MMX, Contraction and Constancy
Peter Riedt
Henri Poincaré wrote in his 1897 paper The Relativity of Space:
Quote...According to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all bodies
carried forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. This
deformation is, in truth, very slight, since all dimensions parallel with
the earth's motion are diminished by a hundred-millionth, while dimensions
perpendicular to this motion are not altered. But' it matters little that it
is slight ; it is enough that it should exist for the conclusion I am soon
going to draw from it. Besides, though I said that it is slight, I really
know nothing about it. I have myself fallen a victim to the tenacious
illusion that makes us believe that we think of an absolute space. I was
thinking of the earth's motion on its elliptical orbit round the sun, and I
allowed 18 miles a second for its velocity. But its true velocity (I mean
this time, not its absolute velocity, which has no sense, but its velocity
in relation to the ether), this I do not know and have no means of knowing.
It is, perhaps, 10 or 100 times as high, and then the deformation will be
100 or 10,000 times as great.
It is evident that we cannot demonstrate this deformation. Take a cube with
sides a yard long. it is deformed on account of the earth's velocity; one of
its sides, that parallel with the motion, becomes smaller, the others do not
vary. If I wish to assure myself of this with the help of a yard-measure, I
shall measure first one of the sides perpendicular to the motion, and
satisfy myself that my measure fit s this side exactly ; and indeed neither
one nor other of these lengths is altered, since they are both perpendicular
to the motion. I then wish to measure the other side, that parallel with the
motion ; for this purpose I change the position of my measure, and turn it
so as to apply it to this side. But the yard-measure, having changed its
direction and having become parallel with the motion, has in its turn
undergone the deformation so that, though the side is no longer a yard long,
it will still fit it exactly, and I shall be aware of nothing.
What, then, I shall be asked, is the use of the hypothesis of Lorentz and
Fitzgerald if no experiment can enable us to verify it? The fact is that my
statement has been incomplete. I have only spoken of measurements that can
be made with a yard-measure, but we can also measure a distance by the time
that light takes to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the
velocity of light is constant, and independent of its direction. Lorentz
could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light
is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular
direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two
directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the
latter.....End of Quote
Poincaré does not mention the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) but it is
clear that he refers to it and the Lorentz and Fitzgerald explanation of the
absence of predicted fringe shifts in MMX. According to Poincaré, the
anisotropy of light would have explained the null result of MMX not less
plausibly than contraction of the parallel arm but Lorentz admitted a
preference for contraction and its corollary, isotropy (constancy of the
speed of light).
Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity':
QUOTE...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
æther. 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 æther. And yet another point: it is shown by
calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, 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 æther produces a
contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of
contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference 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...End of Quote
*to detect the existence of an aether-drift
Today, contraction and isotropy are elevated to the status of a holy
revelation, the dogmas of Special Relativity (SR). Einstein is revered as
the originator genius of it. The constancy of the speed of light is one of
the two principles of Special Relativity but rests solely on contraction
which is an ad hoc hypothesis, an unobservable assumption. The numerical
value of contraction is derived by a calculation using formulas known as the
Lorentz transformations. Contraction explains MMX but is not real.
The many books on relativity gloss over the origin of isotropy in the theory
and its real significance. However, the speed of light (c) may very well be
constant but not because of SR. Light is transmitted by the medium of the
ether which may be assumed to have the same properties throughout the
universe. Light travelling in the ether between source and target has a
constant speed c. The speed of the source of the light does not affect c but
the speed of the target (v) has an indirect influence on c. It is correct to
use formulas that include expressions such as c+v (speed of light plus speed
of approaching target) and c-v (speed of light minus speed of target going
away). In these cases, c remains the same but to allow for the change in the
distances between source and target, v is added to c if the distance is
shortened or subtracted from c if lengthened. There is a belief in some
minds that the speed of the source of light changes the value of c. This
arose from MMX where the speed of source and target, the mirrors on the
parallel arm, is the same but as explained before, only the target speed has
a bearing.
Stating the foregoing more concisely, light is isotropic in free space but
not necessarily between source and target.
The effects of c+v and c-v can be illustrated by a simple thought
experiment. The simile will also falsify the claim that the speed of light
between source and target (such as the mirrors on the parallel arm of MMX)
is isotropic.
A spaceship of 200m length and 200m width travels at 30000km/sec in uniform
rectilinear motion through space. Mounted on the roof are four light sensors
A, B, C, D and one light emitter, E. Emitter E is located in the very centre
of the square roof, sensors A, B, C and D are located at the edges of the
roof in the middle of each side, forming a cross with four equal arms. At
rest, distance EA = distance EB = distance EC = distance ED = 100m. While
the spaceship travels in the direction of AEB, light is emitted from E to A,
B, C, and D. For light to be isotropic, the emitted light must hit A, B, C
and D at the same time.
The classical (Gallilean) transformation scenario is as follows:
Sensor A moves towards emitter E in flight, reducing distance EA to 90.91m
[L1=L*c/(c+v)=100m*300000/330000]. Sensor B moves away from emitter E,
increasing distance EB to 111.11m [L1=L*c/(c-v)=100m*300000/270000].
Distances EC and ED remain unaltered. To arrive simultaneously at sensors A,
B, C and D from E, light cannot be isotropic between source and target;
distance EA(90.91m) differs from EB(111.11m), EC(100m) and ED(100m).
The Special Relativity scenario (Lorentz transformation) is as follows:
The length of the spaceship (as observed from another *frame*) contracts to
198.997m [L1=L*sqrt(1-vv/cc)], distances EA and EB are both shortened
to 99.498m each and EC and ED remain at 100m each (contraction of x axis
only, y and z unaltered). To arrive simultaneously at sensors A, B, C and D
from E, light cannot be isotropic between source and target; distances
EA(99.498m) and EB(99.498m) differ from EC(100m) and ED(100m).
Many intelligent people have expressed doubts about the Special Relativity
theory and offered arguments against its principles. Some are not convincing
but some are. Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet. It
took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
before Special Relativity is discarded?
Peter Riedt
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Riedt wrote:
> Many intelligent people have expressed doubts about the Special Relativity
> theory and offered arguments against its principles. Some are not convincing
> but some are. Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet. It
> took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
> before Special Relativity is discarded?
As soon as an experiment contradicts one of the predictions of the
theory, and not before. SR is as internally consistent as mathematics so
the only way to disprove it, is to show at least one of its predictions
is wrong.
Do you know of such an experiment?
Bob Kolker
Peter Riedt
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bokaah$1e7cr4$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
Yes, MMX.
Peter Riedt
Stephen Bint
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bokaah$1e7cr4$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
Because in SR time dilation is responsible for the constancy of the SoL for
two passing obervers, it must dilate both. It is a mutual, two-way effect.
These C-135 results suggest that time dilation is not reciprocal:
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Page 9, figure 5
As a solution to the twin paradox, it was suggested to me on this ng, that
time
dilation is mutual until the at-rest twin's clock jumps forward as the plane
returns to the at-rest twin's frame. This certainly does away with the
paradox, but does it match these results?
Stephen
(Forgive me for not continuing - I am going offline indefintely.)
Scott Fluhrer
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fad...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Well,
- What does SR predict you will measure during MMX
- What measurements are observed when MMX is actually run
- Are these two different?
--
poncho
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:3fadcbe8$0$107$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
That was one of the many bad suggestions you got.
> This certainly does away with the
> paradox, but does it match these results?
You asked the same question yesterday and ignored the replies:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=OAkrb.150911$Fm2.133694@attbi_s04
That is troll behaviour.
>
> Stephen
>
> (Forgive me for not continuing - I am going offline indefintely.)
You'll be back...
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3fad...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[snip waste of time]
> A spaceship of 200m length and 200m width travels at 30000km/sec in uniform
> rectilinear motion through space. Mounted on the roof are four light sensors
> A, B, C, D and one light emitter, E. Emitter E is located in the very centre
> of the square roof, sensors A, B, C and D are located at the edges of the
> roof in the middle of each side, forming a cross with four equal arms. At
> rest, distance EA = distance EB = distance EC = distance ED = 100m. While
> the spaceship travels in the direction of AEB, light is emitted from E to A,
> B, C, and D. For light to be isotropic, the emitted light must hit A, B, C
> and D at the same time.
For light to be isotropic, the emitted light must hit A, B, C
and D at the same time *according to the ship*.
>
> The classical (Gallilean) transformation scenario is as follows:
> Sensor A moves towards emitter E in flight, reducing distance EA to 90.91m
> [L1=L*c/(c+v)=100m*300000/330000]. Sensor B moves away from emitter E,
> increasing distance EB to 111.11m [L1=L*c/(c-v)=100m*300000/270000].
> Distances EC and ED remain unaltered. To arrive simultaneously at sensors A,
> B, C and D from E, light cannot be isotropic between source and target;
> distance EA(90.91m) differs from EB(111.11m), EC(100m) and ED(100m).
This is the Galilean relativity view of what happens in the frame of
the ship. So Galilean relativity is *not* compatible with isotropy.
>
> The Special Relativity scenario (Lorentz transformation) is as follows:
> The length of the spaceship (as observed from another *frame*) contracts to
> 198.997m [L1=L*sqrt(1-vv/cc)], distances EA and EB are both shortened
> to 99.498m each and EC and ED remain at 100m each (contraction of x axis
> only, y and z unaltered). To arrive simultaneously at sensors A, B, C and D
> from E, light cannot be isotropic between source and target; distances
> EA(99.498m) and EB(99.498m) differ from EC(100m) and ED(100m).
This is the special relativity view of what happens in a frame
other than the ship, so it says nothing about isotropy. The emitted
light hits A, B, C and D at the same time according to the ship.
Special relativity is compatible with isotropy - by design.
>
> Many intelligent
but ignorant
> people have expressed doubts about the Special Relativity
> theory and offered arguments against its principles
and never understood (or even refuse to listen to) the refutation
of their so-called "arguments".
> Some are not convincing
> but some are
very convincing in the ears of ignorant amateurs.
> Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet. It
> took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
> before Special Relativity is discarded?
How long before you realize that you lack both the will
and the intelligence to cure your ignorance?
Remember this?
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3f9643e5$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Yes, MMX.
Not so. MMX had a null result. All modern version of MMX show the same
null result. If the Aether exists it is not detectable. STR does not
assume Aether, yet all its predictions have been supported by experiment.
There is no direct, or strong indirect evidence for Aether. Everything
predictable using Aether is predictable without it. Aether is useless if
it exists and even more so if it does not exist.
Bob Kolker
in...@freewire.net
collagen
Patrick Reany
>
> Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity':
>
> QUOTE...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
> æther. 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 æther. And yet another point: it is shown by
> calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, 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 æther produces a
> contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of
> contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference 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...End of Quote
Einstein published a paper called 'The Special Theory of Relativity'in 1905?
Patrick
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bokaah$1e7cr4$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
Yes. SR is a thought experiment, so it can be answered with one.
If the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames of reference,
and in a certain situation light takes a longer path when seen from one
perspective than it does from another, then it must take a longer time from
that perspective than it does from the other.
Or - the longer path takes the longer time.
Usually, the relativist will say something like...
"The beam moves vertically in the moving frame, but this is seen as a
diagonal line in the stationary frame.
|\
| \
| \
| \
Therefore time in the moving frame is less than time in the stationary
frame, taa-daaaa!, I'm so clever, I understand relativity, mom!"
Then he does some elementary algebra which I won't bore you with, and walks
off, confident he's right.
Trouble is, if we move the source through the angle arctan(v/c) in the
moving frame, this is what happens.
t0.........* a
t1........\
t1.........* b
t2......\
t2........\
t2.........* c
t3..\
t3.....\
t3.......\
t3.........* d
The moving source has moved left as time passed, but the ray is vertical in
the stationary frame. The tip of the ray, *, remains the same distance from
the edge of the page, at a,b,c,and d, but the source has moved to the left.
So, applying our rule that the longer path takes the longer time, the longer
time is in the moving frame, not the stationary frame, contrary to the
relativists claim that he understands anything at all.
At this point the relativist will start to splutter about unsynchronized
clocks.
(Did I mention any clocks until now? No, of course not.)
He will claim that in the stationary frame two clocks are separated
|\S
| \
| \
| \
A B
by a distance vt, and work this into his argument.
(Oh no he won't, you cry!)
Oh yes he will, I've seen it done.
Now, of course it is true that the distance S-A-B is greater than the
distance S-A, so he has found a trick up his sleeve to make time less in the
moving frame once more. What a clever relativist!
But....
.
.
.
.
.
that isn't the path the light takes. It doesn't go from S to A and A to B,
bending through a right-angle. It takes the short-cut, direct from S to B.
The frame with the longer path has the longer time. Moving clocks speed up,
and all because I tilted the flashlight. Ergo, Einstein's relativity is
stupidity, and relativists are gullible fools.
Androcles
Androcles
> Many intelligent people have expressed doubts about the Special Relativity
> theory and offered arguments against its principles. Some are not
convincing
> but some are. Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet.
Yes it has. It is very simple. The speed of light is constant in the medium,
air. In the absence of a medium, it is constant with respect to the source.
Since source, medium and observer are all relatively at rest, it is the
result we expect. I've explained on countless occasions, and it's obvious.
However, I was not the first to give that explanation.
See "Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1
(1965).
Androcles
Uncle Al
>
> MMX, Contraction and Constancy
>
> Henri Poincaré wrote in his 1897 paper The Relativity of Space:
1897? HA HA HA. HA HA HA! It's 2003, you idiot.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
Get a high school kid to help you look up Terrell rotation.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Lester Zick
<bobk...@attbi.com> in sci.physics wrote:
>
>
>Peter Riedt wrote:
>>
>> Yes, MMX.
>
>Not so. MMX had a null result.
Not exactly. As I recall its results were less than 10% of those
anticipated. Kennedy-Thorndike had exactly null results but that was
because they kept the E polarization vector of the light in the plane
of platform rotation. I have speculated here and elsewhere that were
the E polarization vector for the light maintained normal to the plane
of platform rotation the ancticipated results would be obtained.
> All modern version of MMX show the same
>null result. If the Aether exists it is not detectable. STR does not
>assume Aether, yet all its predictions have been supported by experiment.
>
>There is no direct, or strong indirect evidence for Aether. Everything
>predictable using Aether is predictable without it. Aether is useless if
>it exists and even more so if it does not exist.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Regards - Lester
Harry
Nice, it shows that the essence of the SRT/LET controverse existed
already in 1897! (this ref. seems right:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincare.htm
)
The fact is that my
> statement has been incomplete. I have only spoken of measurements that can
> be made with a yard-measure, but we can also measure a distance by the time
> that light takes to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the
> velocity of light is constant, and independent of its direction. Lorentz
> could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light
> is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular
> direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two
> directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the
> latter.....End of Quote
>
> Poincaré does not mention the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) but it is
> clear that he refers to it and the Lorentz and Fitzgerald explanation of the
> absence of predicted fringe shifts in MMX. According to Poincaré, the
> anisotropy of light would have explained the null result of MMX not less
> plausibly than contraction of the parallel arm but Lorentz admitted a
> preference for contraction and its corollary, isotropy (constancy of the
> speed of light).
Right. AFAIK, that hypothesis of Poincare has never been disproved,
neither by experiment or theory.
> Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity':
Huh? surely you are mistaken!
> QUOTE...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
> æther. 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 æther. And yet another point: it is shown by
> calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, 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 æther produces a
> contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of
> contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference 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...End of Quote
>
> *to detect the existence of an aether-drift
>
SNIP
> Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet. It
> took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
> before Special Relativity is discarded?
Why do you think so?
Harald
Robert J. Kolker
Harry wrote:
>
>>Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of Relativity':
>
>
> Huh? surely you are mistaken!
Surely he is. The title (in English) is "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies". The work in this paper was not called "the Theory of
Relativity" until several years later. It should have been called the
"the Theory of Invariats".
Bob Kolker
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:fTsrb.54$gG1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:bokaah$1e7cr4$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > Peter Riedt wrote:
> > > How long
> > > before Special Relativity is discarded?
> >
> > As soon as an experiment contradicts one of the predictions of the
> > theory, and not before. SR is as internally consistent as mathematics so
> > the only way to disprove it, is to show at least one of its predictions
> > is wrong.
> >
> > Do you know of such an experiment?
>
> Yes. SR is a thought experiment, so it can be answered with one.
Amazing how telling so few words can be!
Paul, briefly told
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:booadl$na6$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
greywolf42
>
>
> Peter Riedt wrote:
> >
> > Yes, MMX.
>
> Not so. MMX had a null result.
That it the myth. The result was never null.
> All modern version of MMX show the same
> null result.
That is the myth. There has never been a "null" result for an MMX
experiment.
> If the Aether exists it is not detectable.
That is the myth. However it is detected all the time. So long as you
avoid the e-synch ritual.
> STR does not
> assume Aether, yet all its predictions have been supported by experiment.
Nope. Several predictions were disproved (i.e. Sagnac). But were later
'explained' after the fact. There is not a single experiment supporting SR
that does not also support LET.
> There is no direct, or strong indirect evidence for Aether. Everything
> predictable using Aether is predictable without it.
That is a completely different question. The same argument goes with the
Ptolemaic system versus Copernican theory.
> Aether is useless if
> it exists and even more so if it does not exist.
One should not confuse one's own inability to see usefulness with the
nonexistence of something.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:MCPrb.4567$GK2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Badly explained, but correct conclusion.
We can make the scenario even more obvious.
Let the light move horizontally from B to A in
the moving frame.
A<-------B -> v
The light path is shorter in the stationary frame than
in the moving frame. So the light beam will use longer
time from B to A measured in the moving frame than
measured in the stationary frame.
So what?
Did you have a point?
> At this point the relativist will start to splutter about unsynchronized
> clocks.
> (Did I mention any clocks until now? No, of course not.)
Indeed.
No clocks are mentioned.
So we won't say anything about unsynchronized clocks.
So what was your point?
Paul
Androcles
> We can make the scenario even more obvious.
> Let the light move horizontally from B to A in
> the moving frame.
> A<-------B -> v
> The light path is shorter in the stationary frame than
> in the moving frame. So the light beam will use longer
> time from B to A measured in the moving frame than
> measured in the stationary frame.
> So what?
>
> Did you have a point?
Yes.
> > At this point the relativist will start to splutter about unsynchronized
> > clocks.
> > (Did I mention any clocks until now? No, of course not.)
>
> Indeed.
> No clocks are mentioned.
> So we won't say anything about unsynchronized clocks.
>
> So what was your point?
>
> Paul
You've already made it, Paul.
The light path is shorter in the stationary frame than
in the moving frame. So the light beam will use longer
time from B to A measured in the moving frame than
measured in the stationary frame.
Now all you need to do is put some equations to that, of which I'm sure you
are capable. In the scenario you've given, I can arbitrarily select 2c, or
indeed any speed for the motion of the moving frame.
Jeff Krimmel
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:bol8cn$1fi5nd$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>
>> Peter Riedt wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, MMX.
>>
>> Not so. MMX had a null result.
>
> That it the myth. The result was never null.
That's a lie. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.
>> All modern version of MMX show the same null result.
>
> That is the myth. There has never been a "null" result for an MMX
> experiment.
Again, you lie. Not true at all. Not that you care.
[rest of nonsense snipped]
Jeff
--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.
Minor Crank
news:vr00b0d...@corp.supernews.com...
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:bol8cn$1fi5nd$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Not so. MMX had a null result.
>
> That it the myth. The result was never null.
A lie originating from your perversion/distortion/misrepresentation of the
fact that there has never been, nor can there ever be, an "exactly" zero
result. But all published MMX experiments, even Miller's notorious results
from three-quarters of a century ago, have yielded results that, properly
analyzed, are INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO.
I have nothing against non-zero results in the MMX experiment. Non-zero
results may point towards new physics. For example, violations of
speed-of-light isotropy are in fact predicted by certain versions of string
theory, and I eagerly await legitimate non-null measurements that may lead
to a deeper understanding of nature.
But I cannot tolerate your lying crap.
Minor Crank
Peter Riedt
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3bff5641.03110...@posting.google.com...
Yes, 1916 not 1905.
Peter Riedt
If MMX could be conclusively explained and if the explanation would be
accepted by mainstream physics, SR and a host of other bizarre ideas would
crash. SR is like a dam holding up progress but when it bursts, a lot of
people will drown. Perhaps the world is not ready yet but it will come.
Peter Riedt
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3fb0...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> If MMX could be conclusively explained and if the explanation would be
> accepted by mainstream physics, SR and a host of other bizarre ideas would
> crash. SR is like a dam holding up progress but when it bursts, a lot of
> people will drown. Perhaps the world is not ready yet but it will come.
Make sure you understand at least page 1 of SR before it
bursts, then even a stupid idiot like *you* will have a reason
to laugh :-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul R. Mays
If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass...
Your not up on this whole science thang are you?
SR is around because of only one reason.. To
date its the best explanation that fits both the
observed and the modeled reality we perceive...
If the day comes that it fails to do that it will be
set aside and the better concept will take its
place and on we go... Its just that "If" thang...
If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass...
Paul R. Mays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Some where within the Quantum State
Http://Paul.Mays.Com/story.html
http://paul.mays.com/mayday.html
http://paul.mays.com/rainy.html
"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from
invalid conventional wisdom that becomes
effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks
in every generation - people who keep challenging
convention and thinking up new ideas for the
sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness."
- Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist, U. Chicago.
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:KiUrb.339$xy4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> You've already made it, Paul.
> The light path is shorter in the stationary frame than
> in the moving frame. So the light beam will use longer
> time from B to A measured in the moving frame than
> measured in the stationary frame.
That's your point?
Isn't this rather an obvious triviality disputed by no one?
> Now all you need to do is put some equations to that, of which I'm sure you
> are capable. In the scenario you've given, I can arbitrarily select 2c, or
> indeed any speed for the motion of the moving frame.
>
> He will claim that in the stationary frame two clocks are separated
> |\S
> | \
> | \
> | \
> A B
> by a distance vt, and work this into his argument.
> (Oh no he won't, you cry!)
> Oh yes he will, I've seen it done.
> Now, of course it is true that the distance S-A-B is greater than the
> distance S-A, so he has found a trick up his sleeve to make time less in the
> moving frame once more. What a clever relativist!
This is your show, Androcles.
You will have to perfom it yourself.
>
> But....
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> that isn't the path the light takes. It doesn't go from S to A and A to B,
> bending through a right-angle. It takes the short-cut, direct from S to B.
> The frame with the longer path has the longer time.
Why do you repeat this obvious triviality disputed by no one?.
> Moving clocks speed up,
> and all because I tilted the flashlight.
Taa daa - pulled out of a hat?
I think you better explain which moving clocks you
are talking about, and why you think they speed up.
Paul
Androcles
It is of course time contraction, that you once claimed you didn't
understand. Moving clocks run faster. The twin that does the Star Trek
thingy dies before he can get back to his sibling, as long as he points his
flashlight slightly backwards, of course, so that its beam is vertical in
the Earth frame. He gets to stay younger than his twin if he aims it at a
right angle to the direction of motion. Silly, isn't it :)
Still, I've always said relativity was a silly theory.
As I've said, it is disputed by others. And of course it IS an OBVIOUS
triviality, you are quite right.
> > Moving clocks speed up,
> > and all because I tilted the flashlight.
>
> Taa daa - pulled out of a hat?
> I think you better explain which moving clocks you
> are talking about, and why you think they speed up.
>
> Paul
No clocks needed, Paul, they only measure time. It is time itself that
changes, at least according to Einstein's relativity. It doesn't really, of
course, but that's besides the point. All I've done is reversed the
(supposed)effect by changing the angle of the light beam.
J?rgen Clade
> Nope. Several predictions were disproved (i.e. Sagnac). [...]
Nope. The Sagnac effect does *not* disprove SR. Furthermore, SR
predicts *the same* Sagnac effect as the non-relativistic theory
(because it is a first order effect in v/c), so if it would disprove
SR, it would also disprove the non-relativistic theory.
regards,
Jürgen
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:Ns5sb.3924$_H4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Of course nobody knowing relativity has ever disputed this.
> It is of course time contraction, that you once claimed you didn't
> understand.
I don't even understand what "time contraction" is.
Can you define it please?
> Moving clocks run faster.
There are no moving clocks in your thought experiment,
so how can you claim that it shows that the non existing
clocks are running fast?
> The twin that does the Star Trek
> thingy dies before he can get back to his sibling, as long as he points his
> flashlight slightly backwards, of course, so that its beam is vertical in
> the Earth frame. He gets to stay younger than his twin if he aims it at a
> right angle to the direction of motion. Silly, isn't it :)
> Still, I've always said relativity was a silly theory.
You are babbling incoherent nonsense again.
I challenge you to name one who has disputed it.
> And of course it IS an OBVIOUS
> triviality, you are quite right.
Indeed.
> > > Moving clocks speed up,
> > > and all because I tilted the flashlight.
> >
> > Taa daa - pulled out of a hat?
> > I think you better explain which moving clocks you
> > are talking about, and why you think they speed up.
> >
> > Paul
> No clocks needed, Paul, they only measure time. It is time itself that
> changes, at least according to Einstein's relativity. It doesn't really, of
> course, but that's besides the point. All I've done is reversed the
> (supposed)effect by changing the angle of the light beam.
OK. I get the message.
You cannot show that the clocks that aren't needed are running fast.
Thought so.
Paul, not surprised
J?rgen Clade
He didn´t. His paper of 1905 concerning relativity was titled "Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" ("on the electrodynamics of moving
bodies"), and therein he did not mention Michelson/Morley explicitly.
He only referred to "many futile attempts to detect any motion of the
earth relative to the ether". The quote seems to stem from a popular
book he published later, but I´m not sure.
regards,
Jürgen
J?rgen Clade
[...]
> See "Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1
> (1965).
Androcles, did you really read this excellent paper? Wow! I recommend
you to read also the following papers by Fox and co-workers:
"Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source", Phys. Rev. B
135(1964)1071
"Constancy of the Velocity of Light", J. Opt. Soc, 57(1967)967
"Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special
Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 30(1962)297
You will learn a lot about physics!
regards,
Jürgen
J?rgen Clade
> > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of
> Relativity':
> >
> > Huh? surely you are mistaken!
>
> Yes, 1916 not 1905.
Sure? I only know of one 1916 publication of Einstein, titled "Die
Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" ("Principles of General
Relativity"). The quote is not from this paper.
> If MMX could be conclusively explained and if the explanation would be
> accepted by mainstream physics, SR and a host of other bizarre ideas would
> crash. SR is like a dam holding up progress but when it bursts, a lot of
> people will drown. Perhaps the world is not ready yet but it will come.
Fortunately, the MMX *is* conclusively explained, as you can read from
every physics textbook, and the explanation *is* accepted by
mainstream physics (therefore you can read it from every physics
textbook). Can you read? Do it!
regards,
Jürgen
Androcles
use words you'll understand, to avoid any confusion. But see the end of this
missive.
> > Moving clocks run faster.
>
> There are no moving clocks in your thought experiment,
> so how can you claim that it shows that the non existing
> clocks are running fast?
>
> > The twin that does the Star Trek
> > thingy dies before he can get back to his sibling, as long as he points
his
> > flashlight slightly backwards, of course, so that its beam is vertical
in
> > the Earth frame. He gets to stay younger than his twin if he aims it at
a
> > right angle to the direction of motion. Silly, isn't it :)
> > Still, I've always said relativity was a silly theory.
>
> You are babbling incoherent nonsense again.
I was in France once (or was it Spain?...I've never been to Greece), and I
couldn't understand a word they said. They were babbling. :)
Well now, I do have SOME ethics, and since the most recent individual to do
so chose to email me directly rather than post here, I cannot meet that
challenge here, openly. Nor do I reveal my own name, so I can hardly reveal
his.
However, I do believe Dinky Van der Mumble (you know, that grovelling,
snivelling, slimy little teacher's pet of a clerk that enjoys posting what
he considers to be blunders to his own web pages, and I've not mentioned his
name either, although the inference is clear enough to a man of intelligence
such as yourself) may have a reference for you. Why not give him a whistle?
I'm sure he'll gladly toady up to you, you are one of his heroes.
>
> > And of course it IS an OBVIOUS
> > triviality, you are quite right.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > > > Moving clocks speed up,
> > > > and all because I tilted the flashlight.
> > >
> > > Taa daa - pulled out of a hat?
> > > I think you better explain which moving clocks you
> > > are talking about, and why you think they speed up.
> > >
> > > Paul
>
> > No clocks needed, Paul, they only measure time. It is time itself that
> > changes, at least according to Einstein's relativity. It doesn't really,
of
> > course, but that's besides the point. All I've done is reversed the
> > (supposed)effect by changing the angle of the light beam.
>
> OK. I get the message.
> You cannot show that the clocks that aren't needed are running fast.
>
> Thought so.
>
> Paul, not surprised
A clock is just an oscillator and a counter, Paul. We can do the counting by
hand, and it is a count of one. The oscillator is the light beam, and it
makes one cycle. How long does that one cycle last? Depends which frame you
are in, of course.
On the other hand, we could use a Harrison chronometer, but that doesn't
have much to do with the constancy of the velocity of light, does it?
Trouble with that is it isn't very a stable.
How does it go?
tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = vt
tau = (t-t.v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), right?
Well, it was last time, you agreed, but I'm never quite sure if you'll agree
again :)
|\
| \
| \
|......\
vertical = c.t (stationary frame)
hypotenuse = c.tau (moving frame)
base = v.tau (moving frame)
c.tau =sqrt ([c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2) by Pythagoras
c^2tau^2 = [c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2
[c.t]^2 = c^2tau^2 - [v.tau]^2
t^2 = tau^2 - v^2.tau^2/c^2
t^2 = tau^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
t = tau.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
tau = t/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Somehow, I computed
dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
and
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
One of these is called time dilation. I call the other one, the one you have
the trouble with defining, time contraction, it being the inverse of time
dilation. It's only a name, I have to call it something. Is that a good
enough definition? I forget now which is which, I'm so confused :)
BTW, to make this into a repeating oscillator and therefore a clock, we
could send the beam back to the source to trigger a new beam. Knowing you
well enough after all this time chatting, I'm quite sure that's what you
would like me to do, and of course that would make the longer path in the
stationary frame once again. I'll agree to it, with one condition. We don't
try to pretend that the time it takes for the return is equal to the time it
takes to reach the mirror in the stationary frame.
That 1/2 in
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
has got to go.
It was pulled out of a hat, admitted to be an assumption.
I'll agree to [t1-t]/[t2-t] though, where
t1 = t+x'/(c-v)
and
t2 = t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
Androcles.
greywolf42
news:XZYrb.165305$HS4.1344008@attbi_s01...
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vr00b0d...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:bol8cn$1fi5nd$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> > > Not so. MMX had a null result.
> >
> > That it the myth. The result was never null.
>
> A lie originating from your perversion/distortion/misrepresentation of the
> fact that there has never been, nor can there ever be, an "exactly" zero
> result.
Sure there can.
> But all published MMX experiments, even Miller's notorious results
> from three-quarters of a century ago, have yielded results that, properly
> analyzed, are INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO.
Aye, there's the rub! What is the 'significant' signature? What theory are
you using to claim 'null?' Relativists always use a ficticious solid aether
with no matter interactions. A pure strawman theory that was never proposed
by anyone.
> I have nothing against non-zero results in the MMX experiment. Non-zero
> results may point towards new physics. For example, violations of
> speed-of-light isotropy are in fact predicted by certain versions of
string
> theory, and I eagerly await legitimate non-null measurements that may lead
> to a deeper understanding of nature.
>
> But I cannot tolerate your lying crap.
Keep your hands over your eyes, priest.
Or explicitly provide for everyone the theory you use to determine
"insignificantly different from zero." I've been asking relativists for
over 5 years to provide the theory or a calculation identifying what that
boundary is. For 5 years all relativists have been ducking this simple
statement. I wonder why?
greywolf42
news:pan.2003.11.11....@hotmail.com...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:24:58 -0800, greywolf42 wrote:
>
> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:bol8cn$1fi5nd$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yes, MMX.
> >>
> >> Not so. MMX had a null result.
> >
> > That it the myth. The result was never null.
>
> That's a lie. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.
No conspiracy needed. Just look at the FAQ page. No zeroes.
> >> All modern version of MMX show the same null result.
> >
> > That is the myth. There has never been a "null" result for an MMX
> > experiment.
>
> Again, you lie. Not true at all. Not that you care.
Just look at the FAQ page. No nulls.
> [rest of nonsense snipped]
greywolf42
news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is not
scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR explanation
for the Sagnac effect.
And please learn the difference between 'prediction' and 'explanation.' SR
'predicted' NO effect. Aetherists predicted the effect. It took several
years for an SRist to come up with the (non-SR) explanation as to why SR was
'not disproved.'
Tom Roberts
> Minor Crank <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XZYrb.165305$HS4.1344008@attbi_s01...
>>
>>from three-quarters of a century ago, have yielded results that, properly
>>analyzed, are INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO.
>
> Aye, there's the rub! What is the 'significant' signature?
This is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, not a theoretical one.
For the MMX, the question science asks is not "was the measured value
exactly zero?", but rather "was the measured value larger than the
smallest value that the apparatus could reliably distinguish from
zero?". In science we normally phrase the latter question as "was the
measured value significantly different from zero?", with a specific
meaning for "significantly" that is based on the number of standard
deviations away from zero the measured value was. This, of course,
depends on the resolution of the apparatus.
Minor Crank's statement here, and mine elsewhere, point out that for
NONE of the MMX repetitions listed in the FAQ is the measured value
different from 0 by more than one or two standard deviations that
accurately represent the resolution of the apparatus. Yes, in most cases
the experimenters themselves (or at any rate the sources I used for that
table) did not quote the resolution of the apparatus; so to evaluate
whether or not the measurement is significantly different from 0 one
must guess what their apparatus resolution was; a value of 0.1 fringe is
probably not far off (for eyeball measurements of MMX fringes).
BTW except for Illingworth (who used a novel technique to improve
resolution), claims of resolution better than 0.1 fringe are not
believable to anyone who has actually looked at the fringes in such an
interferometer (yes, I have done so).
Just look at Miller's photograph in his RMP article, and
remember that the real fringes have fuzzy edges poorly
reproduced in the magazine and utterly invisible in copies.
I can believe eyeballing the stable and solid black-and-white
bars in my copy to 0.1 fringe, but for the real observations
of fuzzy and jiggling fringes that seems rather optimistic.
> What theory are
> you using to claim 'null?'
SR, and all theories equivalent to it, predict a null result for the
MMX. IOW a fringe shift of 0.
The proper claim about the MMX repetitions in the FAQ is not that they
yield null results, but rather that they do not differ significantly
from null (zero fringe shift).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:ns9sb.2$78...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > OK. I get the message.
> > You cannot show that the clocks that aren't needed are running fast.
> >
> > Thought so.
> >
> > Paul, not surprised
>
> A clock is just an oscillator and a counter, Paul. We can do the counting by
> hand, and it is a count of one.
Right.
> The oscillator is the light beam, and it
> makes one cycle.
A light beam moving from one point to another is
no oscillator, and it makes no CYCLE.
Which you know very well.
> How long does that one cycle last? Depends which frame you
> are in, of course.
I challenge you, Androcles.
Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
Let the direction of the light beam be different from vertical,
say horizontal. Show that a complete cycle (one period
of the oscillator), as measured in the stationary frame,
is shorter when the clock is moving than when it is stationary.
If you can do that, you have proven that the moving clock
is running fast.
You claimed that you could make the light clock run
fast by changing the direction of the light beam.
Prove it!
But you cannot show anything about the rate of
a clock if you destroy it (by removing the mirrors)
so it no longer is a clock.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> skrev i melding news:vr293qo...@corp.supernews.com...
This is plain and simple nonsense.
SR predicts exactly the fringe shift that is observed
when the Sagnac ring is rotated, and the calculation
of the prediction is trivially simple.
From whence have you got the idiotic idea that
SR predicts no fringe shifts?
I think I can tell you from where the confusion stems, though.
The postulates of SR are valid only in inertial frames.
And it is indeed trivially simple to calculate the prediction
for the fringe shifts if it is done in an inertial, non rotating
frame. But it is NOT trivial to calculate the prediction in
the rotating frame, and it was this that took some time
to do. It CAN be done using SR only, but it is much
simpler if you can use the math of GR.
That's why it wrongly is said that GR predicts the Sagnac
effect, but SR don't.
(Which is a self contradiction - GR reduces to SR
in flat space time.)
Paul
Tom Roberts
> "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> skrev i melding news:vr293qo...@corp.supernews.com...
>>'predicted' NO effect.
You and greywolf42 use these words differently.
You (and I) use "predict" in the SCIENTIFIC sense -- a theory predicts a
specific value for a given measurement because when the theory is
applied to the physical situation of the measurement one computes that
value.
greywolf42 uses "predict" in the HISTORICAL sense (chronologically
prior). Yes, that's irrelevant in science....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
Read those too, as it happens, and
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
It's rather like proving the Earth is flat, really. First you assume it is,
then you test it with an experiment that supports your assumption. What you
must never do is test it with an experiment that might disprove it, or you
won't get any funding.
The man I take my hat off to has to be Michelson. He was convinced that the
aether carried the light wave, and did his best to measure its speed as the
Earth was cried through the aether wind. Imagine his shock at finding
nothing! But being a true scientist, he published his results instead of
burying them. That took courage. He was still at it until the early '30s,
when he died. His last experiment was with Pease and Pearson ar the Irvine
Ranch, CA.and he never finished it. Unfortunately there is no empirical
data, it has been reduced, and no use to me. I also read astronomy papers,
surprised?
I have to, the speed of light is source dependent in interstellar space,
even if it isn't in the laboratory.
You see, stars don't just blow up, then settle down to normal and blow up
again. Stars don't pulsate, either. What they do is move in elliptical
orbits,
sometimes large with periods of hundreds of years, and sometimes small with
periods of hundreds of hours or less. When they move away from the Earth
they emit light in our direction that is slowed by there motion away, and
when they approach, the speed of light is added to their motion. This means
that slower light can be overtaken and passed by the later, faster light, if
the distance is great enough. For those stars just 20 or 30 parsecs away,
this doesn't happen, but we do see the effect, and imagine them to be
pulsating, when all that is really happening is an optical illusion caused
by the light they emit being source dependent. But I expect you'd rather
beleive they pulsate, and recurrent novae blow themselves to smithereens
over and over again. You might also be surprised to learn that I've created
a mathematical model that duplicates the luminosity curve of Nova Herculis
1934, including its secondary maximum, and modelled its spectrum as well,
including line splitting. I can also model Algol, a so-called eclipsing
variable. Not a bad coincidence, is it? Three phenomena with one model. And
then there is Mira, of course. It shows itself to be in more than one
position at the same time, but you have to take into account its spin.
As Fox points out, that piece of garbage deSitter wrote about binary stars
isn't worth the paper it was written on, but people still hold it up and say
"Look, here's proof" even though it has been discredited for half a century.
But this is sci.physics.relativity, not astronomy, so the issue here is
whether the speed of light is source independent because Einstein says so,
or is he making it up? One would think that the man that discovered the
photon and got a Nobel for it wouldn't use a wave model for light, but
that's what happened.
Androcles
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <madscie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.11.11....@hotmail.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:24:58 -0800, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> > Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bol8cn$1fi5nd$1...@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Peter Riedt wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, MMX.
>> >>
>> >> Not so. MMX had a null result.
>> >
>> > That it the myth. The result was never null.
>>
>> That's a lie. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.
>
> No conspiracy needed. Just look at the FAQ page. No zeroes.
[...]
Just because you don't understand the terms "error bars" and "statistical
significance" doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afloat.
Learn some math and science.
Minor Crank
> Just because you don't understand the terms "error bars" and "statistical
> significance" doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afloat.
>
> Learn some math and science.
Probably not a good thing to suggest to Greywolf, since his dG/dE is
negative
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/NegInt.html
Minor Crank
Bilge
Ever wonder why these people are so hung up on arguing about an
experiment done over a century ago, when they could repeat the
experiment themselves, far more easily and with better prescision
than michelson and morely could have performed it and do it for
less than the cost of a cheap dvd player? Just hope that none
of these guys repair airplanes.
J?rgen Clade
> > Now I´m really astonished:
> >
> > [...]
> > > See "Evidence Against Emission Theories" J. G. Fox, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1
> > > (1965).
> >
> > Androcles, did you really read this excellent paper? Wow! I recommend
> > you to read also the following papers by Fox and co-workers:
> >
> > "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source", Phys. Rev. B
> > 135(1964)1071
> > "Constancy of the Velocity of Light", J. Opt. Soc, 57(1967)967
> > "Experimental Evidence for the Second Postulate of Special
> > Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 30(1962)297
>
> > You will learn a lot about physics!
> >
> > regards,
> > Jürgen
> Read those too, as it happens, and
> T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
> Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
[garbage snipped]
I did. And I recommend you first to try to understand it before you
post even more garbage.
regards,
Jürgen
J?rgen Clade
> > Greywolf should learn this in addition to the answers of Jeff Krimmel:
> >
> > > Nope. Several predictions were disproved (i.e. Sagnac). [...]
> >
> > Nope. The Sagnac effect does *not* disprove SR. Furthermore, SR
> > predicts *the same* Sagnac effect as the non-relativistic theory
> > (because it is a first order effect in v/c), so if it would disprove
> > SR, it would also disprove the non-relativistic theory.
>
> That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is not
> scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR explanation
> for the Sagnac effect.
I actually noted that the Sagnac effect doesn´t disprove SR because SR
predicts exactly the observed effect.
For details look here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
[garbage snipped]
regards,
Jürgen
Androcles
> I challenge you, Androcles.
>
> Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
> Let the direction of the light beam be different from vertical,
> say horizontal. Show that a complete cycle (one period
> of the oscillator), as measured in the stationary frame,
> is shorter when the clock is moving than when it is stationary.
>
> If you can do that, you have proven that the moving clock
> is running fast.
>
> You claimed that you could make the light clock run
> fast by changing the direction of the light beam.
> Prove it!
> But you cannot show anything about the rate of
> a clock if you destroy it (by removing the mirrors)
> so it no longer is a clock.
>
> Paul
contraction if you snip my explanation without reading it? That's willful
ignorance, isn't it, Paul?
Hear it is once more. There are two parts, one is a definition of time
contraction, which you asked for previously, and the second is how to
construct clock, which I've already offered in the last post I sent before
you challenged me to do so in this one. Now do try using that full brain of
yours, old chap, you know I have only half of one. You see, I had
anticipated your response before you made it, and I said so as well! I think
your whole brain must be time dilated, you are definitely not in my frame at
my speed.
Androcles
Ok... So you think that emitting photons from within a stationary block of
metal is the same as emitting them from a moving source in a vacuum.
I call that garbage.
Androcles
Gregory L. Hansen
Why? What's the center of momentum velocity of the metal atom and the
impinging particle?
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
Paul B. Andersen
"J?rgen Clade" <cl...@isc.fhg.de> skrev i melding news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> > > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of
> > Relativity':
> > >
> > > Huh? surely you are mistaken!
> >
> > Yes, 1916 not 1905.
>
> Sure? I only know of one 1916 publication of Einstein, titled "Die
> Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" ("Principles of General
> Relativity"). The quote is not from this paper.
It's not from a paper, but from the popular book published in 1916:
"Relativitatstheorie - Nach dem heutigen Stande"
The English title is "Relativity".
Paul
ste...@nomail.com
: That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is not
: scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR explanation
: for the Sagnac effect.
What result would disprove the ether?
Stephen
Androcles
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:boti4d$7t6$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <QOrsb.304$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Androcles <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"J?rgen Clade" <cl...@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message
> >news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >Ok... So you think that emitting photons from within a stationary block
of
> >metal is the same as emitting them from a moving source in a vacuum.
> >I call that garbage.
> >Androcles
>
> Why? What's the center of momentum velocity of the metal atom and the
> impinging particle?
lifespan to reach the edge of the block, but they emerge from the block at
c. In some strange perverted way, this is supposed to prove that the
velocity of the photons is independent of the source.
ref:
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
I can prove a ball doesn't bounce, too.
I just set it down and say "look, it doesn't bounce!"
If you'll buy that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Androcles
Gregory L. Hansen
Androcles <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:boti4d$7t6$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <QOrsb.304$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Androcles <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >"J?rgen Clade" <cl...@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message
>> >news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> >Ok... So you think that emitting photons from within a stationary block
>of
>> >metal is the same as emitting them from a moving source in a vacuum.
>> >I call that garbage.
>> >Androcles
>>
>> Why? What's the center of momentum velocity of the metal atom and the
>> impinging particle?
>You tell me. Photons are emitted from a decay particle that has too short a
>lifespan to reach the edge of the block, but they emerge from the block at
>c. In some strange perverted way, this is supposed to prove that the
>velocity of the photons is independent of the source.
If the photon was emitted from a moving decay particle and not from a
stationary atom, why would it matter that there are stationary atoms in
the vicinity? How would the atom know it's supposed to obtain the speed
of an atom rather than the particle that created it? I thought you didn't
believe in extinction lengths.
>ref:
>T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, "Test of the Second
>Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett. 12 260-262 (1964);
>
>I can prove a ball doesn't bounce, too.
>I just set it down and say "look, it doesn't bounce!"
>If you'll buy that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
>Androcles
>
>
>
greywolf42
Another graduate of the Bilge school of cowardice. Snip all physics and
post an insult.
Peter Riedt
> > news:3bff5641.03110...@posting.google.com...> news:<3fad...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
> > > > MMX, Contraction and Constancy
> > > >
> > > > Henri Poincaré wrote in his 1897 paper The Relativity of Space:
> > > >
> > > > Quote...According to a hypothesis of Lorentz and Fitzgerald, all
> bodies
> > > > carried forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. This
> > > > deformation is, in truth, very slight, since all dimensions parallel
> with
> > > > the earth's motion are diminished by a hundred-millionth, while
> dimensions
> > > > perpendicular to this motion are not altered. But' it matters little
> that it
> > > > is slight ; it is enough that it should exist for the conclusion I am
> soon
> > > > going to draw from it. Besides, though I said that it is slight, I
> really
> > > > know nothing about it. I have myself fallen a victim to the tenacious
> > > > illusion that makes us believe that we think of an absolute space. I
> was
> > > > thinking of the earth's motion on its elliptical orbit round the sun,
> and I
> > > > allowed 18 miles a second for its velocity. But its true velocity (I
> mean
> > > > this time, not its absolute velocity, which has no sense, but its
> velocity
> > > > in relation to the ether), this I do not know and have no means of
> knowing.
> > > > It is, perhaps, 10 or 100 times as high, and then the deformation will
> be
> > > > 100 or 10,000 times as great.
> > > >
> > > > It is evident that we cannot demonstrate this deformation. Take a cube
> with
> > > > sides a yard long. it is deformed on account of the earth's velocity;
> one of
> > > > its sides, that parallel with the motion, becomes smaller, the others
> do
> not
> > > > vary. If I wish to assure myself of this with the help of a
> yard-measure, I
> > > > shall measure first one of the sides perpendicular to the motion, and
> > > > satisfy myself that my measure fit s this side exactly ; and indeed
> neither
> > > > one nor other of these lengths is altered, since they are both
> perpendicular
> > > > to the motion. I then wish to measure the other side, that parallel
> with
> the
> > > > motion ; for this purpose I change the position of my measure, and
> turn
> it
> > > > so as to apply it to this side. But the yard-measure, having changed
> its
> > > > direction and having become parallel with the motion, has in its turn
> > > > undergone the deformation so that, though the side is no longer a yard
> long,
> > > > it will still fit it exactly, and I shall be aware of nothing.
> > > >
> > > > What, then, I shall be asked, is the use of the hypothesis of Lorentz
> and
> > > > Fitzgerald if no experiment can enable us to verify it?
> > >
> > > Nice, it shows that the essence of the SRT/LET controverse existed
> > > already in 1897! (this ref. seems right:
> > >
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/poincare.htm
> > > )
> > >
> > > The fact is that my
> > > > statement has been incomplete. I have only spoken of measurements that
> can
> > > > be made with a yard-measure, but we can also measure a distance by the
> time
> > > > that light takes to traverse it, on condition that we admit that the
> > > > velocity of light is constant, and independent of its direction.
> Lorentz
> > > > could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of
> light
> > > > is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the
> perpendicular
> > > > direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the
> two
> > > > directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the
> > > > latter.....End of Quote
> > > >
> > > > Poincaré does not mention the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) but
> it
> is
> > > > clear that he refers to it and the Lorentz and Fitzgerald explanation
> of
> the
> > > > absence of predicted fringe shifts in MMX. According to Poincaré, the
> > > > anisotropy of light would have explained the null result of MMX not
> less
> > > > plausibly than contraction of the parallel arm but Lorentz admitted a
> > > > preference for contraction and its corollary, isotropy (constancy of
> the
> > > > speed of light).
> > >
> > > Right. AFAIK, that hypothesis of Poincare has never been disproved,
> > > neither by experiment or theory.
> > >
> > > > Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper 'The Special Theory of
> Relativity':
> > >
> > > Huh? surely you are mistaken!
> >
> > Yes, 1916 not 1905.
> >
> > > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> > > > the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as
> yet. It
> > > > took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
> > > > before Special Relativity is discarded?
> > >
> > > Why do you think so?
> > >
> > > Harald
> >
> > If MMX could be conclusively explained and if the explanation would be
> > accepted by mainstream physics, SR and a host of other bizarre ideas would
> > crash. SR is like a dam holding up progress but when it bursts, a lot of
> > people will drown. Perhaps the world is not ready yet but it will come.
> >
> >
> >
>
> If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass...
>
> Your not up on this whole science thang are you?
>
> SR is around because of only one reason.. To
> date its the best explanation that fits both the
> observed and the modeled reality we perceive...
>
> If the day comes that it fails to do that it will be
> set aside and the better concept will take its
> place and on we go... Its just that "If" thang...
Paul, yes but if everybody waited for the day to come would it come?
Do we need to wait for frogs to grow wings?
Peter Riedt
>
> If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass...
>
>
>
> Paul R. Mays
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Some where within the Quantum State
> Http://Paul.Mays.Com/story.html
> http://paul.mays.com/mayday.html
> http://paul.mays.com/rainy.html
>
> "Perhaps the only thing that saves science from
> invalid conventional wisdom that becomes
> effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks
> in every generation - people who keep challenging
> convention and thinking up new ideas for the
> sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness."
> - Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist, U. Chicago.
Gregory L. Hansen
Which aether? The proposed nature of the aether has been tweaked
again and again to align with experimental facts. Astronomical
observations selected Newton's central forces over Descarte's
whirlpools. LeSage proposed "ultramundane corpuscles" bouncing
everywhere and pushing things together, an effect that would have
heated all matter to vapor until that idea was modified. I think
they're on to vibrations in a fluid or densely packed particles now.
On the electromagnetic front the aether was made stiff when it was
realized that light is an electromagnetic wave and is transverse,
although matter flowed through it unimpeded and it couldn't support
longitudinal vibrations. Then it was given a drag coefficient. Then
it was given length contraction and time dilation.
There was a proposal that I can't find right now that a Mössbauer
experiment could distinguish the Lorentzian aether from special
relativity. I don't know if I believe that, but if the experiment
were done and aether disproven, it would be a particular model of the
aether that is disproven. There are enough people that would calmly
find a new model of the aether, never for a moment doubting that some
kind of aether must exist.
greywolf42
OK, I looked, and I quote:
"Thus, a Sagnac apparatus does not discriminate between relativistic and
pre-relativistic theories. Ironically, this is the main reason it comes up
so often in discussions of relativity, because the effect can easily be
computed on a non-relativistic basis (as we did above for a circular loop,
taking the sums c+v and c-v to determine the transit times in the two
directions). Unfortunately, some people misconstrue this as a falsification
of relativity, conflating necessity with sufficiency. This opportunity for
confusion arises because, although the Sagnac effect itself is a first-order
phenomenon (in v/c), the qualitative description of the local conditions on
the disk depends on second-order effects, which we infer from other
experiments, such as the experiment of Michelson and Morley."
In other words, according to the 'solution' there is no difference between
relativity and all other theories of the universe -- and SR did not
'predict' the Sagnac effect.
greywolf42
The original SR prediction -- no effect.
greywolf42
news:3FB133B...@Lucent.com...
> On 11/11/2003 11:11 AM, greywolf42 wrote:
> > Minor Crank <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:XZYrb.165305$HS4.1344008@attbi_s01...
> >>
> >>But all published MMX experiments, even Miller's notorious results
> >>from three-quarters of a century ago, have yielded results that,
properly
> >>analyzed, are INSIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM ZERO.
> >
> > Aye, there's the rub! What is the 'significant' signature?
>
> This is an EXPERIMENTAL issue, not a theoretical one.
LOL! Tom, you know better. What would be a 'significant' signature for the
relativisits' favorite solid aether with no matter interaction? What would
be the prediction for LET?
What is 'significant' for one is not 'significant' for the other.
> For the MMX, the question science asks is not "was the measured value
> exactly zero?", but rather "was the measured value larger than the
> smallest value that the apparatus could reliably distinguish from
> zero?".
Excellent! Miller's was 0.01 fringe shift.
> In science we normally phrase the latter question as "was the
> measured value significantly different from zero?", with a specific
> meaning for "significantly" that is based on the number of standard
> deviations away from zero the measured value was. This, of course,
> depends on the resolution of the apparatus.
Excellent!
> Minor Crank's statement here, and mine elsewhere, point out that for
> NONE of the MMX repetitions listed in the FAQ is the measured value
> different from 0 by more than one or two standard deviations that
> accurately represent the resolution of the apparatus.
This is what you need to provide, Tom. So far, all you have done is make
handwaving arguments that *all* of these experiments are null. But you
haven't provided 'standard deviations' for a single one. I've been asking
you for over 5 years to provide same. Why do you continue to hide?
> Yes, in most cases
> the experimenters themselves (or at any rate the sources I used for that
> table) did not quote the resolution of the apparatus; so to evaluate
> whether or not the measurement is significantly different from 0 one
> must guess what their apparatus resolution was; a value of 0.1 fringe is
> probably not far off (for eyeball measurements of MMX fringes).
Thank you for admitting you have simply assumed your desired conclusion.
You haven't looked at a single case. Miller didn't use eyeball
measurements, for example. His measurable precision was 0.01 fringe.
> BTW except for Illingworth (who used a novel technique to improve
> resolution), claims of resolution better than 0.1 fringe are not
> believable to anyone who has actually looked at the fringes in such an
> interferometer (yes, I have done so).
LOL! Illingworth used eyeballs too!
> Just look at Miller's photograph in his RMP article, and
> remember that the real fringes have fuzzy edges poorly
> reproduced in the magazine and utterly invisible in copies.
> I can believe eyeballing the stable and solid black-and-white
> bars in my copy to 0.1 fringe, but for the real observations
> of fuzzy and jiggling fringes that seems rather optimistic.
Your interferometer was obviously not the massive, stable interferometer
used by Miller.
> > What theory are you using to claim 'null?'
>
> SR, and all theories equivalent to it, predict a null result for the
> MMX. IOW a fringe shift of 0.
>
> The proper claim about the MMX repetitions in the FAQ is not that they
> yield null results, but rather that they do not differ significantly
> from null (zero fringe shift).
And you have just admitted that you have no data on which to make this
claim. Except your personal wishes.
greywolf42
1) Relativists *predicted* zero change. Prediction happens BEFORE the
experiment.
2) The 'explanation' used by SR does not use SR.
> From whence have you got the idiotic idea that
> SR predicts no fringe shifts?
From Sagnac. Original paper.
> I think I can tell you from where the confusion stems, though.
> The postulates of SR are valid only in inertial frames.
> And it is indeed trivially simple to calculate the prediction
> for the fringe shifts if it is done in an inertial, non rotating
> frame. But it is NOT trivial to calculate the prediction in
> the rotating frame, and it was this that took some time
> to do.
Correct, it was not a prediction. Nor does the 'SR' solution use SR.
> It CAN be done using SR only, but it is much
> simpler if you can use the math of GR.
> That's why it wrongly is said that GR predicts the Sagnac
> effect, but SR don't.
> (Which is a self contradiction - GR reduces to SR
> in flat space time.)
Not according to Einstein. See "The Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity," 1916, Einstein, sections 1 and 2.
greywolf42
Typical ad hominem.
I understand error bars and statistical significance just fine. You'll note
that not only are there no 'null' results, that there are no error bars or
any other quantification of 'significance' on the list. That was my point.
You simply assume that these have no significance.
In a parallel post, Tom (maintainer of the FAQ) has just admitted:
"(T)he experimenters themselves (or at any rate the sources I used for that
table) did not quote the resolution of the apparatus; so to evaluate whether
or not the measurement is significantly different from 0 one must guess what
their apparatus resolution was."
Which is what I've been saying for years. Tom has blindly used secondary
sources that give the answer he wants, and 'guessed' that the results were
null.
You've been 'motivated,' Jeff.
greywolf42
> On 11/11/2003 3:55 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > "greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> skrev i melding
news:vr293qo...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>And please learn the difference between 'prediction' and 'explanation.'
SR
> >>'predicted' NO effect.
> > This is plain and simple nonsense.
> > SR predicts exactly the fringe shift that is observed [...]
>
> You and greywolf42 use these words differently.
>
> You (and I) use "predict" in the SCIENTIFIC sense -- a theory predicts a
> specific value for a given measurement because when the theory is
> applied to the physical situation of the measurement one computes that
> value.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> greywolf42 uses "predict" in the HISTORICAL sense (chronologically
> prior). Yes, that's irrelevant in science....
LOL! A new relativist redefinition of 'prediction!'
www.google.com/groups?selm=3odc7.2940%247g6.429886%40nntp1.onemain.com
Of course the reason that this sloppy usage has gained currency is
that a true prediction (one that comes before experiment) has greater weight
and status than a "deduction." So everyone wants to have their deductions
promoted to predictions.
But this "devaluation" of the word reduces the value of the word like the
1920's German mark.
Tom, could you please provide even ONE standard reference for this new
version of the word 'prediction?' Didn't you ever learn any latin? "pre"
means before.
--
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <madscie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.11.12....@hotmail.com...
[...]
>> Just because you don't understand the terms "error bars" and
>> "statistical significance" doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afloat.
>>
>> Learn some math and science.
>
> Typical ad hominem.
>
> I understand error bars and statistical significance just fine. You'll
> note that not only are there no 'null' results, that there are no error
> bars or any other quantification of 'significance' on the list. That was
> my point. You simply assume that these have no significance.
>
> In a parallel post, Tom (maintainer of the FAQ) has just admitted:
>
> "(T)he experimenters themselves (or at any rate the sources I used for
> that table) did not quote the resolution of the apparatus; so to evaluate
> whether or not the measurement is significantly different from 0 one must
> guess what their apparatus resolution was."
>
> Which is what I've been saying for years. Tom has blindly used secondary
> sources that give the answer he wants, and 'guessed' that the results were
> null.
[...]
True, if you're waiting for Tom to spoon-feed you all of your physics
knowledge, then you'll be waiting for a while. Other people, on the other
hand, choose to do the research themselves.
And don't come whining to me, asking me to do you research for you. Your
desire to remain woefully ignorant of physical fact is your problem, not
mine.
Just don't blame others for your inability to discover the truth.
Jeff Krimmel
> Minor Crank <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ebjsb.174792$HS4.1456419@attbi_s01...
>> "Jeff Krimmel" <madscie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2003.11.12....@hotmail.com...
>>
>> > Just because you don't understand the terms "error bars" and
> "statistical
>> > significance" doesn't mean there's a conspiracy afloat.
>> >
>> > Learn some math and science.
>>
>> Probably not a good thing to suggest to Greywolf, since his dG/dE is
>> negative
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/NegInt.html
>
> Another graduate of the Bilge school of cowardice. Snip all physics and
> post an insult.
At least it's funny. Your blatant passion for insidious lies and
overwhelming ignorance isn't even funny any more.
Oh well.
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:tJrsb.268$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:borktg$n8p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > I challenge you, Androcles.
> >
> > Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
> > Let the direction of the light beam be different from vertical,
> > say horizontal. Show that a complete cycle (one period
> > of the oscillator), as measured in the stationary frame,
> > is shorter when the clock is moving than when it is stationary.
> >
> > If you can do that, you have proven that the moving clock
> > is running fast.
> >
> > You claimed that you could make the light clock run
> > fast by changing the direction of the light beam.
> > Prove it!
> > But you cannot show anything about the rate of
> > a clock if you destroy it (by removing the mirrors)
> > so it no longer is a clock.
> >
> > Paul
> Oh dear, you are snipping again. How can you understand the meaning of time
> contraction if you snip my explanation without reading it? That's willful
> ignorance, isn't it, Paul?
I am wilfully snipping your irrelevant mumbo jumbo which
you posted to divert the attention from the fact that you are unable
to defend your claim that your moving so called "light clock" was running fast.
So that's settled.
Androcles is unable to show that a moving light clock
is running fast when he let the light beam have another
angle than vertical.
> Hear it is once more.
I have said what I had to say about this nonsense before.
You can find it on Google.
But I smell a rat.
I don't think that you actually are as confused as
you pretend to be.
I am not playing this stupid game of yours.
[ SNIPP ]
Paul
ste...@nomail.com
: news:botij7$dfp$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
:> In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
:> : That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is
: not
:> : scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR
: explanation
:> : for the Sagnac effect.
:>
:> What result would disprove the ether?
: The original SR prediction -- no effect.
So a result consistent with LET disproves the ether?
Stephen
Harry
- Ballistic emission of photons (reasonably well disproved)
Your question is a litle misleading though, because you should ask
what result would disprove LET. And indeed, most disproof of LET would
also disproof SRT.
For example, a disproof of length contraction.
But a proof that length contraction is non-physical and jjust
"apparent" in thwe sense of unreal would only disproof LET. (No, I
would not know how that could be done -but in my opinion the opposite
has been argumented to satisfaction.)
The counter question to your question would be:
What result would disprove space-time?
Harald
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<botij7$dfp$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
:> In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
:> : That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is not
:> : scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR explanation
:> : for the Sagnac effect.
:>
:> What result would disprove the ether?
:>
:> Stephen
: - Ballistic emission of photons (reasonably well disproved)
: Your question is a litle misleading though, because you should ask
: what result would disprove LET. And indeed, most disproof of LET would
: also disproof SRT.
It was not my question. Greywolf claims that SR is not scientific
because he believes that no result can disprove it. Is
the 'ether' scientific or not? Can it be disproven?
You believe that SR and LET can be disproven, so by the above
standard they are equally scientific.
Stephen
Harry
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 06:28:19 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <bobk...@attbi.com> in sci.physics wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, MMX.
> >
> >Not so. MMX had a null result.
>
> anticipated. Kennedy-Thorndike had exactly null results
Lester I see that you did not read K-T's paper.
If you can help it, * Do not believe what people tell you! *
Read the paper carefully and you will be happily surprised.
Have fun! :-))
> but that was
> because they kept the E polarization vector of the light in the plane
> of platform rotation. I have speculated here and elsewhere that were
> the E polarization vector for the light maintained normal to the plane
> of platform rotation the ancticipated results would be obtained.
You provided a very doubtful explanation for something that is not true...
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:bou5b7$e29$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
That is how it was bound to end:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndArg.html
A sick fool like that never changes his mind.
Dirk Vdm
Harry
> Peter Riedt wrote:
> > Many intelligent people have expressed doubts about the Special Relativity
> > theory and offered arguments against its principles. Some are not convincing
> > but some are. Physics however must admit that contraction is illusory and
> > the real reason for the null effect of MMX has not been explained as yet. It
> > took 1500 years to overcome the geocentric system of Ptolemy. How long
> > before Special Relativity is discarded?
>
> theory, and not before. SR is as internally consistent as mathematics so
> the only way to disprove it, is to show at least one of its predictions
> is wrong.
>
> Do you know of such an experiment?
>
> Bob Kolker
I know one: The double Fizeau wheel experiment as done by Marinov
tests the anisotropic contraction hypothesis of Lorentz. Confirmation
of Marinov's results would disprove SRT (incl. LET)
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:xjxsb.18$BR2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> The 1/2 is pulled out of a hat.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aandrocles+%22tau%280%2C0%2C0%2Ct%29%22
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:tJrsb.268$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:borktg$n8p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > I challenge you, Androcles.
> > >
> > > Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = vt
tau = (t-t.v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), right?
Well, it was last time, you agreed, but I'm never quite sure if you'll agree
again :)
|\
| \
| \
|......\
vertical = c.t (stationary frame)
hypotenuse = c.tau (moving frame)
base = v.tau (moving frame)
c.tau =sqrt ([c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2) by Pythagoras
c^2tau^2 = [c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2
[c.t]^2 = c^2tau^2 - [v.tau]^2
t^2 = tau^2 - v^2.tau^2/c^2
t^2 = tau^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
t = tau.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
tau = t/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Somehow, I computed
dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
and
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
One of these is called time dilation. I call the other one, the one you have
the trouble with defining, time contraction, it being the inverse of time
dilation. It's only a name, I have to call it something. Is that a good
enough definition? I forget now which is which, I'm so confused :)
BTW, to make this into a repeating oscillator and therefore a clock, we
could send the beam back to the source to trigger a new beam. Knowing you
well enough after all this time chatting, I'm quite sure that's what you
would like me to do, and of course that would make the longer path in the
stationary frame once again. I'll agree to it, with one condition. We don't
try to pretend that the time it takes for the return is equal to the time it
takes to reach the mirror in the stationary frame.
That 1/2 in
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
has got to go.
It was pulled out of a hat, admitted to be an assumption.
I'll agree to [t1-t]/[t2-t] though, where
t1 = t+x'/(c-v)
and
t2 = t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
> I am not playing this stupid game of yours.
>
> [ SNIPP ]
>
> Paul
Androcles, having met Paul's challenge, takes a bow.
Lester Zick
sci.cognitive wrote:
>lester...@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<3fae6625...@netnews.att.net>...
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 06:28:19 -0500, "Robert J. Kolker"
>> <bobk...@attbi.com> in sci.physics wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Riedt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes, MMX.
>> >
>> >Not so. MMX had a null result.
>>
>> Not exactly. As I recall its results were less than 10% of those
>> anticipated. Kennedy-Thorndike had exactly null results
>
>Lester I see that you did not read K-T's paper.
>If you can help it, * Do not believe what people tell you! *
>Read the paper carefully and you will be happily surprised.
>Have fun! :-))
Actually I have read the KT paper several times and quite assiduously
I assure you - because it provided confirmation of what I already
suspected. As I recall the interferometer had arms of unequal length
and its casing was filled with inert gas. They reported as I recall
that the radiation used was polarized with its M vector lying normal
to the plane of platform rotation. Now if this doesn't imply that the
E polarization vector lay in the plane of platform rotation I don't
know what would.
>
>> but that was
>> because they kept the E polarization vector of the light in the plane
>> of platform rotation. I have speculated here and elsewhere that were
>> the E polarization vector for the light maintained normal to the plane
>> of platform rotation the ancticipated results would be obtained.
>
>You provided a very doubtful explanation for something that is not true...
>
Yes, well if I read you correctly I have also provided an completely
mechanical explanation for something that is true as well.
Regards - Lester
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:tJrsb.268$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:borktg$n8p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > I challenge you, Androcles.
> > >
> > > Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
> > > Let the direction of the light beam be different from vertical,
> > > say horizontal. Show that a complete cycle (one period
> > > of the oscillator), as measured in the stationary frame,
> > > is shorter when the clock is moving than when it is stationary.
> > >
> > > If you can do that, you have proven that the moving clock
> > > is running fast.
> I am not playing this stupid game of yours.
>
> [ SNIPP ]
>
> Paul
Androcles, having met Paul's challenge,
with apologies if this is a repeat post.
Gregory L. Hansen
I think he just figures scientists have to get their sums right the first
time, because they don't get to go back and fix any mistakes.
Androcles
"greywolf42" <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vr4q93h...@corp.supernews.com...
> Another graduate of the Bilge school of cowardice. Snip all physics and
> post an insult.
Was Andersen a student of Bilge, then?
Androcles
Russell Blackadar
[snip]
> OK, I looked, and I quote:
>
> "Thus, a Sagnac apparatus does not discriminate between relativistic and
> pre-relativistic theories. Ironically, this is the main reason it comes up
> so often in discussions of relativity, because the effect can easily be
> computed on a non-relativistic basis (as we did above for a circular loop,
> taking the sums c+v and c-v to determine the transit times in the two
> directions). Unfortunately, some people misconstrue this as a falsification
> of relativity, conflating necessity with sufficiency.
You're not allowed to go home till you write that last
sentence 100 times on the blackboard.
(Clue: He's talking about *you*.)
This opportunity for
> confusion arises because, although the Sagnac effect itself is a first-order
> phenomenon (in v/c), the qualitative description of the local conditions on
> the disk depends on second-order effects, which we infer from other
> experiments, such as the experiment of Michelson and Morley."
>
> In other words, according to the 'solution' there is no difference between
> relativity and all other theories of the universe -- and SR did not
> 'predict' the Sagnac effect.
Those are indeed other words.
Bilge
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> Why? What's the center of momentum velocity of the metal atom and the
>> impinging particle?
>You tell me. Photons are emitted from a decay particle that has too short a
>lifespan to reach the edge of the block, but they emerge from the block at
>c. In some strange perverted way, this is supposed to prove that the
>velocity of the photons is independent of the source.
If you don't like that, then use the electromagnetic decay of a
radioactive nucleus in flight, or the decay of a neutral pion.
That's all easy to do and it's quite simple to see the doppler
broadening for electromagnetic decays in nuclei wich are produced
in a target and decay in flight through a spectrometer.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:LKxsb.10$F0...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:bou5b7$e29$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
> news:tJrsb.268$3z1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > > news:borktg$n8p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > > I challenge you, Androcles.
> > > >
> > > > Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
> > > > Let the direction of the light beam be different from vertical,
> > > > say horizontal. Show that a complete cycle (one period
> > > > of the oscillator), as measured in the stationary frame,
> > > > is shorter when the clock is moving than when it is stationary.
> > > >
> > > > If you can do that, you have proven that the moving clock
> > > > is running fast.
> How does it go?
> tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> x = vt
so, what follows is only valid for events that satisfy x = vt,
i.o.w. for events that satisfy ksi = 0,
i.o.w. for events in the (eta,zeta)-plane in the 'greek' frame
where ksi = 0.
Remarkable what one can say about such a simple equation.
> tau = (t-t.v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
yes, still valid for events in the (eta,zeta)-plane in the 'greek'
frame where ksi = 0.
>
> dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), right?
yes, for a light clock that is stationary anywhere in the
'greek' frame. For all pairs of events on this clock we
know that d ksi = 0.
> Well, it was last time, you agreed, but I'm never quite sure if you'll agree
> again :)
>
> |\
> | \
> | \
> |......\
> vertical = c.t (stationary frame)
> hypotenuse = c.tau (moving frame)
> base = v.tau (moving frame)
yes, for a light clock in (y,z)-plane in the 'latin'
frame where x = 0. We have two ticks of this
clock: two events in this (y,z)-plane where x = 0.
> c.tau =sqrt ([c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2) by Pythagoras
> c^2tau^2 = [c.t]^2 +[v.tau]^2
> [c.t]^2 = c^2tau^2 - [v.tau]^2
> t^2 = tau^2 - v^2.tau^2/c^2
> t^2 = tau^2(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t = tau.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> tau = t/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
yes, still valid for events in the (y,z)-plane in the 'latin'
frame where x = 0.
> dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
yes, for a light clock that is stationary anywhere in the
'latin' frame. For all pairs of events on this clock we
know that dx = 0.
> Somehow, I computed
> dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
valid for a light clock that is stationary anywhere in the
'latin' frame.
> and
> dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
valid for a light clock that is stationary anywhere in the
'greek' frame.
> One of these is called time dilation. I call the other one, the one you have
> the trouble with defining, time contraction, it being the inverse of time
> dilation. It's only a name, I have to call it something. Is that a good
> enough definition? I forget now which is which, I'm so confused :)
1) clock stationary in 'latin' frame (dx=0):
dtau/dt = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
dtau > dt where dt is the elapsed time in the frame of the clock
==> time dilation of the other one's clock
2) clock stationary in 'greek' frame (d ksi=0):
dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
equivalent with
dt/dtau = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
dt > dtau where dtau is the elapsed time in the frame of the clock
==> time dilation of the other one's clock
In both cases the one who is holding the clock
measures what he calls the 'proper time'. The
other observer who is relatively moving, measures
two ticks on that moving clock to take more time
than that proper time.
[This will have not much effect on Androcles, on
the contrary, but it might be interesting for others.]
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:Vsxsb.1$BV...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > > news:borktg$n8p$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> > > > I challenge you, Androcles.
> > > >
> > > > Use a "light clock" that makes at least one complete cycle.
> > > > say horizontal.
> BTW, to make this into a repeating oscillator and therefore a clock, we
> could send the beam back to the source to trigger a new beam.
That was indeed what I asked you to do.
[ snip a lot of irrelevant stuff ]
> t1 = t+x'/(c-v)
> and
> t2 = t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
Well done, Androcles.
The beam is emitted at t, reflected at t1, and is back at t2.
Your equations show that the round trip time of the light
in the moving light clock is:
(t2 -t) = x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v) = (2x'/c)/(1 - v^2/c^2)
where x' is the length of the moving light clock.
And the round trip time of a stationary light clock is obviously:
2x/c, where x is the length of the stationary light clock.
Congratulations, Androcles.
You did the calculation I asked for with very little help!
And you showed that the moving clock runs slower
than the stationary clock.
Well done.
We can consider it settled then.
The moving light clock runs slower than the stationary
light clock regardless of the orientation of the light beam.
Right?
Paul
greywolf42
> In article <bou5v6$q7f$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, <ste...@nomail.com> wrote:
> >In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> >: <ste...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> >: news:botij7$dfp$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> >:> In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> >:> : That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR
is
> >: not
> >:> : scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR
> >: explanation
> >:> : for the Sagnac effect.
> >:>
> >:> What result would disprove the ether?
> >
> >: The original SR prediction -- no effect.
> >
> >So a result consistent with LET disproves the ether?
>
>
> time, because they don't get to go back and fix any mistakes.
Nah. They can fix their mistakes. But they don't get to claim 'prediction'
after the fact.
greywolf42
news:8ce5c97e.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > : That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR
is not
> > : scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR
explanation
> > : for the Sagnac effect.
> >
> > What result would disprove the ether?
>
An excellent question. Some experiments disprove different aethers. But
never all of theories. LET (for example) still passes all experiments for
SR. However, we can safely limit our discussion to the luminiferous aether,
since we are addressing an experiment with light.
> The proposed nature of the aether has been tweaked
> again and again to align with experimental facts.
You mean like the 'standard model?'
You mean like the 'big bang?'
You mean like quantum theory?
Nothing wrong with adjusting parameters to match new data, is there?
But, no.... the aether model hasn't changed one i-dot since Maxwell derived
EM and light from it. His equations based on same are still considered
valid.
> Astronomical
> observations selected Newton's central forces over Descarte's
> whirlpools.
Huh? Newton had no cause. "Hypothesis non fingo." What we call Newton's
equation of gravity works for both Newton and Descartes.
> LeSage proposed "ultramundane corpuscles" bouncing
> everywhere and pushing things together, an effect that would have
> heated all matter to vapor until that idea was modified.
Nonsense. The 'heated to vapor' argument was based on the Laplacian
*assumption* of near-infinite corpuscle speed. Which was itself ludicrous.
> I think
> they're on to vibrations in a fluid or densely packed particles now.
Who's 'they?' This merely shows your own ignorance.
> On the electromagnetic front the aether was made stiff when it was
> realized that light is an electromagnetic wave and is transverse,
Do you realize how ignorant and obtuse that statement is???? Maxwell was
the fellow who 'realized' that light is transverse electric and magnetic
waves. And he did it in 1861, (On Physical Lines of Force), using a very
physical, superfluid aether!
> although matter flowed through it unimpeded
Superfluids in the lab have the same property.
> and it couldn't support longitudinal vibrations.
Your point would be what?
> Then it was given a drag coefficient.
Which are we discussing? Back to gravity, again? It wasn't "given" a drag
coefficient. A coefficient of dynamic drag is a property that exists in all
fluids. Errors in calculating orbital stability was the source of Laplace's
claim that gravity moved at near-infinite speed.
> Then it was given length contraction and time dilation.
I don't know of any with time dilation. Lorentz did derived a length
contraction using Maxwell's aether and a spherical-charge electron model.
> There was a proposal that I can't find right now that a Mössbauer
> experiment could distinguish the Lorentzian aether from special
> relativity. I don't know if I believe that, but if the experiment
> were done and aether disproven, it would be a particular model of the
> aether that is disproven.
That is all an experiment can ever do. Disprove a specific theory or
theories. One can never disprove all variants.
> There are enough people that would calmly
> find a new model of the aether, never for a moment doubting that some
> kind of aether must exist.
Yep. Just like when SR was 'disproved' by Kaufmann, Sagnac, Miller, .... .
There were enough people that would calmly find new models of how SR could
get around the experiments.
greywolf42
news:bou5v6$q7f$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
Nope. The Sagnac effect prediction is different for LET than for SR. The
difference between the two is the reciprocity (LET doesn't have
reciprocity, SR does.)
LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
greywolf42
news:3FB2C18E...@mdli.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > OK, I looked, and I quote:
> >
> > "Thus, a Sagnac apparatus does not discriminate between relativistic and
> > pre-relativistic theories. Ironically, this is the main reason it comes
up
> > so often in discussions of relativity, because the effect can easily be
> > computed on a non-relativistic basis (as we did above for a circular
loop,
> > taking the sums c+v and c-v to determine the transit times in the two
> > directions). Unfortunately, some people misconstrue this as a
falsification
> > of relativity, conflating necessity with sufficiency.
>
> You're not allowed to go home till you write that last
> sentence 100 times on the blackboard.
>
> (Clue: He's talking about *you*.)
Duh. I understand he's talking about those who think for themselves.
However, it's only fair to include the author's position, don't you think?
I don't practice the snip-the-argument method used by DHRs in this
newsgroup. Nor do I need to.
> This opportunity for
> > confusion arises because, although the Sagnac effect itself is a
first-order
> > phenomenon (in v/c), the qualitative description of the local conditions
on
> > the disk depends on second-order effects, which we infer from other
> > experiments, such as the experiment of Michelson and Morley."
> >
> > In other words, according to the 'solution' there is no difference
between
> > relativity and all other theories of the universe -- and SR did not
> > 'predict' the Sagnac effect.
>
> Those are indeed other words.
Yep. Now, please write 100 times the definition for necessity and
sufficiency. The key being, is SR necessary to the solution of Sagnac? If
it is not, where is SR's solution?
The correct answer is that SR cannot explain the result. GR can, but not
SR. But GR does not contain 'pure' SR.
greywolf42
I'm not waiting for Tom to spoon-feed me. I simply pointed out to him, over
5 years ago, that his website kept stating "null" without providing error
bars. It still does (even though he's removed most of the experiments from
the list). Tom has now admitted that he has no basis for the claims made on
the FAQ. He never bothered to look up the error bars in the first place.
Since he *assumed* that SR was correct.
> And don't come whining to me, asking me to do you research for you. Your
> desire to remain woefully ignorant of physical fact is your problem, not
> mine.
>
> Just don't blame others for your inability to discover the truth.
Mirror, mirror.
--
Androcles
BTW, to make this into a repeating oscillator and therefore a clock, we
well enough after all this time chatting, I'm quite sure that's what you
would like me to do, and of course that would make the longer path in the
stationary frame once again. I'll agree to it, with one condition. We don't
try to pretend that the time it takes for the return is equal to the time it
takes to reach the mirror in the stationary frame.
That 1/2 in
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
has got to go.
It was pulled out of a hat, admitted to be an assumption.
I'll agree to [t1-t]/[t2-t] though, where
and
t2 = t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
> I am not playing this stupid game of yours.
>
> [ SNIPP ]
>
> Paul
Androcles, having met Paul's challenge, takes a second bow.
Minor Crank
> LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
Like Hitler, you make extensive use of the BIG LIE.
Minor Crank
J?rgen Clade
> LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
Besides the fact that LET and SR are physically equivalent and thus
make the *same* predictions for experiments, here is what SR says
about the Sagnac effect:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
You can´t disprove a theory by inventing predictions which the theory
does not make.
regards,
Jürgen
J?rgen Clade
[...]
> The key being, is SR necessary to the solution of Sagnac?
Nobody has claimed that it is.
> If it is not, where is SR's solution?
Here:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> The correct answer is that SR cannot explain the result. GR can, but not
> SR. But GR does not contain 'pure' SR.
No, that´s not the correct answer. See above.
regards,
Jürgen
Dirk Van de moortel
"J?rgen Clade" <cl...@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
> Greywolf,
>
> > LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
>
> Besides the fact that LET and SR are physically equivalent and thus
> make the *same* predictions for experiments, here is what SR says
> about the Sagnac effect:
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Duck and cover:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Agreywolf42+mathpages+slime
>
> You can´t disprove a theory by inventing predictions which the theory
> does not make.
He can. He has made it into a fine art.
>
> regards,
In this case you better go easy on those ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:1hVsb.329$_g6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
This is still what I asked you to do.
NOT snipping the irrelevant stuff this time:
> Knowing you
> well enough after all this time chatting, I'm quite sure that's what you
> would like me to do, and of course that would make the longer path in the
> stationary frame once again. I'll agree to it, with one condition. We don't
> try to pretend that the time it takes for the return is equal to the time it
> takes to reach the mirror in the stationary frame.
> That 1/2 in
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> has got to go.
> It was pulled out of a hat, admitted to be an assumption.
> I'll agree to [t1-t]/[t2-t] though, where
.. but the relevant equations are still:
> t1 = t+x'/(c-v)
> and
> t2 = t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)
Since you haven't completed the derivation, I will do it for you:
The beam is emitted at t, reflected at t1, and is back at t2.
Your equations show that the round trip time of the light
in the moving light clock is:
(t2 -t) = x'/(c-v) + x'/(c+v) = (2x'/c)/(1 - v^2/c^2)
where x' is the length of the moving light clock.
And the round trip time of a stationary light clock is obviously:
2x/c, where x is the length of the stationary light clock.
So Androcles have met my challenge with the result:
The moving light clock runs slower than the stationary
light clock regardless of the orientation of the light beam.
Which is the opposite of what he claimed before
he actually carried the calculation through.
> Androcles, having met Paul's challenge, takes a second bow.
Not many can take a defeat with such grace.
But you don't have to repeat it again, Androcles.
The result will be the same every time, you see.
If you have forgotten what it was, read this posting again.
Paul, remembering what the result was
Gregory L. Hansen
J?rgen Clade <cl...@isc.fhg.de> wrote:
>Greywolf,
>
>[...]
>> The key being, is SR necessary to the solution of Sagnac?
>
>Nobody has claimed that it is.
>
>> If it is not, where is SR's solution?
>
>Here:
>
>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The SR solution is easy from the rest frame-- how far does the mirror go
in the time it takes the light to go around? It could hardly be called an
SR solution at all, although it is what's demanded by the formalism. It's
when you hop on to the accelerated frame of the rotating platform and try
to solve it from there that a lot of confusion has happened. Accelerated
frames in SR have caused a lot of confusion, and transformations in
general have traditionally confused people on Usenet.
Actually, I wonder where the LET solution is. Lorentz's aether still has
length contraction and time dilation-- there's a reason Lorentz loaned his
name to the transformations. When that platform starts moving its
dimensions should be changing, clocks screwing up, but I don't think I've
seen an "aether" solution except for a non-Lorentzian aether that pretends
light through the aether acts just like a Newtonian picture of sound
through air.
Tom Roberts
> The Sagnac effect prediction is different for LET than for SR.
Not true. As I have said so often around here, SR and LET are
experimentally indistinguishable (regardless of whether or not you
understand what that means and regardless of whether or not you accept
it as the MATHEMATICAL THEOREM it is).
SR, when applied to the Sagnac measurements, yields values consistent
with the observations. As does LET.
> The
> difference between the two is the reciprocity (LET doesn't have
> reciprocity, SR does.)
This is your "sound bite" approach to physics. It is not valid. The
"reciprocity" you want to believe SR "has" does not apply to Sagnac
measurements.
> LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
Not true. AFAIK nobody used LET to "predict" (your meaning) any value at
all for Sagnac -- Sagnac himself used the then-usual aether theory (ala
Michelson). SR itself[#] predicts values consistent with the
observations (here I use "predicts" in the usual way applied to
scientific theories, which is DIFFERENT from your insistence on using
the word only in the historical sense).
BTW it is quite reasonable to say a theory predicts thus-and-so
even when the theoretical computations are made after the
experiment, because the theory was specified BEFORE the
details of the experiment were put into the computations.
This _IS_ the way this word is used in science.
[#] Yes, I believe some papers were written that claimed to use
SR and made incorrect predictions for Sagnac's measurements.
There were shown to be an incorrect application of SR, and thus
are not SR at all.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
> In sci.physics.relativity Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> : ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<botij7$dfp$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> :> In sci.physics.relativity greywolf42 <min...@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> :> : That's pretty tortured logic. If no result can disprove SR, then SR is not
> :> : scientific. What you have actually noted is that SR has no SR explanation
> :> : for the Sagnac effect.
> :>
> :> What result would disprove the ether?
> :>
>
> : - Ballistic emission of photons (reasonably well disproved)
>
> : Your question is a litle misleading though, because you should ask
> : what result would disprove LET. And indeed, most disproof of LET would
> : also disproof SRT.
>
> It was not my question. Greywolf claims that SR is not scientific
> because he believes that no result can disprove it. Is
> the 'ether' scientific or not? Can it be disproven?
>
> You believe that SR and LET can be disproven, so by the above
> standard they are equally scientific.
>
> Stephen
It is their basic principle and laws that are almost identical and
that are open to falsification. Those are certainly scientific.
"ether" and "space-time" are philosophical explanations of the laws.
They can be used by the presentation of relativity, but can not be
directly proven by experiment. In the narrow understanding of science
(science as the means for engineers and astronomers to make succesful
calculations) they are therefore to be put under the header
"philosophy". I personally regard science as more than that. And it
seems, so do most in this newsgroup - otherwise, who would care about
the "Why"?
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:3bff5641.03111...@posting.google.com...
Harry, to find out that space-time is not really an "explanation
of the laws", or a "presentation of relativity", but rather a
framework in which one can formulate and test different kinds
of laws and theories, i.o.w. nothing more than "the set of all
events", you might read the first few pages of Geroch's
remarkable book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7982104-7002354#reader-page
If you want to read more, you'll have to buy the book...
Enjoy - I'm sure you will.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
news:hjYsb.145178$ao4.465645@attbi_s51...
LOL! I provided a reference, and you simply parrot the relativist myth. As
usual for a relativist, you have nothing but ad hominem and misdirection.
greywolf42
news:bp2siq$k...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > The Sagnac effect prediction is different for LET than for SR.
>
> Not true. As I have said so often around here, SR and LET are
> experimentally indistinguishable
Yes, you keep repeating that lie. And you know better. SR does not include
LET's equation 5. SR is reciprocal. LET is not.
> (regardless of whether or not you
> understand what that means and regardless of whether or not you accept
> it as the MATHEMATICAL THEOREM it is).
LOL! It's not mathematical, Tom. LET is a physical theory. SR is not.
> SR, when applied to the Sagnac measurements, yields values consistent
> with the observations. As does LET.
SR cannot be applied to Sagnac at all. The "SR" solution does not use SR at
all.
> > The
> > difference between the two is the reciprocity (LET doesn't have
> > reciprocity, SR does.)
>
> This is your "sound bite" approach to physics. It is not valid.
Certainly, it's valid. See equation 5 of LET.
> The
> "reciprocity" you want to believe SR "has" does not apply to Sagnac
> measurements.
Correct. That is why SR is not actually used in the SR 'solution.'
> > LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
>
> Not true. AFAIK nobody used LET to "predict" (your meaning) any value at
> all for Sagnac -- Sagnac himself used the then-usual aether theory (ala
> Michelson).
LET *was* the usual aether theory used by Sagnac. Michelson did not use
*any* specific aether theory.
> SR itself[#] predicts values consistent with the
> observations (here I use "predicts" in the usual way applied to
> scientific theories, which is DIFFERENT from your insistence on using
> the word only in the historical sense).
Even using your personal (incorrect) definition, you are wrong. SR does not
exist anywhere in the SR 'prediction.'
> BTW it is quite reasonable to say a theory predicts thus-and-so
> even when the theoretical computations are made after the
> experiment, because the theory was specified BEFORE the
> details of the experiment were put into the computations.
> This _IS_ the way this word is used in science.
No, this is the way it is used by grant-chasers and priests.
> [#] Yes, I believe some papers were written that claimed to use
> SR and made incorrect predictions for Sagnac's measurements.
> There were shown to be an incorrect application of SR, and thus
> are not SR at all.
LOL!
greywolf42
message news:3fb499d1$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> "J?rgen Clade" <cl...@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message
news:54bc2946.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > Greywolf,
> >
> > > LET predicted a non-null effect for the Sagnac. SR predicted null.
> >
> > Besides the fact that LET and SR are physically equivalent and thus
> > make the *same* predictions for experiments, here is what SR says
> > about the Sagnac effect:
> >
> > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
>
> Duck and cover:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Agreywolf42+mathpages+slime
Excuse me, Dinky, but my comments above are on the site slandering Gerber.
Which has nothing to do with the Sagnac effect.
> >
> > You can´t disprove a theory by inventing predictions which the theory
> > does not make.
>
> He can. He has made it into a fine art.
>
> >
> > regards,
>
> In this case you better go easy on those ;-)
Typical Dinky. Zero physics with insults.