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 29 Apr 2010 18:10 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:24 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> [T. Roberts wrote:] >>> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. >> >> That is physically impossible. > >Nonsense! This is OBSERVED -- Michelson interferometers with identical legs give >null results (i.e. a fringe shift of zero within resolutions). > > >> It is also theoretically impossible. > >More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a null result for the >MMX. Look in any SR textbook. > > Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is > isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its > center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position > of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe > shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the > non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly > smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to date. > > >Tom Roberts This is of course a direct consequence of the fact that light is ballistic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein's silly theory. Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 29 Apr 2010 18:22 On Apr 29, 5:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:24 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > > > > > >Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >> [T. Roberts wrote:] > >>> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. > > >> That is physically impossible. > > >Nonsense! This is OBSERVED -- Michelson interferometers with identical legs give > >null results (i.e. a fringe shift of zero within resolutions). > > >> It is also theoretically impossible. > > >More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a null result for the > >MMX. Look in any SR textbook. > > > Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is > > isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its > > center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position > > of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe > > shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the > > non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly > > smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to date.. > > >Tom Roberts > > This is of course a direct consequence of the fact that light is ballistic. It > has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein's silly theory. It's a simple game, really. Promote all the experimental results that are consistent with ballistic theory, and dismiss all the ones that are not. It's called scientific fraud, of course. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Apr 2010 20:38 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 29, 5:10�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:24 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >Da Do Ron Ron wrote: >> >> [T. Roberts wrote:] >> >>> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. >> >> >> That is physically impossible. >> >> >Nonsense! This is OBSERVED -- Michelson interferometers with identical legs give >> >null results (i.e. a fringe shift of zero within resolutions). >> >> >> It is also theoretically impossible. >> >> >More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a null result for the >> >MMX. Look in any SR textbook. >> >> > � �Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is >> > � �isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its >> > � �center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position >> > � �of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe >> > � �shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the >> > � �non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly >> > � �smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to date. >> >> >Tom Roberts >> >> This is of course a direct consequence of the fact that light is ballistic. It >> has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein's silly theory. > >It's a simple game, really. Promote all the experimental results that >are consistent with ballistic theory, and dismiss all the ones that >are not. > >It's called scientific fraud, of course. Yes, this is.... "If the clocks don't give the right answer, just change their readings"....Einstein, 1905... Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 29 Apr 2010 21:12 On Apr 29, 7:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 29, 5:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:51:24 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > >> >> [T. Roberts wrote:] > >> >>> SR predicts a null result, with identical legs. > > >> >> That is physically impossible. > > >> >Nonsense! This is OBSERVED -- Michelson interferometers with identical legs give > >> >null results (i.e. a fringe shift of zero within resolutions). > > >> >> It is also theoretically impossible. > > >> >More nonsense. It is essentially trivial for SR to predict a null result for the > >> >MMX. Look in any SR textbook. > > >> > Summary: in SR the speed of light in any inertial frame is > >> > isotropically c, so for a Michelson interferometer with its > >> > center of rotation at rest in any inertial frame, the position > >> > of the fringes is independent of orientation, hence zero fringe > >> > shift as the instrument is rotated. It's easy to show that the > >> > non-inertial effects due to a laboratory on earth are vastly > >> > smaller than the resolution of the best such measurement to date. > > >> >Tom Roberts > > >> This is of course a direct consequence of the fact that light is ballistic. It > >> has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein's silly theory. > > >It's a simple game, really. Promote all the experimental results that > >are consistent with ballistic theory, and dismiss all the ones that > >are not. > > >It's called scientific fraud, of course. > > Yes, this is.... > > "If the clocks don't give the right answer, just change their > readings"....Einstein, 1905... You put quotation marks around that. Who said it, and in what published reference? You seem to have a problem with procedures like calibration. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Inertial on 29 Apr 2010 09:04
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:3tkit51niebnc6ac0ur1dp0n4nup4qj696(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:44:45 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"John Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message >>news:fsuht55d9frcg008t35c34kj46i8no0jtj(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:38:25 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>> 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 >> >>Quite correct .. there is no length contraction or time dilation relevant >>to >>an SR lab-frame analysis of the MMX, as the apparatus are all at rest in >>the >>lab frame. >> >>For an LET analysis there is .. but only when one considers that >>(according >>to LET) that the rulers and clocks used in the MMX are distorted due to >>their motion through the aether. However, LET predicts that the >>distortion >>of the rulers and clocks is such that they will always show an isotropic >>speed of c for light. >> >>MMX is equally well explained by simple ballistic / emission theory, >>although other experiments soundly refute it. > > Name one... Look them up .. not that you will .. there's many many experiments. Ballistic theory is long dead. |