 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / January 2007Again and again about the result of MMX
It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory of relativity has not a suffecient sensibility to fix the velocity of the Earth movement around the Sun. | It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX | as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory | of relativity has not a suffecient sensibility to fix the velocity of | the | Earth movement around the Sun. If there were any aether it would, but there isn't and it doesn't "affirm" relativity. Sagnac has more that enough sensibility to act as a gyroscope, and it does. """ > | It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > | as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sagnac has more that enough sensibility to act as a gyroscope, > and it does. You are right. It ought to tell not about affirmation of TR, but verification. Would the MMX fixed the velocity, TR might not be verified as it was in the 20th century. The explanation of the Sagnac experiment in the frame of the 4D-medium model delays for a while. | """ | > | It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | of the Sagnac experiment in the frame of the 4D-medium model | delays for a while. It is shown http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm that the Sagnac effect as the key experiment in the affirmation of the axiom of the Principle of Relativity http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm has a sufficient sensibility to unfix any crazy 4D-medium models. > It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory > of relativity has not a suffecient sensibility to fix the velocity of > the Earth movement around the Sun. I cannot read the Russian. The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. The MMX does not measure "the velocity of the Earth movement around the Sun", it measures fringe shifts related to the anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light. Using the then-current aether theory, it puts a limit of 7.5 km/sec on the movement of the earth relative to the aether -- that is significantly smaller than the earth's 30 km/s orbital speed. Tom Roberts """ > > It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > > as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory > > of relativity has not a suffecient sensibility to fix the velocity of > > the Earth movement around the Sun. > > I cannot read the Russian. The note above mentioned is on English > The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the > measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom Roberts I made addition. I found just now that S. Bryant (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/index.htm) has been revised the methods of analysis and shown the right value of velocity. He also refers on the experiment made by Miller, 1933 with the same data. > """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): > """ [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > methods of analysis and shown the right value of velocity. He also > refers on the experiment made by Miller, 1933 with the same data. The experimental method was fine but the underlying astronomical principles for which the experiment was aimed was not. http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/sidereal.htm If you try to put orbital motion with a constant .986 degree orbital displacement in an elliptical framework you get the ugly spectacle of the Earth covering a greater orbital distance at the aphelion and less at the perihelion,something which is at complete variance to Keplerian orbital geometry. You can clearly see how axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an aether/absolute space,as relativists would have it, but you certainly cannot dump an aether on Isaac,at least not without suffering from a severe reading disability - "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." NEWTON 1704 No offense to the guys in the early 20th century and the wonderful fable they created,how they tried to escape the horrible mechanistic,calendrically driven solar system of Newton,and how they looked good even though they expanded on the original Newtonian concepts but this is the 21st century and I owe no allegiance to a 17th century numbskull or the diseased minds of his 20th century followers,at least in matters of celestial structure and motion. Newton is alive and has put you in your graves at least intellectually and intuitively.Personally I would not wish to exist in that miserable condition but I know too well that it is mesmerising and hard to break that spell. I only wish humanity had a chance to bypass you and get to see real astronomy and what the real insights and methods are. > The experimental method was fine but the underlying astronomical > principles for which the experiment was aimed was not. Shut up - no one cares about your hardon for Newton.  SignatureYou know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his stupidity here! http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics/msg/f9488b70976a3a4b?&hl=en -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com """ > > """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): > > """ [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > that spell. I only wish humanity had a chance to bypass you and get to > see real astronomy and what the real insights and methods are. Ha! - If humanity will bypass me nothing happens. Someday another man will appear who will be not so pin down by newtonian hypotheses like you. > """ > > > """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > will appear who will be not so pin down by newtonian hypotheses > like you. Newton was being opportunistic and this is fine as long as you can get away with it.As few people now would know the difference between the original astronomical working principles of Copernicus and Kepler or how Newton crafted geometric inventions to suit his own ends I can afford to be less harsh on the unfortunate creatures who inhabit this forum. If you agree with or argue against an early 20th century concept which matches the conclusions of a 1898 science fiction novel by H.G. Wells then in my view ,that is the expression of a the symptoms of a diseased mind.Tracing the disease back to its Newtonian source reveals that it has a celestial sphere core, a silly shortcut taken by Flamsteed to resolve the longitude problem by means of celestial sphere geometry. Long story but fascinating for the 17th century maneuvering which was overlayed on genuine astronomical insights.That anyone would care to listen to all the shruging and bluffing of an eneormous wordplay rather than tackle Newton head on is the sad part of all this. """ > > """ > > > > """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > listen to all the shruging and bluffing of an eneormous wordplay rather > than tackle Newton head on is the sad part of all this. Regretfully I couldn't understand all you have been told with my knowledge of English. I agree with avowal of Newton in history of science and I am quite aware how it was difficult for him to derive his (mostly phenomenological) laws from the astromonical data. But it is weakly connected with the theme of my post. Would he was knowing about Michelson experiment ... Then may be Einstein was two handred years earlier. > """ > > > """ [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > from the astromonical > data. He did not so much derive laws as he attempted to force terrestrial ballistics into planetary orbital motion by way of the Ra/Dec system ,a celestial sphere system. It is truly a long story but it is technical at Newton's level and his maneuvering is fascinating if counter-productive.The later concepts stripped even Newton of those purely geometruc perspectives and consigned even him to an enormous wordplay of 'Time Machine' pseudo- dynamics. But it is weakly connected with the theme of my post. Would he > was knowing > about Michelson experiment ... Then may be Einstein was two handred > years earlier. Ah,Albert's trick was to dump an aether on Newton as 'absolute space' whereas Newton had other ideas for that concept.Even I am mildly surprised that anyone,after reading his explicit rejection of an aether (for right or for wrong) in 1704 * and using words for aether like "completely useless" and " utterly rejected", would still adhere to the fable of 1905 that there was an aether to reject,at least in Newtonian terms. The remarkable reaction here is to protect Newton insofar as participants shrink from mentioning Newton in relation to relativity now and restrict themselves to namedropping of Lorentz notwithstanding that the whole scenario turns into a minor squabble between mathematicians rather than the enormous ' revolution' is was supposed to be.Without the enormous feedback loop between the exotic 1905 cartoon and Newton,the whole thing shrivels into what it actually is,a symptom of a Newtonian disease. MMx is certainly a good place to start for it shows that the underlying principles for the experiment based on the Earth's motions would generate the same answer. """ > > """ > > > > """ [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > fable of 1905 that there was an aether to reject,at least in Newtonian > terms. Yes, you are right in your estimations about "aether". This concept, like other physical notions, is permanently developing. Of cause, someone will argue about do the aether have a physical meaning at all, but while the universal theory will not be settled in the minds, the aether will be appeareing all the time. I think it is due to its obvious simplicity and hided complexity. I propose one of these variants of the aether too. It presupposes the exsistence of four-dimensional space to be situated in. [look at the page http://vps137.narod.ru/physics.html] I hope it may become closer to the final concept of this notion. > The remarkable reaction here is to protect Newton insofar as > participants shrink from mentioning Newton in relation to relativity [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > principles for the experiment based on the Earth's motions would > generate the same answer. I guess it may generate the true answer in any case, but not at once. > """ > > > """ [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > become > closer to the final concept of this notion. The answer is in the great annual cycles that people of all ages have celebrated,the sense of participation in motions which make existence possible and most people will celebrate tonight in one form or another. It was the great astronomers who first split the Earth into axial and orbital motions and treated centers or rotation according to priority such as axial rotation to explain the daily cycle and orbital motion to explain the annual temperature variations we call seasons. The exotic 100 year old exercise to abolish geometry entirely from the celestial arena or rather,the exotic symptoms of the Newtonian maneuvering will always fail to hold attention to a humanity who rightly celebrates what is effectively the great cycles of existence. On nights like this as the Northern latitudes spend more time in solar radiation than in the orbital shadow of the Earth as a reflection of what matters most to people,all the clever wordplays count for nothing. > > The remarkable reaction here is to protect Newton insofar as > > participants shrink from mentioning Newton in relation to relativity [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > generate the same answer. > I guess it may generate the true answer in any case, but not at once. > """ > > > """ [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > become > closer to the final concept of this notion. The answer is in the great annual cycles that people of all ages have celebrated,the sense of participation in motions which make existence possible and most people will celebrate tonight in one form or another. It was the great astronomers who first split the Earth into axial and orbital motions and treated centers or rotation according to priority such as axial rotation to explain the daily cycle and orbital motion to explain the annual temperature variations we call seasons. The exotic 100 year old exercise to abolish geometry entirely from the celestial arena or rather,the exotic symptoms of the Newtonian maneuvering will always fail to hold attention to a humanity who rightly celebrates what is effectively the great cycles of existence. On nights like this as the Northern latitudes spend more time in solar radiation than in the orbital shadow of the Earth as a reflection of what matters most to people,all the clever wordplays count for nothing. > > The remarkable reaction here is to protect Newton insofar as > > participants shrink from mentioning Newton in relation to relativity [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > generate the same answer. > I guess it may generate the true answer in any case, but not at once. > """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): > """ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I cannot read the Russian. > The note above mentioned is on English No, now there is only Russian - and Archive does't have it either. >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the >> measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. Impossible: SR came after that. >> The MMX does not measure "the velocity of the Earth movement around the >> Sun", it measures fringe shifts related to the anisotropy in the >> round-trip speed of light. Using the then-current aether theory, it puts >> a limit of 7.5 km/sec on the movement of the earth relative to the >> aether -- that is significantly smaller than the earth's 30 km/s orbital >> speed. Exactly. >> Tom Roberts > I made addition. I found just now that S. Bryant > (http://www.relativitychallenge.com/index.htm) has been revised the > methods of analysis and shown the right value of velocity. He also > refers on the experiment made by Miller, 1933 with the same data. It all depends on the theory one uses. Most alternative theories are no good, and often they're helped by convenient calculation errors. Cheers, Harald >> """Tom Roberts ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): >> """ [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Impossible: SR came after that. Correct, so SR was disproven before it was written: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm and then disproven again 8 year later: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm What is it about the PoR that ewe do not understand? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm Which one is ewe? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF >>> The MMX does not measure "the velocity of the Earth movement around the >>> Sun", it measures fringe shifts related to the anisotropy in the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers, > Harald >> It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX >> as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as >the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. What a distorted way of looking at it! SR was invented to explain the Null result of the MMX in order to rescue Maxwell's ether theory. Maxwell's aether theory predicted a non null result. It predicted that the only time you get a null result is when the MMX apparatus is stationary w.r.t Maxwell's aether. Einstein took the result of the MMX at face value. He could have said "Lets assume that independent of their motion every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether as "affirmed" by the null result of the MMX and therefore the determined speed of light will always be c in the system of co-ordinates of the observer whether the light be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body" If he had said that he would have had to face the question as to how two observers moving relative to each other can both find themselves stationary w.r.t the aether. Conventional ideas of the aether would make that impossible and he had no answer so his second postulate says that "... the determined speed of light will always be c in the system of co-ordinates of the observer whether the light be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body". He put forward no specific hypothesis as to how nature brings it about but he is nevertheless describing exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the ether would experience. He objected to the asymmetry in the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory and avoided it by coming up with a theory which has no theoretical structure whatsoever. By far the simplest explanation of the Null result of the MMX is that light is made up of particles whose speed is c relative to the source - a result of the physical process which generates it. The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of emission theory insofar as the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of emission theory. It is not an "affirmation" of any physical process which the mathematical model you call SR might be describing in that there is no possible physical causality by which some believable unknown physical process can make the speed at which light travels away from the source dependent upon the observer who at some future date will observe it - as is required by SR mathematics. SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal """ > >> It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > >> as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > John Kennaugh > to email convert the number from hex to decimal Yes, you are right about the genesis of SR. Einstein was right too when he had been gathered all experimental data about the light known at his time and came to his conclusions about the aether. They are quite logical extrinsicly and self- approved intrinsicly. The question I intend to discuss here is about the experimantal data, namely, is MMX really give a null result and has it a sufficient sensibility to detect the orbital Earth movement My model of 4D-medium results in the second order of v/c and the analysis of MMX by Steven Bryant the correct value of the Earth velocity. It follows from it that SR is based on the wrong postulates. It seems that there is no light speed dependent from the source. As for reference frames and the constancy of all physical laws in its, I can propose the redetermination the concept of the reference frame in 4D space. It might be consistent with the vortex movement through the medium. V.Skorobogatov | """ | > >> It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] | it a sufficient | sensibility to detect the orbital Earth movement The answer is YES! End of question again and again, the answer is the same again and again. | My model of 4D-medium You are a f.cking idiot. """ > | """John Kennaugh ÐÉÓÁÌ(Á): > | """ [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > You are a f.cking idiot. No,I am not. You are. """Sorcerer писал(а): """ > <vps137@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1167281372.766440.318990@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > | [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > You are a f.cking idiot. No,I am not. You are. The answer is the same, again and again. It has been the same for more than a 100 years. We don't need any fuckin' 4D-media. >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as >> the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. > > What a distorted way of looking at it! SR was invented to explain the > Null result of the MMX in order to rescue Maxwell's ether theory. This is not "distorted" at all, this is the method of physics; part of it. You have a very poor grasp of history: SR was invented because Einstein saw an inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean relativity of Newtonian mechanics. This is QUITE CLEAR in his 1905 paper and later writings; the MMX is not even mentioned in that paper. > By far the simplest explanation of the Null result of the MMX is that > light is made up of particles whose speed is c relative to the source - > a result of the physical process which generates it. Perhaps. But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result", he was trying to explain the inconsistency mentioned above. Your supposed "simplest explanation" does not help with that at all. Indeed, in later years Einstein was unable to recall whether or not he knew of the MMX in 1905 -- had it been central to his thinking he would surely have remembered it. > The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of emission theory insofar as the > measurement is in agreement with the prediction of emission theory. Sure. So what? There is an infinite class of aether theories with which it is in agreement. Emission theories are refuted by other experiments; that infinite class remains standing because every theory within it is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.... Tom Roberts >>> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as >>>the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >relativity of Newtonian mechanics. This is QUITE CLEAR in his 1905 >paper and later writings; the MMX is not even mentioned in that paper. You are like an estate agent trying to sell a dodgy property and taking the client via the scenic route through the picturesque village rather than the direct route passed the pig farm, the sewage works and the land fill dump. What Einstein did was exceedingly simple. You don't want to accept that because it is then hard to cling on to your belief that he did something clever let alone that he was a genius. OK he threw in a lot of rhetoric to make it sound sophisticated but none of it is justification for his second postulate. Prove me wrong. The "inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and the Galilean relativity of Newtonian mechanics" is just a round the houses way of saying that according to Maxwell the only time the MMX should give a null result is when it is stationary w.r.t the aether and it did give a null result and every observer being stationary w.r.t the aether is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics. So Albert assumed that Maxwell was correct, assumed that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is what his second postulate is describing - and threw away 3 axioms of physics in order to square the circle. Of course he knew the answer before he started because Lorentz had produced it 13 years earlier and all that he was doing mathematically was taking the flexibility which exists in LET to allow you to select any FoR as the aether frame - in his case always selecting the observers FoR as the aether frame. It does not alter the maths. >> By far the simplest explanation of the Null result of the MMX is that >>light is made up of particles whose speed is c relative to the source >>- a result of the physical process which generates it. > >Perhaps. No 'perhaps' about it. The choice was to either assume Newtonian mechanics are an approximation which is only accurate at modest speed and ditch 3 axioms of physics relating to space mass and time or to assume Coulomb's law is an approximation which is only accurate at modest speed. >But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result", he was trying >to explain the inconsistency mentioned above. You mean the inconsistency highlighted by the MMX :o) > Your supposed "simplest explanation" does not help with that at all. >Indeed, in later years Einstein was unable to recall whether or not he >knew of the MMX in 1905 -- had it been central to his thinking he would >surely have remembered it. In his 1920 lecture he describes Lorentz as having made the greatest contribution since Maxwell. His only stated objection to Lorentz's theory was the asymmetry in the theoretical structure which he avoided by producing a theory without a theoretical structure. Are you suggesting that Lorentz's theory owed nothing to the MMX either? The idea that Einstein studied Lorentz's work and looked upon him as the greatest since Maxwell and never found out about the MMX - the whole reason why Lorentz came up with his theory - is totally unbelievable and you know it. Einstein would be a piss poor scientist if he had neglected to study his subject to the extent that he had totally missed the biggest upset since Maxwell, a challenge to his hero Maxwell. It is perhaps a bit of rhetoric on Einstein's part to steer people away from the exceedingly simple explanation which I put forward. >Maxwell's aether theory predicted that the only time you get a null >result is when the MMX apparatus is stationary w.r.t Maxwell's aether. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >The rest is rhetoric - to make it sound more sophisticated - and maths >to reproduce Lorentz's maths. >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of emission theory insofar as the >>measurement is in agreement with the prediction of emission theory. > >Sure. So what? There is an infinite class of aether theories with which >it is in agreement. Emission theories are refuted by other experiments; There is no plausible experiment refuting emission theory until 1964 and that is too theoretically complicated to be convincing. What you assume - as is assumed by most relativists - is that if relativity gives a consistent view then this means that emission theory wouldn't. I assume the opposite until someone properly evaluates emission theory. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician yet I have shown that in several instances SR and emission theory give identical results. The one I showed you was the case of orthogonal Doppler shift where both theories produce identical results yet in SR it is a result of 'time dilation' - a supposed relativistic phenomena and in emission theory nothing more sophisticated than a Newtonian velocity triangle. Either I am a genius or NO ONE BOTHERED TO LOOK. In 1905 there was a much simpler explanation available which didn't require the abandonment of our ideas of space time and mass which would not have faced serious challenge until 1964. I am interested in where physics would now be if that had been adopted. It would be different to be sure. If you look for the reasons why it did not challenge relativity you find that it was: a. because its champion Ritz died in 1909 leaving the field open to Einstein. b. Because it would have meant that physics had been wrong for 200 years about light being waves in the aether and that Newton's corpuscles are nearer the mark. - about as palatable as suggesting that following Einstein was the wrong way to go after it has been accepted for 100 years :o) A case of human nature not objectivity. c. Because De Sitter produced evidence of source independence - which everyone believed in anyway. It was what everyone wanted, and therefore no one scrutinised it. It wasn't really scrutinised until Fox showed it didn't stand up in 1968. d. because there was an influx of mathematicians, rather than natural philosophers into physics. They found the maths of relativity fascinating and were quite happy to endorse a theory which had no theoretical structure and hence start the slide of physics into mysticism and intellectual anarchy. So much now makes no sense in terms of physicality that there is no criteria by which a theory can be rejected. You cannot tell Hawking 'not to be daft' when he invents multiple universes to support his theory. The idea of rejecting something because it was daft died when accepting 'counter intuitive theories' was deemed to be the height of intellectual development and questioning them, deemed a failure to understand them. >that infinite class remains standing because every theory within it is >experimentally indistinguishable from SR.... Yes - any believable physical process which the mathematical model you call SR might be describing involves aether which I cannot say I am keen on. It seems to me to be a perfectly good reason for re-visiting the non aether alternative which has been neglected for a century. If there is no physical thing - aether - which can store energy then there is no viable wave model to transfer energy from source to destination. Light is made up of particles of energy and they need no aether so that represents a viable physical process whereby energy may be transferred. Either you believe in the aether or you have to accept that the particulate model is the superior model. i.e. light is not made up of waves it is made up of particles. Those particles 'behave like' rather than 'are' a system of waves although we don't know how. There is no reason to assume that if light is particulate the speed of those particles should be other than the result of the process which generates them and in the absence of anything physical - aether - surrounding the source there is no other physical process possible other than that taking place in the source. Therefore the speed of light if constant [which it is] must be constant w.r.t the source as there is nothing else it can be constant w.r.t. The idea that somehow the speed at which light leaves a source is determined by an observer who may at some future date observe it, as is required by relativity, is daft - or should that be 'counter intuitive' :o) SignatureJohn Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray >> You have a very poor grasp of history: SR was invented because >> Einstein saw an inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and the >> Galilean relativity of Newtonian mechanics. > > What Einstein did was exceedingly simple. Hmmm. So "simple" it took some 40-50 years for someone to do it. But yes, relativity was "in the air" in 1904-5, and if Einstein had not published it, someone else probably would have within a year or two. > So Albert assumed that Maxwell was correct, assumed that every observer > is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is what his second postulate is > describing All you have to do is actually READ HIS PAPER and you'll learn that what you claim is false. You are imprinting your personal beliefs onto Einstein, and indeed onto all of physics. That's not valid. <shrug> >> But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result", he was trying >> to explain the inconsistency mentioned above. > > You mean the inconsistency highlighted by the MMX :o) No, NO. NO!!! I mean the inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Galilean relativity. The equations of mechanics are invariant under a Galilean transform, but Maxwell's equations are not. This is a big THEORETICAL problem, and is the one Einstein was addressing in 1905. As he said explicitly, he was trying to re-establish the principle of relativity, because simple observations of electromagnetic phenomena support it, even though Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean boosts. > The idea that somehow the speed at which light leaves a source is > determined by an observer who may at some future date observe it, as is > required by relativity, is daft - or should that be 'counter intuitive' :o) There is no requirement that nature must behave as you expect. And, of course, your claim that this silly statement is "required by relativity" is just plain wrong. <shrug> Tom Roberts >>> You have a very poor grasp of history: SR was invented because >>>Einstein saw an inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and the >>>Galilean relativity of Newtonian mechanics. >> What Einstein did was exceedingly simple. > >Hmmm. So "simple" it took some 40-50 years for someone to do it. and 13 years after Lorentz had already done it :o). >But yes, relativity was "in the air" in 1904-5, and if Einstein had not >published it, someone else probably would have within a year or two. > >> So Albert assumed that Maxwell was correct, assumed that every >>observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is what his second >>postulate is describing >All you have to do is actually READ HIS PAPER and you'll learn that >what you claim is false. You are imprinting your personal beliefs onto >Einstein, and indeed onto all of physics. That's not valid. <shrug> I have read his paper. Point me to the bit where he justifies his second postulate. That is what I am discussing. >>> But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result", he was >>>trying to explain the inconsistency mentioned above. >> You mean the inconsistency highlighted by the MMX :o) > >No, NO. NO!!! Yes! Yes! Yes! >I mean the inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Galilean >relativity. The equations of mechanics are invariant under a Galilean [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >because simple observations of electromagnetic phenomena support it, >even though Maxwell's equations are not invariant under Galilean boosts. Here you are doing your estate agents bit. Trying to talk up a very simple concept. Translated into English: Newton was an advocate of Galilean relativity but others prevailed with their belief that light is a wave travelling in the aether in which case in theory it should be possible to devise experiments whereby two inertial observers may perform the same experiment and get different results because they are travelling at different speeds relative to the aether. It is therefore belief in the aether which ruled out the PoR. Maxwell made the aether far more credible. The MMX was an experiment of the sort mentioned. According to theory its results should depend on the observer's speed relative to the aether ruling out the PoR. It was not Einstein who re-established the principle of relativity it was the null result of the MMX and several other experiments which removed the barrier to the PoR. The PoR is valid if no experiment can be devised whereby an inertial observer's velocity w.r.t the aether - or the universe as a whole, or any other supposedly fixed reference - produces different results to that of another inertial observer performing the same experiment. The re-establishment of the PoR by experiment suggested that there is no aether as conventionally the former is ruled out by the latter. Without aether the only logical reference for c is the source i.e. the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source - the physical processes generating it making it so. This seems completely logical provided you assume the particulate model of light is superior to the wave model. Without an aether it IS superior because without an aether there is no physical means to transport real physical energy in the form of physical waves. This then is the most logical approach if free from classical prejudice. Einstein rejected that route. The MMX et al had re-established the PoR experimentally and he was trying to reconcile the PoR with the idea of light travelling in Maxwell's aether. Yet again I point out that the second postulate is simply a description of what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. The reason he described the second postulate as 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR was that the aether was conventionally what had ruled out the PoR since Newton. In order for the aether to fit with the PoR every observer's relationship with the aether must be the same. Einstein postulated that an observer would experience exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. The rest is maths (nicked from Lorentz) and rhetoric. I repeat that nowhere in that rhetoric does he justify the second postulate. OK lets look at it a different way. LET was experimentally consistent with the PoR but because of the asymmetry in the theoretical structure it lacked the pure symmetry of nature which Einstein believed in. Q- did Albert come up with a better theoretical structure giving symmetry? A- No. His theory has no theoretical structure. The only thing you might be able to establish in favour of SR is to establish that the principles on which it is based are rational - which brings us back to the second postulate and where it came from and whether it is based upon rational thinking. He postulated that an observer would experience exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. Which is: a: The interpretation of the MMX null result as per Maxwell. b: A symmetrical relationship between the observer and the aether as demanded by the PoR. c: A way of selecting the observers FoR as the aether frame in doing Lorentz's maths and so doing Lorentz's maths without any apparent aether frame. >> The idea that somehow the speed at which light leaves a source is >>determined by an observer who may at some future date observe it, as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >course, your claim that this silly statement is "required by >relativity" is just plain wrong. <shrug> I am sorry there was a lack of precision in my statement which allowed you to play your semantic 'get out of jail free' card. I will restate it: IF you assume there is no aether then any physical process consistent with the mathematics you call SR requires that somehow the speed at which light leaves a source is determined by an observer who may at some future date observe it. SignatureJohn Kennaugh The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be describing an incredibly silly idea. > In order for the aether to fit with the PoR every observer's > relationship with the aether must be the same. Einstein postulated that > an observer would experience exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t > the aether would experience. The rest is maths (nicked from Lorentz) > and rhetoric. I repeat that nowhere in that rhetoric does he justify the > second postulate. This is not true. The PoR and the constancy of the speed of light in SR are preserved even with the ether and the observer do not have to be stationary wrt the ether to preserve these postulates. The reason is that the speed of light is a measured constant math ratio in all inertial frames as follows: Light path length of ruler (299,792,458m long physically)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. Ken Seto >> In order for the aether to fit with the PoR every observer's >> relationship with the aether must be the same. Einstein postulated that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >This is not true. What is not true? Are you commenting on my statement: "that nowhere in that rhetoric does he justify the second postulate." if so I expect you to quote chapter and verse. Or are you commenting on my statement that "Einstein postulated that an observer would experience exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience." Because he did. He put forward no specific hypothesis as to how nature brought it about - he said so (though not in 1905). Lorentz put forward a specific hypothesis. You seem to be putting forward you own but it does not alter the truth of my statement. >The PoR and the constancy of the speed of light in SR are >preserved even with the ether and the observer do not have to be stationary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ken Seto SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal > >> In order for the aether to fit with the PoR every observer's > >> relationship with the aether must be the same. Einstein postulated that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "that nowhere in that rhetoric does he justify the second postulate." if > so I expect you to quote chapter and verse. The second postulate is based on Maxwell's equation. > Or are you commenting on my statement that > > "Einstein postulated that an observer would experience exactly what an > observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience." Because of the PoR he thought that he can choose any frame to do the physics and he choosed the absolute rest frame and that's why an SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. It turns out that this choice is mostly correct for objects that are originated from the observer's frame. That's why SR is valid in accelerator design applications. > Because he did. He put forward no specific hypothesis as to how nature > brought it about - he said so (though not in 1905). Lorentz put forward > a specific hypothesis. You seem to be putting forward you own but it > does not alter the truth of my statement. I am disagreeing with your assertion that only the emmission theory will satisfy the constancy of the speed of light. My ether theory will also satisfy this postulate. Ken Seto > >The PoR and the constancy of the speed of light in SR are > >preserved even with the ether and the observer do not have to be stationary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > >Ken Seto I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an aether. PH?NOMENON IV. "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun." http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm I love that neither aetherist,relativist and goodness knows who else knows what Newton is doing here but I can show you what it looks like - http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_ sphere_anim.gif Justifying the return of a star to a location using the Earth's axial and orbital motions leads to the incredible situation where a 20th century concepts reaches conclusions that match a 19th century science fiction novel by H.G. Wells. Newton gets the last laugh and I get to share it from the point of a superior view. Is it worth it?,what a waste of the effort of men for centuries. > >>> You have a very poor grasp of history: SR was invented because > >>>Einstein saw an inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and the [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > The problem with maths is that an awesomely impressive equation may be > describing an incredibly silly idea. I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an aether. PHÆNOMENON IV. "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun." Hey fuckhead, Newton didn't have access to photography, whatever you love. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif The photographs are 28 years apart. > I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial > rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif > The photographs are 28 years apart. You all share one miserable fact that Newton dumped on you.He talked a system of 365.25 days while using a 1461 day cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days. You share a condition with the creationists in having a problem with the basic 24 hour day insofar as you justify axial rotation in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.Here you go John,every star will return to a location in 23 hours 56 minutes just like your master thought - http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_ sphere_anim.gif Sorcerer wrote: > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167771789.962146.20150@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Crab.gif > The photographs are 28 years apart. You all share one miserable fact that Newton dumped on you.He talked a system of 365.25 days while using a 1461 day cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days. A fact is a fact, no matter how miserable. A year has 366.256363 sidereal days, miserable fuckhead, and you are the only miserable sh.t that doesn't understand it, you stooopid deranged miserable tord. I've even told you how to find it for yourself but you have your head so far up your arse you can only see your own sh.t. > Sorcerer wrote: > > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167771789.962146.20150@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > find it for yourself but you have your head so far up your arse > you can only see your own sh.t. What you are trying to do is show that a star returns to the same location every 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier based on a 24 hour day and then you correlate axial rotation through 360 degrees to this celestial sphere creation. Now John,go figure it out yourself, for a star to return to a location 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier you have to insert an additional day every 4th year to keep it working.If you get that far you realise that a system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days is a nonsensical way to justify the Earth's axial and orbital motion. I do not mind Isaac for he was at least consistent in his maneuvering and in a strange way honest,at least up to a point.What I see here are many people caught up in the Newtonian labyrinth with no indication whatsoever how Newton put you there. or indeed that anything is wrong. There were no astronomers around to cut Newton down to size or at least show the man his limitations in the noble and distinguished astronomical tradition and so it remains until now.The one exciting fact is that there is plenty for dynamicists to do but it appears they still like to make these exotic and wide sweeping gestures about cosmological structures when they can't even correlate the clocks with axial rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making exactly 24 hours/360 degrees in total. Sorcerer wrote: > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167798370.901044.40680@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > find it for yourself but you have your head so far up your arse > you can only see your own sh.t. What you are trying to do Is tell you to f.ck off, you miserable c.nt, but you don't listen. > Sorcerer wrote: > > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167798370.901044.40680@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Is tell you to f.ck off, you miserable c.nt, but you don't listen. So much for Newton as his calendrically driven clockwork solar system based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days. Everyone hated it so much that they spent centuries trying to get rid of it until they figured out that the only way to hide a can of worms was to create a bigger can. Behind all the linguistic fireworks is a celestial sphere core pretty much as Newton created it.Have a nice year John. Sorcerer wrote: > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167851611.810170.147370@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Is tell you to f.ck off, you miserable c.nt, but you don't listen. So much for It never sinks in, does it? f.ck OFF, IGNORANT TORD. >I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial >rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an >aether. As far as I can see your post is totally unrelated to the post to which it is supposedly a response. <snip> SignatureJohn Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal You discuss a 20th century concepts where the conclusions match that of a 1898 science fiction novel,specifically - "'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that Time is only a kind of Space." http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html The formal 1905 version uses a particular route to achieve the same aims as the science fiction novel and most of it centers on Newton's ideas for time,space and motion.There was no Newtonian aether to reject in 1905 and especially aether as 'absolute space' insofar as being really familiar with what Newton was doing,for right or for wrong,he went out of his way to reject an aether back in 1704 - "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Optics 1704 Unless you have a severe reading disability,there is no way you can come away from that you can come away from that passage and believe you can associate aether with 'absolute space',at least as Newton expressed the term.Of course it did not stop the 20th century guy from making this eroneous assocation - " In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Newton had other ideas for absolute/relative space that are for more interesting and destructive than the weak intepretation of the 20th century guys.Suit yourselves if you think relativity is worth defending or opposing,Newton gets the last laugh.I suppose you know each other's vocabulary so well that you hardly see the geometric language of Newton reworking the disntiguished astronomical methods and language to suit his ballistics agenda or rather filtering his agenda through the calendrical clockwork system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days. > >I love that you have no idea what Isaac was up to and how axial > >rotation to celestial sphere geometry morphed into orbital motion to an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <snip> >> As far as I can see your post is totally unrelated to the post to which >> it is supposedly a response. >You discuss a 20th century concepts where the conclusions match that of >a 1898 science fiction novel,specifically - [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >expressed the term.Of course it did not stop the 20th century guy from >making this eroneous assocation - You are guilty of misreading my post. What I said was: "Newton was an advocate of Galilean relativity but OTHERS prevailed with their belief that light is a wave travelling in the aether in which case in theory it should be possible to devise experiments whereby two inertial observers may perform the same experiment and get different results because they are travelling at different speeds relative to the aether. It is therefore belief in the aether which ruled out the PoR." i.e. it was NOT Newton but others who believed in the aether and set aside the principle of relativity which Newton believed in. He believed in the principle of relativity which was re-established by the MMX and others experiments - so Newton was right. Newton believed that light consisted of particles he called corpuscles - and guess what - he was right again. Einstein had the affront to rename Newton's corpuscles 'photons' and having taken the credit for them (I give it to Planck) he totally ignores them and does not let the fact that light was particulate to effect his thinking and his belief in Maxwell's aether. You now have the absurd situation where no one believes in the aether so the wave theory is totally dead as far as being a physical theory is concerned. You need real physical waves to transfer real physical energy and you cannot have real physical waves in nothing. The only physical model capable of transporting energy is the particulate model - as first proposed by Newton. Yet somehow the ghost of the wave aether theory has clung on and we have the speed of light unaffected by the speed of the source (from aether theory) when physically there is nothing else which can be responsible for it. I am opposed to absurdity in science. I agreed with Dr Murry "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray >> <snip> >> -- >> John Kennaugh >> to email convert the number from hex to decimal SignatureJohn Kennaugh > >> As far as I can see your post is totally unrelated to the post to which > >> it is supposedly a response. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > You are guilty of misreading my post. What I said was: I do not do guilt John,what I do is actually look at what absolute/relative space,time and motion means in Newtonian terms and it takes the eye of an astronomer to gauge what he was doing.I am surprised that far from being interested in what those terms were meant to convey,most like yourself opt for the same recycled early 20th century nonsense which is an expansion of the Newtonian tactics and nothing else. > "Newton was an advocate of Galilean relativity but OTHERS prevailed with > their belief that light is a wave travelling in the aether in which case > in theory it should be possible to devise experiments whereby two > inertial observers may perform the same experiment and get different > results because they are travelling at different speeds relative to the > aether. It is therefore belief in the aether which ruled out the PoR." The dilemma of genuine investigators in the mid 19th century is explicitly clear,Newton rejected an aether which they needed to study how radiation reached the Earth.Unlike the later fables which dumped aether on Newton anyway as absolute space,these gentlemen in their honesty knew that they were caught in a rut and could not find a way out - http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1 843.10.x.54.336.x.425 The actual problem is indeed Newtonian absolute/relative space but it is an entirely geometric solution and a direct misinterpretation by Newton of Kepler's Panis Quadragesimalis seen on page 86 - http://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/POSC_13_1_74_0.pdf I would not even think of explaining this in detail as Kepler's representation is an astronomical language and method that Newton clearly did not grasp or rather misinterpreted leading to absolute/relative space,time and motion. What I will say is that the terrestrial ballistics agenda applied to planetary motion via the Ra/Dec system is not worth saving.The compound motions of the Earth around the central star and with the solar system around the galactic axis is a strong enough case to relinquish the localised solutions for Keplerian orbital geometries be it the Newtonian one or the later exotic extensions of the early 20th century. > i.e. it was NOT Newton but others who believed in the aether and set > aside the principle of relativity which Newton believed in. He believed [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >> John Kennaugh > >> to email convert the number from hex to decimal > >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as > >> the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 1905 -- had it been central to his thinking he would surely have > remembered it. Tom, in the 1905 paper AE states that he did not know of Lorentz's 'memoir' about MMX but in 1916 he wrote a book acknowledging MMX: 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory' published by Methuen & Co Ltd in 1920: "In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest with respect to the ?ther. It is found by calculation, however, that a slightly different time T1 is required for this process, if the body, together with the mirrors, be moving relatively to the ?ther. And yet another point: it is shown by calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the ?ther, this time T1 is different when the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result - a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the ?ther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the differeace in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one." If AE did not know of MMX and Lorentz's contraction theory in 1905, where did he get his ideas from while everybody from Larmor to Poincarre lectured or wrote about relativity? Peter Riedt > > The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of emission theory insofar as the > > measurement is in agreement with the prediction of emission theory. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Tom Roberts >> >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as >> >> the measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Tom, in the 1905 paper AE states that he did not know of Lorentz's >'memoir' about MMX but in 1916 he wrote a book acknowledging MMX: Basically there are two possibilities. One is that Einstein studied his subject and knew about the MMX or that his theory was total plagiarism and saying that he hadn't know about the MMX is a dead give-away. While I do not subscribe to the latter view it is feasible. Apparently in the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity", published in 1953, there is a chapter on relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz." Einstein is mentioned for the first time in a paragraph on the thirteenth page. "(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted. In this paper Einstein gave modifications which must now be introduced into the formulae for aberration and for the Doppler effect." I am not familiar with Poincare's contribution so am not able to comment but I suspect that Whittaker gives a more impartial analysis than one is likely to find around here. SignatureJohn Kennaugh Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. - T. S. Eliot > > It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > > as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the > measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. Tom, it may be in agreement but only because the incorrect assumption of the Lorentz contraction has been made. Once it is removed after re-evaluating MMX, SR stands naked. Peter Riedt > The MMX does not measure "the velocity of the Earth movement around the > Sun", it measures fringe shifts related to the anisotropy in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Tom Roberts | > > It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX | > > as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | of the Lorentz contraction has been made. Once it is removed after | re-evaluating MMX, SR stands naked. MMX doesn't need re-evaluating and Sagnac is in use constantly, it is now part of engineering technology. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm The only "contraction" is the light path (red ray), and it has a corresponding "expansion" when the light takes the opposite direction (blue ray). Neither of these rays is a measure of the distance AB of the rotating square. Sagnac is proof that the velocity of light is source dependent and your aether is as ridiculous as Einstein's SR. Any misunderstanding is YOURS and Roberts. >> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the >> measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. > > Tom, it may be in agreement but only because the incorrect assumption > of the Lorentz contraction has been made. Once it is removed after > re-evaluating MMX, SR stands naked. You are supposed to read what I write. I wrote about SR, not "Lorentz contraction". SR is a complete and well-defined theory which does not "assume Lorentz contraction", but rather has that as a consequence; it cannot be "removed" from the theory. SR and GR are quite "brittle" theories, in that there is very little "wiggle room" to fit experimental results -- SR has just 1 free parameter (c), and GR adds just two more (G and \Lambda). So it is rather stunning that they agree with so many different experimental results; and are refuted by none (within their respective domains). Tom Roberts >>> The MMX is indeed an "affirmation" of Special Relativity, insofar as the >>> measurement is in agreement with the prediction of SR. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >contraction". SR is a complete > and well-defined theory No it is a a 'principle theory' i.e. a mathematical model totally lacking any theoretical structure. As Einstein puts it himself it puts forward no specific hypothesis as to how nature brings about what it is describing. Lorentz's theory did have a theoretical structure which Einstein objected to because of its theoretical asymmetry. He avoided that asymmetry by producing a theory without a theoretical structure. You have two theories with identical maths giving identical predictions. One has a theoretical structure - the other doesn't. What makes the theory with no theoretical structure superior to one which has? Why should Einstein get the credit when Lorentz produced the maths 13 years earlier? I am sure that if anyone had asked Lorentz to re-do his theory leaving out the theoretical structure he could have obliged, but he was under the impression that a theory with no idea as to how nature brought it about would be unacceptable. Of course what constitutes a 'complete' theory is a matter of definition and modern physics does not demand physics to be physical. SignatureJohn Kennaugh "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray In sci.physics.relativity, vps137@yandex.ru <vps137@yandex.ru> wrote on 18 Dec 2006 02:27:02 -0800 <1166437622.812468.299370@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > It is shown http://vps137.narod.ru/articles5a.html that the MMX > as the key experiment in the affirmation of the theory > of relativity has not a suffecient sensibility to fix the velocity of > the > Earth movement around the Sun. MMX does not affirm relativity; it merely denies the rigid luminiferous aether. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com """ > In sci.physics.relativity, vps137@yandex.ru > <vps137@yandex.ru> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- Yes. It was not quite correct statement. The key experiment only may ascertain the theory if the latter predicts the effect which can be exposed by the former. It must exist experiments to crash a wrong theory. Because the effect of movement the Earth through the medium is of the second order of v/c, MMX seemed to be not such experiment to test SR because it gave null result. Though the S.Bryant tried to prove otherwise. Is he right or not? If he is right, MMX might be treated as key experiment against SR because its result would show that there is a previleged reference frame and the relativity principle is false. Other experiments on the eather grift would be needed to reconsider. | """ | > In sci.physics.relativity, vps137@yandex.ru [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | previleged reference frame and the relativity principle is false. | Other experiments on the eather grift would be needed to reconsider. The "key experiment": http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm Again and again the result is the same. There is no fuckin' "eather grift", again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. """ > | """ > | > In sci.physics.relativity, vps137@yandex.ru [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Again and again the result is the same. > There is no fuckin' "eather grift", again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Shame on you! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message