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: Henry Wilson DSc on 28 Apr 2010 20:28 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:56:52 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(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? they aren't statistically significant... Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 28 Apr 2010 21:05 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:dlkht5h7eqrc6lv1n1qols234drh7159s8(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:56:52 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(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? > > they aren't statistically significant... Henry sticks his fingers in his ears, closes his eyes and says "la la la I can't hear you la la la"
From: John Polasek on 28 Apr 2010 21:10 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >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 You don't really think there is an ether with respect to which v could be measured but whose presence has been masked by the Lorenz transform? Why would the Lorenz transform apply here? There's no relative motion of a second moving frame or anything: the observer is sitting right next to the mirrors and the only active phenomenon is the purported ether wind that would affect both mirrors. The overall conclusion, which is quite generally held, is that no fringeshift means no ether wind. It's part of relativity Einstein didn't get everything right; the contraction is only an apparent one. John Polasek
From: Androcles on 28 Apr 2010 22:38 "John Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:rolht557uq4jefem2ttuaq35lrk7ofpk28(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> > wrote: > >>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 > You don't really think there is an ether with respect to which v could > be measured but whose presence has been masked by the Lorenz > transform? > Why would the Lorenz transform apply here? There's no relative motion > of a second moving frame or anything: the observer is sitting right > next to the mirrors and the only active phenomenon is the purported > ether wind that would affect both mirrors. > The overall conclusion, which is quite generally held, is that no > fringeshift means no ether wind. It's part of relativity > Einstein didn't get everything right; the contraction is only an > apparent one. > John Polasek What "contraction"? xi = (x-vt)/sqrt((c-v)*(c+v) /c^2) is an expansion. Obviously you don't understand algebra. MMX is done today on a far greater scale than you realise, and has been for 40 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment The time for laser light to reach the new moon and return is one leg, and the time for it to reach the moon and return at last quarter one week later is the other leg of MMX. The Earth-Moon system moves around the Sun so if Einstein's ridiculous postulate was true then the light wound travel to the new moon and back at c and to the quarter moon at c+v, coming back at c-v, where v is the speed of the Earth-Moon system going around the Sun. This has the relativistic value of 0.0001c, so someone would notice it by now. Instead, we measure the distance to the Moon because the speed is c both ways always.
From: John Polasek on 28 Apr 2010 23:30
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:38:25 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"John Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >news:rolht557uq4jefem2ttuaq35lrk7ofpk28(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:56:51 -0700 (PDT), harald <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> >> wrote: >> >>>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 >> You don't really think there is an ether with respect to which v could >> be measured but whose presence has been masked by the Lorenz >> transform? >> Why would the Lorenz transform apply here? There's no relative motion >> of a second moving frame or anything: the observer is sitting right >> next to the mirrors and the only active phenomenon is the purported >> ether wind that would affect both mirrors. >> The overall conclusion, which is quite generally held, is that no >> fringeshift means no ether wind. It's part of relativity >> Einstein didn't get everything right; the contraction is only an >> apparent one. >> John Polasek > >What "contraction"? >xi = (x-vt)/sqrt((c-v)*(c+v) /c^2) is an expansion. >Obviously you don't understand algebra. > >MMX is done today on a far greater scale than you realise, >and has been for 40 years. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment > >The time for laser light to reach the new moon and return is one >leg, and the time for it to reach the moon and return at last quarter >one week later is the other leg of MMX. The Earth-Moon system >moves around the Sun so if Einstein's ridiculous postulate was true >then the light wound travel to the new moon and back at c and to >the quarter moon at c+v, coming back at c-v, where v is the > speed of the Earth-Moon system going around the Sun. This >has the relativistic value of 0.0001c, so someone would notice >it by now. Instead, we measure the distance to the Moon because >the speed is c both ways always. > What are you babbling about? Others are speaking of using the Lorentz transform (contraction)-I am not-and they must be doing it to adjust the leg lengths so as to get a null, apparently in the face of an ether wind. There is no ether wind, there is no c+v, it forms the basis of relativity. John Polasek |