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: Da Do Ron Ron on 19 Apr 2010 13:59 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~~
From: Tom Roberts on 20 Apr 2010 13:43 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > The math of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMx) was based on the > following two facts: Actually, the MMx was an EXPERIMENT, not an exercise in math. But the authors did analyze it using the then-current theory of light (Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, based on an aether -- this is NOT the theory known as "classical electrodynamics" today). > (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) You must specify what you mean by speed. And today you must also specify your theoretical context. In 1887 they expected Maxwell's equations to be valid in one and only one inertial frame, the so-called aether frame (because that's how Maxwell presented his theory). So in this theoretical context that's the only frame your (i-ii) hold. Galilean relativity was expected to relate the lab frame to the aether frame, which implies that the local speed of light in the lab should be anisotropic, with the anisotropy varying in direction throughout the day and the year; the experiment was designed to measure this anisotropy and thus determine the speed of the lab relative to the aether. As the earth obviously orbits the sun at 30 km/s, that was the expected minimum speed expected. Today we normally use relativity as our theoretical context. That implies that your (i-ii) hold in any inertial frame. > As we all know, the MMx consists of essentially only two things, > viz., (a) the apparatus in space, and (b) light waves in space; This is a GREAT oversimplification. > therefore, > in order for the above result NOT to occur, at least one of these two > things must change. Your logic is invalid -- you attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration, but did not include SR; SR does not satisfy your claim here. SR predicts a null result for the MMX, with neither the apparatus nor the light changing in any way. > As we all also know, the above facts about light did not change; > thus, something about the MMx apparatus had to change. But just LOOK at it -- as it rotates it does not "change". In fact, it was specifically designed to minimize any changes during measurements. > The only way to change the above math is by making the MMx legs > different. 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. > 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. No. You did not consider the possibility that your entire approach is flawed. In the light of modern physics, your whole approach is fatally flawed. Tom Roberts
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 20 Apr 2010 13:46 On Apr 20, 12:17 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Apr 19, 7:59 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: snip > > The above is proof of a physical change of length for one or both > > legs. > > There were still too many alternative explanations possible to call > that a proof; but it surely was a plausible hypothesis. More > sophisticated experiments such as by Kennedy-Thorndike and experiments > with clocks provided a better case for such an assertion. > > Regards, > Harald Looks like my "needless" repetition did not work after all, huh? You cannot show the MMx null result on paper without showing different length legs. Can you not see that this is a proof? Regards, ~RA~
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 14:39 On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, 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) First of all, this is an erroneous statement of historical fact. The MMX was performed almost 20 years before those two statements above were written down. And in fact, the MMX experimental design was based on those two statements being WRONG. That is, the MMX was designed to detect the *dependence* of the speed of light on the apparatus's motion through the ether. There were several candidate ideas for why, despite being designed to measure this dependence, none was found. The rest of your "analysis" below hinges on this error and therefore needs to be chucked wholesale. You may start over and try again. > > 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~~
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 19 Apr 2010 16:28
On Apr 19, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:59 pm, 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) > > First of all, this is an erroneous statement of historical fact. The > MMX was performed almost 20 years before those two statements above > were written down. And in fact, the MMX experimental design was based > on those two statements being WRONG. That is, the MMX was designed to > detect the *dependence* of the speed of light on the apparatus's > motion through the ether. > > There were several candidate ideas for why, despite being designed to > measure this dependence, none was found. > > The rest of your "analysis" below hinges on this error and therefore > needs to be chucked wholesale. > > You may start over and try again. > Can we please have someone who is competent reply? (For example, someone who knows that Maxwell preceded the MMx -- Maxwell 1865 -- MMx 1887) ~RA~ |