 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008How to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment without SR?
How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley experiment? Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to measure the velocity of the earth through it. Their interferometer floated on the suface of a tank to eliminate vibrations. They tried during different times of the year, when the motion of the earth around the sun was going in opposite directions relative to the stars. And they tried just rotating the interferometer. The sensitivity of the interferometer was such that they should have been able to detect motion at a small fraction of the speed of light. They never did find any evidence of motion through the ether. Conclusion: Either a) the luminiferous ether that fills all space and transmits light to us from the stars is fixed to a floating interferometer in a tank in the basement of Adelbert Hall at Western Reserve University, or b) there is no ether, or c) galillean relativity is wrong, or some combination of these ideas. Einstein proposed (independently of this experiment,which he learned about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so clever at hiding from us that we can never detect it. What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment? I predict that Spaceman will say their interferometer malfunctioned. Some will say that Michelson and Morley must have been Jewish. Other than that, I am curious. Uncle Ben > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Some will say that Michelson and Morley must have been Jewish. Other > than that, I am curious. Well, you are completely wrong with your prediction first of all. And I have actually stated many times that MMX simply proved the bounce occurs the same no matter the motion of the system that is in constant motion. so how you got the inferometer will malfunction is just a sad attack that is baseless simply because you don't know how clocks work when I say such about dilated clocks. A ball bounces the same in a train moving 100 mph as it would with a train "at rest". As long as the speed of the system is "constant" the ball will bounce as if the system was not moving at all. Make the motion accelerated instead of constant and the ball bounces differently.  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > And I have actually stated many times that MMX simply > proved the bounce occurs the same no matter the motion > of the system that is in constant motion. > so how you got the inferometer will malfunction is just > a sad attack that is baseless simply because you don't know > how clocks work when I say such about dilated clocks. Nice all over the map kook rant. > A ball bounces the same in a train moving 100 mph > as it would with a train "at rest". > As long as the speed of the system is "constant" > the ball will bounce as if the system was not moving at all. > Make the motion accelerated instead of constant and the ball bounces > differently. James needs to take a closer look at the experimental setup and the required path lengths for the light moving in or with a putative aether. He will quickly discover that he's way off base here. On Jul 10, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But we aren't talking about a bouncing ball. The speed of light through the ether is fixed by properties of the ether, just as the speed of waves bouncing off the side of a ship is fixed by the properties of the body of water. The "bouncing" of a wave is affected by the motion of the ship only in the amplitude of the wave, not its speed. No? Uncle Ben > On Jul 10, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > by the motion of the ship only in the amplitude of the wave, not its > speed. No? But we are talking about a "bouncing waveform". The system is all moving at a constant motion. your boat analogy is not moving the same speed as the system it is in when you have the "water" sitting still and the boat not. Place the boat in a whirlpool and give it a constant speed keeping itself from getting sucked down the "well". How does the wave bounce now?. Move the boat and the system it sits in The train and ball is the same thing. The bouncing is not effected. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe a different example will help. Consider the doppler radar used by police to measure a vehicle's speed. There you have an electromagnetic wave bouncing off of a speeding car back to the source. Do we agree that the speed of the return is the same as the speed of the incident wave, and that what the cop measures is the change in frequency of the wave, not its speed. (The Doppler Effect.) > On Jul 10, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > speed of the incident wave, and that what the cop measures is the > change in frequency of the wave, not its speed. (The Doppler Effect.) Actually You better rethink that one completely. The reason for the frequency change is the speed of the car. Try think of two balls being shot at the car at tiny differences in time, one is the top of the wave and one is the bottom of the wave, the speed of the car will cause the time difference in the balls return time difference of the two balls. :) And Again, That is not a constant speed of the "system" itself being used. If the "highway" was moving and both the cop and the car were "at rest to each other" What would the radar say about the two cars that are moving "at rest" wrt each other? 0 speed. bounce speed and frequency same away as returned. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 2:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, we may be getting somewhere, but maybe not. I completely agree that it is the frequency than changes, but I would say that that is because between the crest of one return wave and the crest of the next, the car has advanced. But that does not imply that the speed of the wave has changed. So to narrow down to the speed, consider radar ranging. Air traffic control knows how far I am from the airport by the time delay between an outgoing pulse and the return pulse. But to convert that time delay to distance, the system needs to know the speed of the wave. If the return wave is going faster w.r.t. ground than the incident wave, ATC cannot compute exactly how far away I am because they don't know my speed (absent doppler effect, which not every ATC has). So that wouldn't work for ranging. But it does work. I say it is because the speed of the wave is independent of the motion of the reflector. They always know the speed of both imncident and reflected wave. It is c exactly barring atmospheric effects. Th8s contradicts your notion that the wave bounces like a ball, does it not? > Well, we may be getting somewhere, but maybe not. I completely agree > that it is the frequency than changes, but I would say that that is > because between the crest of one return wave and the crest of the > next, the car has advanced. But that does not imply that the speed of > the wave has changed. I am not saying the speed of the returning wave would change. that speed is medium dependent so unless the medium changes or moves of course the speed will not change. > So to narrow down to the speed, consider radar ranging. Air traffic > control knows how far I am from the airport by the time delay between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > my speed (absent doppler effect, which not every ATC has). So that > wouldn't work for ranging. I am not saying anything about a speed change. I am simply saying when the system moves with the waves they will of course bounce the same just as inside a train the ball bounces the same as if the train were stopped. > But it does work. I say it is because the speed of the wave is > independent of the motion of the reflector. They always know the speed > of both imncident and reflected wave. It is c exactly barring > atmospheric effects. Th8s contradicts your notion that the wave > bounces like a ball, does it not? I am not saying the speed of the object will change the speed of the wave bouncing off it.. Why are you saying that? SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 3:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > Well, we may be getting somewhere, but maybe not. I completely agree > > that it is the frequency than changes, but I would say that that is [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Because you keep referring to the "bouncing" of light off a mirror. A ball bouncing off a moving surface has a speed that certainly is affected by the movement of the surface, whereas a wave does not. I am out of time today and tomorrow, but if you're available to teach me more about your theory, we can pick it up next week. Have a good weekend, Jim! Ben > On Jul 10, 3:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > ball bouncing off a moving surface has a speed that certainly is > affected by the movement of the surface, whereas a wave does not. How have you proved the wave does not have a different speed if you can't use "frequency" to tell the speed? Frequency is locked into using c for speed. I truly think an actual speed "test" needs to be done. not a silly.. the frequency only changed and "we know what speed all radio/ light frequencies travel at. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 11:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 3:13 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Spaceman: When I realized that M-M didn't have a CONTROL, I did a mathematical analysis of the times required for each of the two light courses in M-M to 'bounce' around the apparatus. (The more correct term is: re emit.) The velocity of the re emitted light is 'c', universally. But the EFFECTIVE velocity is 'c' plus or minus the velocity of the light source, or the mirror or reflecting surface. Using that logical assumption, the times of travel don't change, regardless of the angle of rotation of the apparatus. Read the following if you or other readers might like to test you high school algebra skills, and disprove SR, too! — NoEinstein — Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en > On Jul 10, 11:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Using that logical assumption, the times of travel don't change, > regardless of the angle of rotation of the apparatus. This is only true if you do not understand basic algebra as has been pointed out to you many times. Since your math is wrong, your conclusions are wrong. If you were to actually DO the math, you would see your mistake. Read the > following if you or other readers might like to test you high school > algebra skills, and disprove SR, too! — NoEinstein — > > Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en | > On Jul 10, 11:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> | > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] | conclusions are wrong. If you were to actually DO the math, you | would see your mistake. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? This would only be true if you are a complete fuckhead. > > On Jul 10, 11:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Doug: When I took the Graduate Record Exam prior to graduating from college (in architecture), I scored higher than 95% of the math majors taking the same exam. Don't accuse me of not knowing algebra. Until you have written those equations for yourself (if you can), don't disparage someone, like me, who has cared enough about science to DO the math! — NoEinstein — Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en >>>On Jul 10, 11:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > don't disparage someone, like me, who has cared enough about science > to DO the math! — NoEinstein — I have done them and they do not give your answer. You think that the average velocity is the average of the velocities. It is not. The average velocity is the total time divided by the total distance. To first order, the velocity effects disappear but the factor which shows up in the Lorentz formula is a second order term which does not disappear. Work out the average velocity using simple algebra and you will see the correct answer. You have not done that or you would not make wrong statements. > Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en On Jul 10, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Uncle Ben wrote: > > On Jul 10, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe a different example will help. Consider the doppler radar used by police to measure a vehicle's speed. There you have an electromagnetic wave bouncing off of a speeding car back to the source. Do we agree that the speed of the return is the same as the speed of the incident wave, and that what the cop measures is the change in frequency of the wave, not its speed. (The Doppler Effect.) ================================================ No. Doppler equation is c+v f' = f* ------------- c+u On Jul 10, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Uncle Ben wrote: > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But we aren't talking about a bouncing ball. The speed of light through the ether is fixed by properties of the ether, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Drooling idiot. | How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley | experiment? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | | What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment? This: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm and this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm and this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm and this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm You've a lot of catching up to do. > | How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > | experiment? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > You've a lot of catching up to do. Yes, I'm sure I have a lot of catching up to do. Your first link is right on point. But I'm having a bit of trouble following your argument. You show four nicely animated figures. We have one interferometer moving with the earth through the ether with one set of observers. Suppose that they are all moving w.r.t. the ether as in your diagram at top right. If the light paths are of unequal length, why don't they observe a fringe shift as they change the direction of motion (by rotating the interferometer) and the difference in path length changes? Uncle Ben Uncle Ben On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > You've a lot of catching up to do. Yes, I'm sure I have a lot of catching up to do. Your first link is right on point. But I'm having a bit of trouble following your argument. You show four nicely animated figures. We have one interferometer moving with the earth through the ether with one set of observers. =============================================== What aether? What set? In every case the eye at the bottom remains fixed relative to the source at the left. =============================================== Suppose that they are all moving w.r.t. the ether as in your diagram at top right. =============================================== What aether? =============================================== If the light paths are of unequal length, =============================================== What "if"? The path lengths are equal, I was careful to draw them that way. why don't they observe a fringe shift as they change the direction of motion (by rotating the interferometer) and the difference in path length changes? =============================================== They do if you change the path length. Michelson fitted a screw thread that moves the mirror to change the path length. (Shown top left where the red ray reflects - there are four fixed mirrors at three locations and at the fourth location there is one adjustable mirror with three fixed. The adjustable mirror is beside the eyepiece.) When Michelson got the interference set up how he wanted it he then turned the granite block through 90 degrees (it is resting on wood which is floating on mercury) and that makes the supposed aether wind change direction. If there were any aether that would affect the interference pattern, but that doesn't happen. Conclusion: No aether wind. No aether needed, no SR needed. Then in 1913 Sagnac repeated it, but arranged for the whole thing to turn at a constant rate. Because he couldn't run around he put a photographic plate at the eyepiece and photograph the fringe shift, thus PROVING beyond doubt there is no aether. It's really quite simple. Light behaves like a bullet from a gun. So... 100 years later we have a very simple idea that is very difficult for indoctrinated minds to understand. Ockham's razor wins again. If you were not so insistent that light is a wave you'd see it straight away. > On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing that light is like an elastic bullet. Like Spaceman, you want to say that light bouncing off a moving mirror changes its speed like an elastic ball. So we agree: no ether. But we disagree about the speed of light reflected from a mirror. Right? If so, consider what I commented to him about radar ranging. How can radar ranging work if the speed of the returning em wave is unknown? Uncle Ben > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing > that light is like an elastic bullet. Like Spaceman, you want to say > that light bouncing off a moving mirror changes its speed like an > elastic ball. If the mirror was moving towards you, the balls would come back at a faster speed. If it were moving away from you it will come back at a slower speed. (doppler shift from speed return difference.) The problem with the whole thing is you are not checking the actual speed the wave is moving when it comes back. You can not tell if a frequency change is caused by speed of the wave unless you actually measure the speed it comes back at. but of course.. you can not measure the speed without measuring the "frequency" and when you combine the two "ifs" you end up with either or. :) Both can cause a doppler effect and niether will show the difference of either if the whole system is in motion. > So we agree: no ether. But we disagree about the speed of light > reflected from a mirror. Right? > > If so, consider what I commented to him about radar ranging. How can > radar ranging work if the speed of the returning em wave is unknown? Actually it works because we are checking the frequency of the returning wave. and of course.. when you try to convert a frequency to a "speed" you automatically assume c to do such. :) Until you use an actual single "ball" and time from when it hits to it's return time you won't know the speed difference at all. Conundrum maybe? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing > > that light is like an elastic bullet. Like Spaceman, you want to say [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Jim, radar ranging doesn't work that way. You say we measure frequency and convert it to speed. No we don't. In the early days you had a scope that showed a big blip on the transmission of a pulse and a small blip on the receipt of the reflected pulse. The range is the time interval between them times c/ 2, or approximately 6 inches per nanosecond. It is assumed (correctly and relativistically) that the speed of the return w.r.t. the ground is just the same as the speed of the outgoing pulse. The fact that radar ranging works very precisely against incoming rockets is evidence against the supposed effect of light moving faster or slower on reflection from a moving object. On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Uncle Ben wrote: > > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Jim, radar ranging doesn't work that way. You say we measure frequency and convert it to speed. No we don't. In the early days you had a scope that showed a big blip on the transmission of a pulse and a small blip on the receipt of the reflected pulse. The range is the time interval between them times c/ 2, or approximately 6 inches per nanosecond. It is assumed (correctly and relativistically) that the speed of the return w.r.t. the ground is just the same as the speed of the outgoing pulse. The fact that radar ranging works very precisely against incoming rockets is evidence against the supposed effect of light moving faster or slower on reflection from a moving object. ============================================= Stop waving your hands and mumbling sh.t like "the fact" and "very precisely" and do the numbers. The speed of the incoming Scud missile is 3600 mph, or 1 mile a second. One mile is 63,360 inches. Let's see...that's a speed of 0.00006336 inches per nanosecond. Obviously a Patriot missile will miss it by 1/100th of the width of a whisker, radar ranging isn't anywhere near precise enough. The FACT that you don't think at all is only too evident. > On Jul 10, 3:28 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > rockets is evidence against the supposed effect of light moving faster > or slower on reflection from a moving object. It assumed, that is the key word. so it could have easily made a faster trip back then forward and you would still be "close enough" to tell where stuff was because it surely was not a bumble bee you were tracking. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing that light is like an elastic bullet. ============================================ Yeah, we call them "photons". ============================================ Like Spaceman, you want to say that light bouncing off a moving mirror changes its speed like an elastic ball. ============================================= More like Newton, actually. Driscoll still has a lot to learn. ============================================= So we agree: no ether. ============================================== Good. So that answers your question "What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment?" ============================================== But we disagree about the speed of light reflected from a mirror. Right? ================================ I haven't paid attention to your view, you seem to be obsessed with waves. ================================ If so, consider what I commented to him about radar ranging. How can radar ranging work if the speed of the returning em wave is unknown? ================================ These two waves have identical wavelengths and identical frequencies: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm What are their speeds? > On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I am out of time for today and tomorrow, but if you'd like to continue this dialog, I might eventually understand your point of view. I'll try you next week. Have a good weekend! Ben > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing > that light is like an elastic bullet. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, we call them "photons". > ============================================ This is a crucial point here! There is a LOT of hot air expended over the discussion of the MM experiment, but fact is that all of LIGHT is a mystery! Interference as say in the double slit experiment is not explained nor is the fact that the MM experiment is QUITE different from what is usually supposed. Therefore what it proved by it is equally distant from what is usually asserted! Let us take the standard Michelson interferometer. The MM setup was a bit different, but that is of no importance. Now here's what we are going to do. We are going to start reducing the intensity of the light entering the device and we will use say a gen III night vision device to monitor the output fringes. What do you suppose will happen? I'll tell you. Pretty soon you've got the light cut down until you have just SINGLE photons going through the interferometer! When they hit the beam splitter clearly a single photon must go one way or the other. It can't go down both legs at once! And then it comes out and goes splat on the detector. ONE single splat doesn't mean much but if you do this long enough and record all the splats eventually you see that the statistics are building up a pattern of CLASSIC FRINGES! Whoa! EACH "photon" is somehow "sensing" the two legs of the interferometer even though it only goes down ONE of them! So the MM point here is that back in Michelson's day, the whole thing was little questioned. QM wasn't an issue. The whole experiment was "explained" on the basis of classical wave theory. But dig, guys. We've just seen that while the MACROSCOPIC statistical results are identical with classical wave theory, classical waves are in NO WAY what is giving the fringes! In other words the ENTIRE interpretation of the MM experiment is based on erroneous models! The whole thing is in a sense bogus! And it follows until someone goes back and re-thinks the results based on photons and QM MM cannot have any kind of standing as a foundation of relativity. Think about it. Oh wait. You can't think about it because this is one of those topics that is "off limits" to consideration, right? > > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing > > that light is like an elastic bullet. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Oh wait. You can't think about it because this is one of those topics > that is "off limits" to consideration, right? I don't get your point. We agree that a single photon can go both ways and interfere with itself on recombination. Just as an electron can go through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side. The mystery of QM! Or rather the wave nature of particles, or their probabilities. But that said, the wave theory gives the correct result to Michelson and Morley, and their conclusion that no ether effect can be seen is for their purposes correct. Why does their conclusion require any change? Ben > > > I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing > > > that light is like an elastic bullet. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Benj: Light is photons, only. The supposed wave-like bending "past the line of sight" is due to deflections caused by the magnetic ether near the edges of all objects (including slits and pin holes). The closer the light comes to an object, or edge, the more the photons are deflected by the magnetic (polar) ether near the object. — NoEinstein — > On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 138 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Speeds are relative. For radar ranging you need speed relative to the ground. That's how you can determine the distance of the reflecting object. But if the photon/bullet bounces off the moving target, its speed with respect to the ground will be greater on reflection than it is on incidence. (You revert to wave concepts to say that the wavelength and frequency are unchanged and thus the speed is unchanged. That may be true with respect to the reflecting object, but it is not true of the speed w.r.t. the ground. The batted ball can move faster than the pitch.) So radar ranging cannot be precise without knowing the speed of the object. Yet radar ranging works without that knowledge. . So I think it contradicts your photon/bullet theory. Ben On Jul 10, 3:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Speeds are relative. ============= Yes, very good. ============= For radar ranging you need speed relative to the ground. That's how you can determine the distance of the reflecting object. =============================================== Sonny, I haven't asked you about reflections yet, I said "These two waves have identical wavelengths and identical frequencies: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm What are their speeds? " Do have difficulty comprehending a simple thing like the speed of a wave? Come to think of it, you haven't answered ANY of my questions. All we've agreed on is no aether and then you ranted on about waves. ================================================ But if the photon/bullet bounces off the moving target, its speed with respect to the ground will be greater on reflection than it is on incidence. =============================================== Yes, so? (You revert to wave concepts to say that the wavelength and frequency are unchanged and thus the speed is unchanged. ============================================== Have I? Well, to understand what a photon is you need to understand about waves. These two waves have identical wavelengths and identical frequencies: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm What are their speeds? ============================================== That may be true with respect to the reflecting object, but it is not true of the speed w.r.t. the ground. The batted ball can move faster than the pitch.) =============================================== I'm not disagreeing, so what's your point? =============================================== So radar ranging cannot be precise without knowing the speed of the object. =============================================== I can find the speed from doppler radar. So now I know the speed and my ranging is precise. ============================================= Yet radar ranging works without that knowledge. ============================================= You switch quite rapidly from "precise" to "works", don't you? I've got a wooden stick that works, but its not very precise. There are 115 paces from my home to the convenience store, that's very precise. I use my walking cane to measure it and it works, but sometimes is measures 114 or 116 paces. ============================================= So I think it contradicts your photon/bullet theory. ============================================= Can you offer any evidence that you actually think? > On Jul 10, 3:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 224 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "I have given you an argument, sir, but I cannot give you an understanding." --Dr. Samuel Johnson. Your tact and diplomacy and general good humor have made it a pleasure. Goodbye. On Jul 12, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 236 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "I have given you an argument, sir, but I cannot give you an understanding." --Dr. Samuel Johnson. Your tact and diplomacy and general good humor have made it a pleasure. Goodbye. ============================================= As I suspected, an ignorant, fuckheaded, chicken sh.t troll. "I have given you an understanding, sir, but I cannot give you an brain to use it." --Dr. Androcles. > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? Does it matter? The anti-Einstein crowd is universally mentally defective to one degree or another. [snip] > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [snip] Like this, <http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/files/2008/06/index.jpg> SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? > > Does it matter? The anti-Einstein crowd is universally mentally > defective to one degree or another. Lessee. The old ad hominem name-calling "cite" to "win" the debate! Eric are you aware that you just proved yourself to be "universally mentally defective" in a public forum? I take it your "scientific point" here is that physics dogma (such as M-M) is fully beyond any discussion and anyone choosing to discuss such an "off limits" topic is insane. Right. You are clearly a quality "scientist"! "I love how sheer is the fabric of the Emperor's new clothes" is about all Eric has to add to this conversation. > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "I love how sheer is the fabric of the Emperor's new clothes" is about > all Eric has to add to this conversation. Dear Benj: Right on! Eric has been asking for that 'medicine' you just dished out. But curing him is unlikely... — NoEinstein — :-) > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > just dished out. But curing him is unlikely... > — NoEinstein — :-) Its' like cheerleading for the Cubs: a wasted effort. It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. Repeatedly. > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: That's right, it HAS been settled—by me! Simply stated, M- M doesn't have a CONTROL. There is no rubber ruler needed; no Lorentz transformation; and thus no SR or GR to explain nature. Your idol, Einstein, is SUNK and beyond being recovered! — NoEinstein — > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > transformation; and thus no SR or GR to explain nature. Your idol, > Einstein, is SUNK and beyond being recovered! — NoEinstein — Interferometers do not need controls. Furthermore I thought it was understood that you are not allowed to talk about SR or GR until you can discuss high school level classical mechanics without making a fool of yourself. > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: I've told you this three or four times: ALL measurements require a control, or point of reference. You flunked physics. So, give it up, fellow. — NoEinstein — > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > require a control, or point of reference. You flunked physics. So, > give it up, fellow. — NoEinstein — No, they don't. That's the beauty of an interferometer. > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: You are a known flyweight in physics—especially on this NG. If you suppose that interferometers don't need CONTROLS, please find one or more references to ANY quantitative measurement which doesn't require a bench mark, fiduciary zero (Michelson's own term), point of reference, or CONTROL. Fortunately, Eric Gisse isn't a 'benchmark' for scientific truths. — NoEinstein — > > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > point of reference, or CONTROL. Fortunately, Eric Gisse isn't a > 'benchmark' for scientific truths. — NoEinstein — Learn how an interferometer works before making stupid remarks. Your 19th century view of science is rather irritating, along with your 17th century knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: And how many interferometers have you designed and successfully tested? Casting aspersions on those actually doing science might fool those just passing through. But on this NG, you are a known belfry brain—just a ringing, empty void. — NoEinstein — > > > > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > science might fool those just passing through. But on this NG, you > are a known belfry brain—just a ringing, empty void. — NoEinstein — Designed? None. Not that you've designed any - your "designs" never progressed past you demanding myself and others do the computations for you. Used? Michelson style interferometers, 3 times that come to mind. Other devices that use interferometry at some level? f.ck, too many to count. Regardless you do not "do science". I'm yet to see you do a simple f.cking drop test to confirm your inane little delusions, or built an interferometer and its "control" to validate your drivel. I have, however, seen you babble endlessly on USENET. I know that I'm one of the few people who give you any attention at all. Even though so try not to be too needy and obvious about the attention whoring. Look up “ attention whore ” in the dictionary, your picture is there. You troll these groups, tacking on the single word “ stupid ” to end of everyone's post, hoping for a response. Such a dedicated scientist ! ? > Look up " attention whore " in the dictionary, your picture is there. > > You troll these groups, > tacking on the single word " stupid " to end of everyone's post, > hoping for a response. Such a dedicated scientist ! ? Stop whining, Relf. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: One can't appreciate a mathematical concept unless they themselves verify it. I have verified that M-M lacked a CONTROL correct to nine decimal places. But as of now, you are too lazy, or too shallow-minded, to write one or more algebraic equations. Do you even remember how to do algebra? Instead of covering up for your own ignorance by "claiming" that I need the likes of a college flunk-out like you to do math for me, why don't you ask your parents to pay to have you go to a good Jewish psychiatrist. Your inferiority complex must be placated, or you will never amount to a hill-of-beans. — NoEinstein — Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en > > > > > > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: You are like a nut and a bolt, but minus the bolt. — NoEinstein — > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. > Repeatedly. Eric, Do you realize that you just said it isn't beyond debate and then in the next phrase said it was? I do believe that is what "repeatedly settled" means. Is this your example of the clear thinking that you have and I don't? Moron. Please tell us more about how the "settled" photon theory where the photon "probability waves" divide at the beam splitter whereas the actual photons do not and then it all recombines to produce a statistical pattern of singular events that just happens to look like wave interference. THIS is a theory that is beyond question? And even more amazing, you are serious about this? > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Moron. [snip] Read what I said and read for comprehension. The kind of debate that idiots like you want to have has been settled. No, the MMX does not support the aether. No, the MMX does not support your crank anti- relativity claims. No, the MMX does not need a control. Lather, rinse, repeat. Approach it from an angle that isn't pointing from the chip on your shoulder, and you might find more willing participants. The arguments people like you want to have have been had too many times over the years with the exact same conclusion: the people making the crank argument are in the minority and aren't motivated by science. > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the crank argument are in the minority and aren't motivated by > science. Dear Eric: ...and no, this NG doesn't need you. Have you found a paying job, yet? — NoEinstein — > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Dear Eric: ...and no, this NG doesn't need you. Have you found a > paying job, yet? — NoEinstein — Are you relevant yet? > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Eric: Then, I guess you are either still living off of your parents, or you are sleeping in homeless shelters. Is that relevant? — NoEinstein — > > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > or you are sleeping in homeless shelters. Is that relevant? — > NoEinstein — When presented with personal insults that actually hurt, don't respond - stuff like this is a flashing beacon saying that I hit the mark. What is it like to have this newsgroup as the only place in the world that even responds to your bullshit anymore? How sad is that! > > > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: If that's so, then you are one who thrives on, and craves BS! — NoEinstein — > > > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: No. What it says is that 95% of the readers don't reply. I keep retaliating for your stupidity, because some of those 95% may not know enough science to know whether you are correct or not. Show that you have will-power—stop replying to my posts. I can live without you. But you, apparently, can't live without me. — NoEinstein — > > > > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Dear Eric: No. What it says is that 95% of the readers don't reply. Is that an article of religious faith or do you have evidence of that? > I keep retaliating for your stupidity, because some of those 95% may > not know enough science to know whether you are correct or not. This is your profound hope -- that most of those on the newsgroup cannot tell that your drivel is drivel and that you have a chance of your comments being placed on the same playing field as those a bit more knowledgeable. Unfortunately, it has not occurred to you that a typical fourth grader can smell the turbidity of your emissions. > Show > that you have will-power—stop replying to my posts. I can live > without you. But you, apparently, can't live without me. — > NoEinstein — > > > > > > > > > It isn't that the MMX is beyond scientific debate, it is just that the > > > > > > > > > debate that idiots like Benj want to have has been settled. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: You and Eric Gisse are so steeped in negativity, its 'charge' raises people's hair when you reply. Your fervent hope is that if you can stay on the side of the unthinking status quo long enough, you will outlast my new science truths. But as I have said many times: "The truth is its own best defense." If I kicked-the- bucket tomorrow, you wouldn't have won; you would have lost, because truths shall prevail. A year ago, Sam Wormley was another of the status quo defenders. As a teacher, Sam was challenged to sell me the 'old physics'. But unlike you, Sam realized my dedication to the thoroughness of my Einstein disproofs, and stopped bothering me. Time and again, I have urged you and Eric to do likewise. Not no; your status is so low that you must continue to attack those you view as superior—to try to elevate your own non-existent status. People with inferiority complexes, like you and Eric won't admit that you are inferior, publicly. But such fact reeks out. You are better with verbiage than with science. Your ability to write an 'elementary school' put down, doesn't translate into your ability to do a damn other thing, except maybe fire your shotgun at a few harmless ducks, so you can feel primal, and thus superior. Well, fellow, killing ducks—however good you may be at it—will never raise your moronic IQ. ’m certain you will blast away with more insults, because I am 'honoring' you with a reply. But you should be asking yourself this: If NoEinstein is so off-base with his ideas on everything, why are you his groupie? It's because you and Eric feel powerful just in saying "no". Saying no is your sole reason for existing. I invite others who chance to read this to say "no" to PD. When all is said and done, he is just a 'spent 12-guage shotgun, shell sinking in the mud'. — NoEinstein — > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [snip] > What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment? I > predict that Spaceman will say their interferometer malfunctioned. > Some will say that Michelson and Morley must have been Jewish. Other > than that, I am curious. > > Uncle Ben Sigh. 1887, no aether to 10^(-8) relative, Michelson-Morley 2002, no aether to 10^(-15) relative, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 2007, no aether to 10^(-16) relative, no vacuum dispersion, no vacuum dichroism, http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 050401 (2007) Two simultaneous interferometers over a year's continuous observation: Optical in Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia at 31°53'S 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest relative to both of them. Ignore Spaceshit, Spaceshit doesn't know his onsies. Hey Spaceshit, fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped): (+1)(+1) = +1 (-1)(+1) = ? (+1)(-1) = ? (-1)(-1) = ? Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn? SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so clever > at hiding from us that we can never detect it. He was a second class clerk, a high-school graduate waiting to get into any college that would accept him, when he wrote that. > What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment? I > predict that Spaceman will say their interferometer malfunctioned. > Some will say that Michelson and Morley must have been Jewish. Other > than that, I am curious. > Uncle Ben Hello curious uncle Ben. how about this: d) the "ether" is another word denoting the continuous, compressible matter that fills space everywhere and is the same matter of which atoms and all particles are made. Accordingly, in a closed chamber atrest on Earth, the only em-wave conducting medium is the material at rest therein. Hence, other than for the affects of the pressure changes caused by the motion of the larger unit (Earth) in which it exists, the speed of light will be the same in all directions. If a vacuum jar is inside such a room, the "ether" filling it will be similarly stationary insofar as c is concerned. If, however, the jar is in an airplane flying in the same direction as Earth rotates, thus moving faster through the Earth-matter moving left at v, the resistive pressure will be greater thus the non-particulate "dark mater)filling it will be denser, thus the speed of light will be slower; than it it would in an identical jar moving east, thus slower relative to the resistively compressible matter through which the Earth is moving. If you don't believe that.dear Unk. how do YOU explain the experimental results obtained by Pan American Airlines, circa 1973? glird, >> Einstein proposed (independently of this experiment,which he learned >> about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so >> clever at hiding from us that we can never detect it. > He was a second class clerk, a high-school graduate waiting to get > into any college that would accept him, when he wrote that. Einstein graduated from high school in 1896, and the Zurich Federal Polytechnic (the ETH) in 1900. He became a patent examiner in 1902. On Jul 10, 3:16 pm, gl...@aol.com wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:40 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > glird, My short answer is that I believe the results of all repeatable experiments. But I am out of time for today and tomorrow. You question interests me, and I will try you next week to see if you want to continue. Cheers, Ben On Jul 10, 3:16 pm, gl...@aol.com wrote: > On Jul 10, 12:40 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > glird, Dear Glird, the theory you describe is the ether-drift theory: The ether is dragged along with the earth, so MM were not in a region in which motion of the ether existed. Yet light seems to travel through intergalactic space where there is not much matter of any kind that has yet been verified. (You'll have to wait for dark matter to be demonstrated.) It is true that light passing through moving water is affected by the motion, but that is not relevant. If you mean 1971 I think you are referring to the circumnavigation of the earth by a few atomic clocks. I'm not sure how that is relevant. I can comment on the compressible attribute of your ether. Is there any evidence to support that? The velocity of a wave through a compressible medium is related to its density and compressibility. Light moves so fast that the medium, if any, which carries it must be quite rigid and un-dense. It is surprising that matter can pass through it with resistance (in vacuuo) undetectible. Even little electrons can speed through the ether in a TV tube with no drag whatsoever. Unless there is some evidence for the ether and its drag, let's drop this discussion. Ben > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Uncle Ben It's certainly possible to model the results of a single experiment by any number of different theories. However, most of the other theories have run into conflicts with OTHER experimental results. It is the *body* of experimental evidence that selects out a favored model from the others. It's a favorite practice of cranks to dwell on wearisome analysis of a single experiment, as it pertains to a single model. PD > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Uncle Ben Dear Uncle Ben: Spaceman speaks truths. The reason M-M goofed was because such experiment rotated all of the optical components in the same plane. Therefore, such experiment didn't have a CONTROL, or something which is unchanging. If interested, read the following links. — NoEinstein — Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894 /898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0 /739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b ?hl=en# > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > something which is unchanging. If interested, read the following > links. — NoEinstein — NoEinstein has made the same error that the unfortunately senile Seto makes, though there may be some glimmer of comprehension with NoEinstein where Seto dissembles. The purpose of the MMX was to detect the Earth's absolute motion through a supposed ether. So let's mentally suppose the existence of that absolute motion and mentally assign it some direction, and then place the Earth in that flow. The detector AS IS would be able to discern that motion if it lies in the plane of the apparatus, though it would be insensitive to motion if it happened to be *directly* perpendicular to that plane. So, as NoEinstein points out, to remove that possibility, one has to rotate the apparatus. Fortunately, the platform to which the apparatus was anchored does that for us, because the Earth rotates, both daily and yearly. Thus, if you wait 6 hours or 3 months, the Earth turns the apparatus 90 degrees *for you*, and thereby provides the sensitivity to the hole that might exist with a single data run. M and M in fact did this, and did it on purpose, without any change in the results. PD > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Thanks for acknowledging my 'glimmer' of comprehension! Coming from you, that is great acclaim (tongue-in-cheek). Michelson was so miffed by the nil results of M-M that he figured "ether drag on light" could surely be detected, if only the lengths of the light courses were made long enough. So, Michelson and Gale constructed their mile long, fixed interferometer in Clearing, Illinois. It too had nil results. But Michelson selected his times of day, and year, so the data point plotted as a sine curve. Perhaps, I am the first person to "catch" Michelson's joke. He must be jumping up and down in his grave that I have determined why his experiments failed. Progress can result from my new knowledge only if the PDs of this world will acknowledge everything—not just the glimmer of truth. — NoEinstein — > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > so the data point plotted as a sine curve. Perhaps, I am the first > person to "catch" Michelson's joke. Just keep telling yourself the world is full of fools and you are the only brightly lit wick. And then take your meds. > He must be jumping up and down in > his grave that I have determined why his experiments failed. Progress > can result from my new knowledge only if the PDs of this world will > acknowledge everything—not just the glimmer of truth. — NoEinstein — > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: If I am a brightly lit wick, you are (most of the time) the SOOT on the globe that blocks part of the light from entering the room. — NoEinstein — > > > > > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > > > > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > SOOT on the globe that blocks part of the light from entering the > room. — NoEinstein — If only you understood how an interferometer worked. > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Uncle Ben Very simple: they explain it through the contraction of the longitudinal arm. This is the ad-hoc "FitzGerald contraction" hypothesis > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > longitudinal arm. This is the ad-hoc "FitzGerald contraction" > hypothesis Tough titties, http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 No vacuum dispersion, no vacuum dichroism, no vacuum anisotropy to 10^(-16) relative. Simultaneous dual inteferometers with a year's continuous observation on opposite sides of the Earth using vastly different wavelengths play trump. You can't have it both ways, git - one of them would have to be off if the universe were as stooopid as you are. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Dono: Lorentz's 'contraction' was a lame attempt to explain the nil results. When I discovered that M-M lack a CONTROL, now, there is no need to contract anything! Read the following to understand why. — NoEinstein — Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894 /898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0 /739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b ?hl=en# On Jul 10, 6:40 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in sci.physics: > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley > experiment? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Uncle Ben If you were somewhat cleverer you question would have been: "Why on earth didn't they explain the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of Newton's emission theory of light?" Just read your cleverest Masters: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message