiment was to measure the velocity with respect to ether. The finding was a null, for which the logical conclusion would be that there is no measurable ether. QED It seems to me there is no place for talk about length contraction or time dilation because these adjustments only need to be brought to bear if you believe that there is an ether and that v is a measurable quantity and that the expressions c+v and c-v make sense. I think it's generally agreed that they don't make sense. John Polasek
From: harald on 28 Apr 2010 16:56 On Apr 28, 10:03 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:59:51 -0700 (PDT), Da Do Ron Ron > > > > <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > >following two facts: > > >(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) > > >Given these simple facts, the time t along the horizontal leg must be > >t = (2L/c)(1/(1-v^2/c^2)), whereas the vertical leg time t' must be > >t' = (2L/c)(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), a time that is shorter than t. (v is > >of > >course Earth's unknown speed in space, which cannot be zero except > >for a brief period each year). > > >As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > >viz., > >(a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; therefore, > >in > >order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > >things > >must change. > > >As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > >thus, > >something about the MMx apparatus had to change. > > >The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > >different. > > >Again, the only way to show the MMx null result on paper is by making > >the legs different. > > >This cannot be done by some outside observer viewing the legs; it can > >only be done by a physical change of leg length(s). > > >The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both > >legs. > > >~~RA~~ > > As I recall the purpose of the MM experiment was to measure the > velocity with respect to ether. The finding was a null, for which the > logical conclusion would be that there is no measurable ether. QED > > It seems to me there is no place for talk about length contraction or > time dilation because these adjustments only need to be brought to > bear if you believe that there is an ether and that v is a measurable > quantity and that the expressions c+v and c-v make sense. I think > it's generally agreed that they don't make sense. > John Polasek No that's wrong too. Over the period of one year (which is the time frame under discussion), relative to any inertial coordinate system there is talk about length contraction as well as c+v and c-v. Time dilation doesn't matter for MMX; however, for that we have KTX as I already pointed out. And although in his 1905 paper Einstein didn't mention MMX directly, Lorentz did so in 1904 and Einstein did the same in his 1907 overview. Moreover, Einstein derives in 1905 the LT by discussing a similar setup as MMX, complete with c+v and c-v; he calls in that paper length contraction "physical". And it is generally agreed that all that does make sense. Cheers, Harald
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 28 Apr 2010 18:04 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:27:30 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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: >> >> >> >> 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 In this instance, there is overwhelming evidence that Model X is correct and absolutely none that might suggest it is not. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 28 Apr 2010 18:21 On Apr 28, 5:04 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 07:27:30 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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: > > >> >> 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 > > In this instance, there is overwhelming evidence that Model X is correct and > absolutely none that might suggest it is not. Actually, compared to the evidence in support of Model Y, the claimed support for Model X isn't very overwhelming at all. In fact, it's rather puny. And as a matter of fact, there does seem to an experimental problem or two with Model X, though Henry chooses to dismiss those experimental results as unbelievable, or alternatively supposes that there are various other vague widgets -- all named after Henry -- that can be slapped onto Model X to make those problems go away. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 28 Apr 2010 18:56
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > In this instance, there is overwhelming evidence that Model X is correct > and absolutely none that might suggest it is not. Ah, and is your theory consistent with the Ives-Stillwell and Alvaeger experiments? > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |