How to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment without SR?
Uncle Ben
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
Spaceman
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.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Greg Neill
news:CNGdnXwmfMczoOvV...@comcast.com
> 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.
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:c37b0c42-9b18-4dda...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| 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?
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.
Uncle Ben
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
Uncle Ben
wrote:
>
> - 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
Spaceman
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.
Eric Gisse
Uncle Ben wrote:
> 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]
Uncle Ben
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.)
Uncle Al
>
> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
> experiment?
> 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?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Uncle Al
Spaceman
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.
:)
Uncle Ben
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?
Androcles
===============================================
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.
Androcles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drooling idiot.
Androcles
================================================
No.
Doppler equation is
c+v
f' = f* -------------
c+u
Spaceman
> 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
> 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.
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?
Uncle Ben
>
> - 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
gl...@aol.com
> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
> experiment?
> 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.
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,
Spaceman
> 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?
:)
Greg Neill
news:c2902d54-1f20-45d8...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
>>
>> 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.
Androcles
============================================
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?
Uncle Ben
wrote:
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
Uncle Ben
>
> - 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
Uncle Ben
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
PD
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
NoEinstein
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#
Spaceman
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.
:)
Benj
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.
Benj
> 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".
> ============================================
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?
PD
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
Dono
Very simple: they explain it through the contraction of the
longitudinal arm. This is the ad-hoc "FitzGerald contraction"
hypothesis
Uncle Ben
>
> - 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
Uncle Ben
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
Uncle Ben
wrote:
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.
Androcles
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?
Uncle Ben
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
Androcles
=============================================
Stop waving your hands and mumbling shit 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.
Uncle Ben
>
> - 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.
Androcles
=============================================
As I suspected, an ignorant, fuckheaded, chicken shit troll.
"I have given you an understanding, sir, but I cannot give you an
brain to use it." --Dr. Androcles.
Pentcho Valev
> 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.
>
> 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
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
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al
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.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Spaceman
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.
Uncle Ben
You are right, except that in fact they DID -- or at least Spaceman
and Androcles did. Apparently other people have taken the emission
theory seriously in recent years, enough to have inspired a search for
evidence from the spectra of rotating twin stars. They didn't find
any support for the emission theory. (See Wikipedia on "Emission
theory of light.)
Even way back, Newton dismissed it after a while, saying that it would
cause astral light spectra to be all jumbled up.
Ben
Pentcho Valev
If you were somewhat cleverer you would know that the only important
question is:
Does the speed of light vary with the speed of the light source v, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v, and also with the gravitational
potential V, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2)?
The emission theory says "yes" but this is not essential: it can be
shown that the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments rigorously
prove the validity of the two equations, without any reference to the
emission theory. The problem is that for the moment Einstein zombie
world does not give a shit about what experiments prove and what they
don't prove.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:aa846cd5-943f-48f6...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Ben
============================================
What "rotating twin stars"?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
Newton was right, it does "jumble up". It takes a computer to unravel it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus/LCV.htm
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
So I take it that you do give a shit about experimental reality.
How does the emission theory of light account for the slowing of light
when passing through glass? If the poor little photons are slowed
down by collisions with atoms, why don't they continue to slow down
more when faced with more atoms until they come to rest, instead of
continuing to plow throujgh with a constant speed? Why haven't we
found any photons at rest? Or should we propose a grant from the NSF
to look for them?
Ben
Pentcho Valev
Irrelevant. Some properties of light are explained by the emission
theory, others by the wave theory, others are not explained at all.
The property called "dependence of the speed of light on the speed of
the light source" is unambigously determined by the Michelson-Morley
and Pound-Rebka experiments and explained by the emission theory.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Ben
Well, there is a theory that accounts for all known effects and that
is quantum electrodynamics. That theory is relativistic, of course.
I suppose we have exhusted this subject now. Thanks for the exchange.
Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
I admire your elegant animations. As for your physics, as we say in
german, "Die gedanken sind frei."
Ben
Androcles
Ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton - Principia Mathematica.
Nature doesn't care what you say in German and she's not too bothered
about tact or diplomacy either. If you want to understand her you'll need
a working brain, she can fool you very easily.
As for your thinking, as we say in Anglo-American, it sucks.
This pencil is broken, I can see it is and even the URL says so.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Want to fry your gedanken with that?
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:4ddb5a7b-6b54-4e4e...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
It's dark at the bottom of the ocean. Not much light gets through
6" thick glass either.
NoEinstein
>
> - 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
NoEinstein
Dear Benj: Right on! Eric has been asking for that 'medicine' you
just dished out. But curing him is unlikely...
— NoEinstein — :-)
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
>
> - 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#
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
PD
Just keep telling yourself the world is full of fools and you are the
only brightly lit wick. And then take your meds.
Eric Gisse
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.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
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.
Androcles
"doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:wMKdnZmhM-N4FebV...@posted.docknet...
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.
Yanick Toutain
french :
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmonsyte.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fanswers-to-mr-ben-michelsons-mirrors.html&lp=en_fr&btnTrUrl=Translate
chinese :
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmonsyte.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fanswers-to-mr-ben-michelsons-mirrors.html&lp=en_zt&btnTrUrl=Translate
Answers to Mr. Ben : Michelson's mirrors
Dear Mr. Ben
My 3 texts about the experience of Mr. Anton Zeilinger and Mr. Markus
Aspelmeyer are also an introduction for a text about the mirrors of
Michelson
You have written
====
"Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to
measure the velocity of the earth through it. Their interferometer
floated on the surface 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. "
======
I refuse the ether (I am a Newtonist, a partisan or Isaac Newton).
Only vacuum and atomOs.
But you're right:
"Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to
measure the velocity of the earth through it. Their interferometer
floated on the surface of a tank to eliminate vibrations. "
But you need to say that Albert Michelson forgot the motion of the
Earth.
Then you wrote:
" 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 motion of revolution of the Earth is not 30 km/s. That motion is
250 km/s.
Then
When you wrote
" 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.
"
Your opinion is wrong.
Michelson and Morley and Miller were wrong about that: They ignored
the motion of the Sun.
=====
You wrote:
"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) galilean relativity
is wrong, or some combination of these ideas."
=========
I agree about b)
A) is stupid: the vibrations of the ether need to prove that the ether
exists. Huygens never proved it. (neither Francesco Grimaldi)
The waves are always the movement and/or the vibration of bodies.
The bricks of matter are photons (Newton wrote it)
The bricks of photons are atomOs (materialists think that since
antiquity: atomOs are the last bricks.
=========
C) Let Galileo Galilei quiet: if you want to use his texts you must
write the texts.
Einsteinists use his name to create a smog of smoke.
=======
I will answer B) later
=====
You concluded
"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 "
=====
Einstein was a Zionist: he went in USA with Chaim Weizmann (2nd April
of 1921) to collect money for the Zionism (an "Hebraic university").
But it is not the PROOF that his thesis was stupid.
Kings of Belgium, of Spain, of Japan supported him: Three killers of
poor people, killers of African workers, killers of Spanish republican
workers, killers of Asian workers. Albert Einstein traveled around the
world to thank them.(1921-1922).
But it is not the PROOF that his thesis was stupid.
He was going to smile to the killer Hiro-Hito when he knew that he has
obtained the Nobel Price.
But it is not the PROOF that his thesis was stupid.
Vatican, Jerusalem Muslims chiefs, Jewish chiefs, reincarnated
Buddhists, agree with him
But it is not the PROOF that his thesis was stupid.
(Read the apologists: Banesh Hoffman and Langevin)
I don't know if Michelson, Morley and Miller believed in god or were
bigots...
BUT
===========
My answer and my arguments for B)
1°) The possible speed of 5011 km/s (objective speed) need to use
large mirrors. If the mirrors are too small, the photons will go
beside.
2°) the photons will not arrive at the same place on the receptor.
3° The delay will be higher than the delay with a little stupid speed
of 30 km/s.
Conclusion: the" experience of Michelson" is a stupid pseudo
experience of two clowns that ignore what Herschel have discovered one
century before: the motion of the Sun in the direction of the apex
(19,6 km/s) (Hercules)
The results of the experience of two clowns that ignore such a motion
are a very good brick to build a stupid pseudo theory like the
relativity.
Lenin, in "Materialism and empiriocriticism" ignored Einstein: He
answered to him.
The reality is objective. The time also, the space also.
He was writing against Bogdanov / Malinovsky, against Mach, against
Poincaré, against Bishop Berkeley.
He was a Newtonist!
We will win.
I am finishing my excel drawings to show the motion of the photons
during the pseudo experience of the two clowns Michelson and Morley.
On 10 juil, 18:40, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
> experiment?
>
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
Eric Gisse
If only you understood how an interferometer worked.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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 —
Uncle Al
[snip rest of crap]
> Michelson and Morley and Miller were wrong about that: They ignored
> the motion of the Sun.
1) Michelson-Morley, 1887, no aether to differential 10^(-8)
2) 2002, no aether to differential 1.7x10^(-15),
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
3) 2007, no aether to differential 10^(-16),
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 050401 (2007)
Two simultaneous interferometers ==> over a year's 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. No vacuum dispersion, no vacuum
dichroism.
4) Fucking imbecile.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: Michelson's interferometer was a marvelous instrument
for measuring DISTANCES and angles. He used such to measure the
length of the standard meter to a fraction of the wavelength of the
light used. For each measurement, he had a micro adjustable screw to
cause a PHYSICAL CHANGE in just one light course's length. The light
course without the screw served as a CONTROL.
But in the M-M experiment, it was wrongly assumed that each light
course would act as a control for the other. The assumption was that
such experiment was a comparison of two ORTHOGONAL light courses.
When I was taking college physics, as the professor tried to explain M-
M, I realized, immediately, that the light courses weren't orthogonal;
they were tee shaped. There was a beam splitter at the middle to
cause both light courses to travel to a target. So, any velocity
effects must consider the speed-up or slow-down in both legs the
tees. If the TIME of travel of the light from source to target
remains unchanged, there will be ZERO fringe shifts observed. Using
algebra, I calculated the TIMES of travel and verified that logical
assumption. You should read the following, and try doing the math for
yourself. — NoEinstein —
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
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#
>
> http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/answers-to-mr-ben-michelsons-mirr...
> french :http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
> chinese :http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
> > UncleBen- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
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.
Benj
> 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.
Actually it was the basement of Pierce Hall at Western Reserve
University where it had been moved after the Main building at Case
School of Applied Science burned down where it was originally
located. It's not clear which measurements were made at which
location.
Benj
> 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?
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 14, 12:00 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
[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.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
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.
NoEinstein
> Yanick Toutain wrote:
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> > Michelson and Morley and Miller were wrong about that: They ignored
> > the motion of the Sun.
>
> 1) Michelson-Morley, 1887, no aether to differential 10^(-8)
>
> 2) 2002, no aether to differential 1.7x10^(-15),
>
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
>
> 3) 2007, no aether to differential 10^(-16),
>
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 050401 (2007)
>
> Two simultaneous interferometers ==> over a year's 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. No vacuum dispersion, no vacuum
> dichroism.
>
> 4) Fucking imbecile.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Uncle Al: The ether flow at the Earth's surface is straight
down. That's what causes the force of gravity. Interferometer
experiments expecting to detect ether that is just waiting in Earth's
path, don't take into account that ether rotates WITH the Earth and
flows straight down. At higher distances the ether flow is at an
angle. Think of this like looking at storm systems on Earth.
Understanding ether flow is really like understanding weather
systems. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: ...and no, this NG doesn't need you. Have you found a
paying job, yet? — NoEinstein —
Eric Gisse
No, they don't. That's the beauty of an interferometer.
Eric Gisse
Are you relevant yet?
vps137
> How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
> experiment?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
Yes, there is c) variant. Look for details http://vps137.narod.ru/article2a.pdf.
Now I don't name it the ether however.
Valery Skorobogatov
Ian Parker
>
Look experiments have been performed where light passes a rotating
disc. If there was even a modicum of truth in this light would travel
at a different speed near a rotating object.
No, as we have said time after time what we are seeing is an organized
disinformation campaign. Facts are irrelevant.
- Ian Parker
Regardez expériences ont été effectuées où la lumière passe à un
disque tournant. Si il y avait même un minimum de vérité dans vos
theories, cette lumière voyage à une vitesse différente à proximité
d'un objet en rotation.
Non, comme nous l'avons dit maintes fois ce que nous voyons est
organisé une campagne de désinformation. Les faits ne sont pas
pertinentes.
Yanick Toutain
en ===>fr
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmonsyte.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fanswers-to-mr-ben-michelsons-mirrors.html&lp=en_fr&btnTrUrl=Translate
en ====> zt
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmonsyte.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fanswers-to-mr-ben-michelsons-mirrors.html&lp=en_zt&btnTrUrl=Translate
Misinformation campaign against Isaac Newton/Campagne de
désinformation contre Newton
Mr. Ian Parker
lang=en
I do not understand with whom your answer is addressed.
You answer me or you address to another interlocutor ?
For my part, as for the "misinformation campaign" , the only one that
I know is the misinformation campaign against the true theses of Isaac
Newton:
All occurs in the vacuum.
All is objective.
Speeds are objective.
It is the beginning of its " Principia".
Consequently, the relation between speed of light and the speed of the
bodies is simple:
Speed of light is the maximum speed.
Any speed is a fraction (a ratio, a percentage) of the maximum speed,
a fraction, a proportionality of the speed of light.
For example: it is extremely probable which the speed of the sun is
equal to 1/60 speed of light.
=====================
lang=fr
Je ne comprends pas à qui votre réponse est adressée.
Est-ce que vous me répondez vous ou bien est-ce que vous vous adressez
à un autre interlocuteur ?
Pour ma part, quant à la "campagne de désinformation", la seule que je
connaisse est la campagne de désinformation contre les véritables
thèses de Isaac Newton :
Tout se passe dans le vide.
Tout est objectif.
Les vitesses sont objectives.
C'est le début de ses "Principia".
En conséquence, la relation entre la vitesse de la lumière et la
vitesse des corps est simple :
La vitesse de la lumière est la vitesse maximale.
Toute vitesse est une fraction (un rapport, un pourcentage) de la
vitesse maximale, une fraction, une proportionalité de la vitesse de
la lumière.
Par exemple : il est fort probable que la vitesse du Soleil soit égale
à 1/60 de la vitesse de la lumière.
==============
=========================
lang=en
The text of Ian Parker :
Look experiments have been performed where light passes a rotating
disc. If there was even a modicum of truth in this light would travel
at a different speed near a rotating object.
No, as we have said time after time what we are seeing is an organized
disinformation campaign. Facts are irrelevant.
- Ian Parker
Regardez expériences ont été effectuées où la lumière passe à un
disque tournant. Si il y avait même un minimum de vérité dans vos
theories, cette lumière voyage à une vitesse différente à proximité
d'un objet en rotation.
Non, comme nous l'avons dit maintes fois ce que nous voyons est
organisé une campagne de désinformation. Les faits ne sont pas
pertinentes.
========================
> pertinentes.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Bonjour
I don't understand
Ian Parker
> http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/misinformation-campaign-against-i...
> en ===>frhttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
> en ====> zthttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
Newton's laws are an approximation at low speed and weak gravitational
fields. All the textbooks on Relativity make this absolutely clear. If
gravity is caused by aether falling into the Earth and the reasion for
a null result in the Michaelson Morley experiment is the fact that
aether clings to the Earth it should also cling to any spinning disc.
This experiment has in fact been performed. It was done in the early
20th century.
Relativity has vever lacked experimental verification. There have been
many experiments confirming it and none in contradiction.
SPECIAL
1) Michaelson Morley
2) GPS clocks (there is a General effect here too)
3) Motion of particles.
4) Synchrotron radiation
5) relativistic version of Schroedinger;s equation. Dirac equation and
positron.
GENERAL
1) Bending of light round the sun.
2) Precession of the orbit of Mercury.
3) Loss of energy from rotating pulsars (gravitational waves)
4) Precession of spinning disc - this is the latest experiment.
5) Observation of compact objects (Black holes)
What I mean by disimformation is simply this. These effects are not
predicted by any classical theory but have all been proved to be true.
I would have thought that would be an end of the matter, but no all
kinds of specious arguments are produced, none of them being any good.
gravity caused by the aether falling onto the Earth is one of a very
very long line.
- Ian Parker
Les lois de Newton sont une approximation à basse vitesse et faible
champs gravitationnels. Tous les manuels sur la relativité faire de ce
tout à fait clair. Si la gravité est causée par aether tombant vers la
Terre et le reasion pour un résultat nul dans le Michaelson Morley
expérience est le fait que l' aether s'accroche à la Terre, il
convient également de s'accrocher à un disque en rotation. Cette
expérience a en fait été réalisée. Il a été fait au début du 20e
siècle.
Relativité Vever a manqué la vérification expérimentale. Il ya eu
beaucoup d'expériences confirmant et en aucune contradiction.
SPÉCIAL
1) Michaelson Morley
2) horloges GPS (il ya un effet général ici aussi)
3) Proposition de particules.
4) Rayonnement synchrotron
5) relativiste version de Schroedinger; s équation. Équation de Dirac
et de positons.
GÉNÉRALE
1) La flexion de la lumière autour du soleil.
2) La précession de l'orbite de Mercure.
3) Perte d'énergie de rotation des pulsars (ondes gravitationnelles)
4) La précession de disque en rotation - Il s'agit de la dernière
expérience.
5) L'observation des objets compacts (trous noirs)
Ce que je veux dire par disimformation est simplement celui-ci. Ces
effets ne sont pas prévus par une théorie classique, mais ont tous été
prouvée pour être vrai. J'aurais pensé que serait une fin de la
question, mais pas de toutes sortes d'arguments spécieux sont
produits, aucune d'entre elles soit la bonne. gravité causé par la
aether tombent sur la Terre est l'un des très très grands.
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Ian: Propellers that turn too fast will cavitate, rather than
move the boat forward. The ether will cavitate, too. It's not
physically connected to that rotating disk. But the ether flowing
into the Earth does delay or speed up the passage of light or radio
waves—as from GPS satellites. Single cases that aren't confirmed,
don't rule out the other cases that are. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> http://monsyte.blogspot.com/2008/07/misinformation-campaign-against-i...
> en ===>frhttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
> en ====> zthttp://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=b...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Yanick: If you don't understand, you have lots of company on
this news group. I've disproved SR and GR. To understand more, read
the following links. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
Eric Gisse
Learn how an interferometer works before making stupid remarks. Your
19th century view of science is rather irritating, along with your
17th century knowledge.
Eric Gisse
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!
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Ian: Every one of your supposed proofs of SR and GR can be
correctly explained by: Varying ether flow and density. Einstein's SR
has been disproved by me. Einstein copied his E = mc^2 from
Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2. To disguise his plagiarism, Einstein simply
dropped the "1/2". The divisor under the SR equation is plagiarized
from Lorentz, who offered his equation as a possible explanation for
the nil result of M-M. In just one hour of though, I was able to
prove that the M-M experiment didn't have a CONTROL. That nullifies
SR; space-time; Big Bang; and GR—which also used the Lorentz
transformation to account for non Newtonian aspects of gravity. GR
was just a close mathematical analogy of the astronomical anomalies
being reported. It wasn't a "prediction" of those occurrences.
Einstein had zero idea what the mechanism of gravity is. I'm
telling you: Gravity is ether flowing down into the Earth. The ether
'pressure' is maintained by the radiant energy that the Earth sends
out into space. Such is composed 100% of clumps of photons (ether).
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - 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 —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: If that's so, then you are one who thrives on, and craves
BS! — NoEinstein —
Eric Gisse
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? Fuck, too many to
count.
Regardless you do not "do science". I'm yet to see you do a simple
fucking 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.
Jeff▲Relf
You troll these groups,
tacking on the single word “ stupid ” to end of everyone's post,
hoping for a response. Such a dedicated scientist ! ?
Eric Gisse
Stop whining, Relf.
Ian Parker
>
I have read through the Einstein hoax. Indeed the only half valid
point is the fact that an aether with electromagnetic interactions
explained by quantum electrodynamics would reproduce some of the
effects of special relativity.
It does not however explain the relativistic invariance of the other
forces, weak and strong nuclear + gravitation. Speaking of gravitation
it does not explan the bending of light (twice that of classic
corpusclar theory, the precession in the orbit of Mercury or why
orbiting pulsars lose energy.
You will also have to explain E-Mc^2. I suppose it is possible (just)
to do this with some sort of aether field theory, but particle mass
also includes weak and strong interactions. Both the weak and the
strong force look the same no matter how fast you are going.. Indeed
mu mreson decay obeys relativity exacly.
It should be pointed out too that Schroedinger's equation is not
relativistically invariant as it stands. This inspired the Dirac
equation.
I have looked at the Eintein Hoax and I find it to be a mass of
misconceptions and untruths. The first misconception is that a more
compact Universe (at an earlier stage of Evolution) would be a black
hole. This is untrue because the matter is RECEDING and has an event
horizon. In fact the Universe has a constant Omega which fixes
closure.
I do not understand how their explanation of "dark matter" could
possibly work.
http://www.christianparty.net/einstein.htm What the **** has
Christianity got to do with it! I have claimed ulerior motives. Here
is the proof.
The Einstein Hoax also has a record of postings. I will at some point
check with my paq compressor how much redundant information there is.
You see I might at some point upgrade my "cult class" I am interested
in natural language and translation, which is why I have got a
compressor.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
This is an organized disimformation campaign. No doubt all this data
will be downloaded onto their personal computers. They can then use
Google Desktop to find a suitable reply to any posting. It would be
nice (or rather nasty) to have full AI doing this.
The antirelativists have not so far entered for the Turing Test
Chatterbox competition. All that is needed is a chatterbox and you can
have a constant presence in all user groups.
- Ian Parker
Yanick Toutain
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Dear Mr Ian Parker
I thank you for your translated answer.
I have lost my (SFR 3G) internet connection
I am using a cyber space.
But your accents (of your writed word) desappear.
I am writing my long answer
BUT
First, I have post my new text
You can understand the reasons.
Bonjour Cher monsieur Ian Parker
Je vous remercie de traduire vos réponses.
Comme j'ai perdu ma connectionInternet (SFR 3G), je dois poster mes
textes depuis un cyber espace.
Je copie vos textes sur une clé USB, mais vos accents disparaissent
(je dois les réécrire)
Je prépare une longue réponse.
MAIS
J'ai commencé par poster mon nouveau texte.
Vous en comprendrez les raisons (explications détaillées de
l'absurdité du dispositif de MIchelson)
Encore merci de la traduction
Yanick Toutain
Yanick Toutain
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
Dear Mr NoEinstein
I have take of a copy (I am in a cyberspace) of your 3 links on my USB
key
I will read it (after translation) at home.
Thank you.
quote: "you have lots of company on this news group."
Do you accept Newton's vacuum space and asbsolute speed ?
Are you newtonist ?
Who is newtonist here, in this newsgroup ?
Yanick Toutain
Ian Parker
>
> - Show quoted text -
I translated, if I recall 2 postings. One I did myself rather fast and
I did miss out accents. They are difficult to do on my keyboard. For
the other I used Google Translate and edited. Google Translate is not
too bad for French although it is terrible for Arabic and other
inflective languages.
I am interested in Arabic, largely because of my knowledge of Latin
and my experience of Google Translate. I am a complete beginner and I
haven't got membership of the Einstein cult on any criterion other
than Relativity. I think you French should understand that for reasons
of their own anti relativity is a cult amongst neo Nazis and right
wing republicans.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-einstein-hoax1.html
Je traduit, si je me souviens 2 messages. Un je ne l'ai moi-même assez
rapide et je n'ai manquer accents. Ils sont difficiles à faire sur mon
clavier. Pour les autres j'ai utilisé Google Translate et édités.
Google Translate n'est pas trop mal pour le français mais c'est
terrible pour l'arabe et d'autres langues inflectives.
Je suis intéressé en arabe, en grande partie à cause de ma
connaissance du latin et mon expérience de Google Translate. Je suis
un débutant et je n'ai pas adhérant du culte d'Einstein sur aucun
critère que la relativité. Je pense que vous français doivent
comprendre que, pour des raisons qui leur sont propres de lutte contre
la relativité est un culte chez les néo nazis et l'aile droite des
républicains.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-einstein-hoax1.html
Google dit langues inflective. C'est langues inflectiveS. Pas d'accord
entre substantif et adjective. C'est typique. En l'arabe (ou latin) on
ne peut pas le faire.
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Yanick Toutain
> On 20 Jul, 20:25, YanickToutain<YanickTout...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17 juil, 17:58, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Mr Ian Parker
The problems of accent come from MY computer : I use a free access in
a public library (my web connection SFR 3G is broken)
I make copy of the text saving the web pages.
But I am trying another method : I put your text in the bloc note
Here, it is forbidden to use the translator.
About
" I think you French should understand that for reasons
> of their own anti relativity is a cult amongst neo Nazis and right
> wing republicans."
I am smiling : I was a trotskyst militant member of the 4th
International (1973 1982)
I am post marxist : I have produce the concepts of "formoisie" and "
innovoisie" , two new classes.
I have no fear about the opinion of einsteinist.
I have wrote a text "Nous sommes tous des juifs normands"
and a song
"Nous sommes tous des roses"
"We are all pink" (our skin)
And I am working for 6 revolutions.
My position about Einstein is recent : since 1999.
I have try to put the "Puthagoras integer" in the gamma function of
Einstein (special relativity). It didn't work !
I became with a doubt.
Going back to Newton, I have discovered that einsteinsts was lying
about the true thesis of Newton.
I went back to Democritos, Epicuros, Titus Lucretius, Isaac Newton and
VI Lenin.
I have read again the materialist analysis of Lenin (gnoseology)
About the objective time, the objective space.
I fight for the truth, for the materialist analysis.
I fight for the science.
You informe me about the link between the right wing of capitalist
politicians and some opinions against relativity.
I knew that about the 20th and 30th years of the 20th century.
You could give me more precisions : are they partisans of the Aether ?
Have you met some true partisans of Newton (partisans of vacuum space
and atoMos ) ?
About the nazis, they are partisans of the fascist Werner Heisenberg :
the want heroes to decide their future without determinism .
They refuse determinism.
I am a partisan of absolute determinism : all is "written".
The future is predictable.
The future is determined by the past.
The present is determined by the past.
Since 13 billions of years, it was possible to preview what happen
today : my answer to your text : I am a fully materialist : all is
movement of the last grain, movments of atomOs (of Democritos)
About Einstein : He went in the USA in 1921 to help Weizman to collect
money for the sionist project.
I have no problem to explain the manner the relativist imposture was
helped by king of Spain, king of Belgium, emperor of Japan, Vatican
and sionists.
Relativist project (and the lies of Eddington 1919) was a missile
against the science, against the victory of the marxists in Russia.
Fascists can say what they want.
The shout of hypocrits partisans of Einstein will not stop the
struggle for the science, for the materialist explanation of the
universe.
Sincerely
Yours for the (materialist) revolution
Yanick Toutain
Have you read my new text :
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5e80a30db8b674fd/4a637fca357e5ca9?lnk=raot
(not enough time to write the french version : the public library is
closing)