info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Michelson got his mirrors wrong
708 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Riedt
Oct 22, 2016, 7:31:18 PM10/22/16
to
Michelson got his mirrors wrong
In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is.
No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is.
No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
Thomas Heger
Oct 22, 2016, 10:47:14 PM10/22/16
to
Am 23.10.2016 01:31, schrieb Peter Riedt:
> Michelson got his mirrors wrong
>
> In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
>
> He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
>
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
Don't forget the movement of the solar system around the galactic centre
> Michelson got his mirrors wrong
>
> In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
>
> He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
>
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
and the movement of the entire galaxy.
> The mirrors at the end of the parallel and perpendicular arm of the interferometer both reflect the light rays at a zero angle. Their light paths are up the parallel arm and straight back and up the perpendicular arm and straight back. They meet at the same time after they travelled an equal distance of 11m and at the same speed whatever it is.
>
> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which
would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such
an object.
Better would be 'space contraction', which does not refer to material
objects.
This could be understood as 'axis of time in an angle' if space (as we
usually use the term 'space'), is a subset of something with higher
dimensionality (spacetime).
And different timelines define different cuts. This would then look
like, as if space would vanish in a black hole. And with this shrinking
of space the objects in that space would shrink, too.
But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its
own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects
would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of
a white hole.
TH
Dono,
Oct 22, 2016, 11:16:18 PM10/22/16
to
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:31:18 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Michelson got his mirrors wrong
>
> In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
>
> He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
>
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
>
In a frame co=moving with the mirror, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence.
> Michelson got his mirrors wrong
>
> In the supplement to his 1887 paper (On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether) Michelson stated: "This is founded on the fact that reflection from surfaces in motion varies from the ordinary laws of reflection".
>
> He then explained his different views on reflection from surfaces in motion in the rest of the supplement with formulas and diagrams and added suggestions how the luminiferous aether could be detected.
>
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South and every compass point in between.
>
In a frame in motion wrt. the mirror, the angle of reflection may or may not be equal to the angle of incidence, depending on the angle between the plane of the mirror and its direction of motion. There are some very good papers on the subject but you are too much of an imbecile to read them, let alone to understand the,
> Lorentz' gamma formula is fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
Dono,
Oct 22, 2016, 11:17:18 PM10/22/16
to
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:47:14 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects,
Crank supporting fellow crank.
>
> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects,
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 12:03:02 AM10/23/16
to
more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold
regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at
small scales.
If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a
stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity).
***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore.
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 1:14:35 AM10/23/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 1:16:08 AM10/23/16
to
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 2:46:28 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 04:47 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>
> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which
> would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such
> an object.
Length is a distance of endpoints.
Using material objects like metre sticks
is just one of methods to determine distance.
[....]
> But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its
> own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects
> would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of
> a white hole.
>
As this contraction occurs as well if the object remains still
as the observer starts moving wrt to it. As this contraction is an
attribute of velocity of observer wrt to the observed object,
regardless of their velocities wrt other objects.
An observer in rest wrt object would see all moving observers
measure the length wrong way, measuring both end points position
in different time, therefore it is clear they got wrong value.
For those observers, they measure the points simultaneously,
but all others measure it wrong not simultaneously.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which
> would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such
> an object.
Using material objects like metre sticks
is just one of methods to determine distance.
[....]
> But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its
> own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects
> would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of
> a white hole.
>
as the observer starts moving wrt to it. As this contraction is an
attribute of velocity of observer wrt to the observed object,
regardless of their velocities wrt other objects.
An observer in rest wrt object would see all moving observers
measure the length wrong way, measuring both end points position
in different time, therefore it is clear they got wrong value.
For those observers, they measure the points simultaneously,
but all others measure it wrong not simultaneously.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 2:48:45 AM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 12:03:02 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> ...and so you blithely discard the Principle of Least Action, which is an even
> more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold
> regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at
> small scales.
>
> If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a
> stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity).
>
> ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore.
I ignore your cherished principle of least action because it neither explains
> more fundamental principle than special relativity itself, since PLA would hold
> regardless whether the universe is Lorentzian, Galilean, or Euclidean at
> small scales.
>
> If you discard the Principle of Least Action, you can no longer rely on a
> stretched string following a straight line (in the absence of gravity).
>
> ***THAT*** is how fundamental the principle is that you choose to ignore.
1. why the laws of reflection should not apply in MMX
2. why LC should apply in MMX when there are no unequal arms
3. why LC does not apply in MMX according to some experts
4. why LC and TD apply in KTX when the aether is denied
5. why Einstein said there is an aether and SR says there is none
6. why Lorentz said there is a physical compression of the molecular structure of moving objects (LC) proportional to v but nobody can prove it
7. why some experts deny this compression but still accept LC to be real
8. why there is no explanation what causes LC in the absence of this compression (to difficult)
9. why is there both acceptance and denial of these questions in SR depending on what a respective expert believes or not (the discussions in this newsgroup are akin to videos about the gruesome fights of hyenas and lions in the internet media e.g. YOU TUBE)
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 4:31:12 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 01:31 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> [...]
that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
> [...]
So the experiment was not primarily about the arm lengths,
but about light travel time in particular arms.
BTW, the Special relativity was not based on MMX.
Einstein derived the LT by independent way.
> [...]
>
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation
> and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on
> earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North
> and South and every compass point in between.
It is general principle in science that errors
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation
> and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on
> earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North
> and South and every compass point in between.
that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
> [...]
>
> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no
> contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result.
The aether theory supposed anisotropy of light speed.
> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no
> contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result.
So the experiment was not primarily about the arm lengths,
but about light travel time in particular arms.
BTW, the Special relativity was not based on MMX.
Einstein derived the LT by independent way.
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 4:52:34 AM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:31:12 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 01:31 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>
> > [...]
> >
> > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> > apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation
> > and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> > under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on
> > earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North
> > and South and every compass point in between.
>
> It is general principle in science that errors
> that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
>
Yes, but Michelson's error was fundamental. He ignored the laws of reflection.
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 01:31 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>
> > [...]
> >
> > However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> > apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation
> > and orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> > under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on
> > earth and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North
> > and South and every compass point in between.
>
> It is general principle in science that errors
> that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
>
> >
> > No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no
> > contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result.
>
> The aether theory supposed anisotropy of light speed.
> So the experiment was not primarily about the arm lengths,
> but about light travel time in particular arms.
>
Dono,
Oct 23, 2016, 5:08:06 AM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 1:52:34 AM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Yes, but Michelson's error was fundamental. He ignored the laws of reflection.
>
No, he didn't , utter imbecile.
>
> Yes, but Michelson's error was fundamental. He ignored the laws of reflection.
>
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 5:24:58 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 10:52 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
I am not sure you have verified your interpretation.
Additionally, the many equivalent experiment were done over the time.
> On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:31:12 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> It is general principle in science that errors
>> that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
>>
> Yes, but Michelson's error was fundamental. He ignored the laws of reflection.
I do not think so.
>>
>> It is general principle in science that errors
>> that can be neglected can be considered as non-existing.
>>
> Yes, but Michelson's error was fundamental. He ignored the laws of reflection.
I am not sure you have verified your interpretation.
>
>>>
>>> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no
>>> contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result.
>>
>> The aether theory supposed anisotropy of light speed.
>> So the experiment was not primarily about the arm lengths,
>> but about light travel time in particular arms.
>>
> Yes, my term 'no difference of the arms' was to be read 'no difference in the light paths'. The arms were 11m each but the light paths were wrongly assumed to be unequal because Michelson used in his logic an incorrect angle of reflection of the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.
>
The experiment outcome does not depends on logic.
>>>
>>> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no
>>> contraction existed or was necessary to explain the null result.
>>
>> The aether theory supposed anisotropy of light speed.
>> So the experiment was not primarily about the arm lengths,
>> but about light travel time in particular arms.
>>
> Yes, my term 'no difference of the arms' was to be read 'no difference in the light paths'. The arms were 11m each but the light paths were wrongly assumed to be unequal because Michelson used in his logic an incorrect angle of reflection of the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.
>
Additionally, the many equivalent experiment were done over the time.
Dirk Van de moortel
Oct 23, 2016, 6:00:11 AM10/23/16
to
Op 23-okt-2016 om 01:31 schreef Peter Riedt:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
Dirk Vdm
> Michelson got his mirrors wrong
You're not the first to discover that:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
Dirk Vdm
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 6:18:29 AM10/23/16
to
If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
*stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
Please examine the following illustration:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOccmJBUDVRcUxod1k
The plane wave illustrated in red travels from left to right at speed c in the
direction shown by the red arrow. At time 0, it strikes the lower corner of a
45° diagonal mirror at point O. From the lower corner of the mirror, spherical
wavelets of light expand in all directions at a speed of c (Huyghen's principle).
The 45° mirror is moving to the right at speed v.
After time t, the plane wave catches up with the top corner of the mirror at
point A. During this time, the wavelet of light radiating from point O has
been expanding at a speed of c as illustrated by the blue circle. Between time 0
and time t, the plane wave has been striking the mirror at intermediate points,
also emitting wavelets of light (not illustrated).
By superposition of waves, the sum of all these wavelets emitted from the mirror
along the line from point O to point A form a plane wave whose "front" follows
the tangent line which I have drawn from point A to point P. As illustrated, the
direction of the reflected ray is *not* precisely 90°.
The direction of the reflected ray is *as if* it were being reflected from a
stationary mirror oriented along the dotted line OA.
Angle ∠BOA is easily calculated.
AB = ct - vt
tan(∠BOA) = AB/ct = (ct - vt)/ct = 1 - v/c
∠BOA = arctan(1 - v/c)
The direction of the reflected wave ∠BOP is twice ∠BOA.
We can make a table:
v ∠BOP
--------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.9943° (speed of the Earth in its orbit)
0.1000 c 83.9744°
SUMMARY:
At 0.0001 c, light reflects from the beam splitter in the MMX at an angle of
89.9943°, and bounces off the lateral mirror at a reflected angle equal to the
incident angle.
Your diagram is wrong, Peter.
Maciej Woźniak
Oct 23, 2016, 6:33:59 AM10/23/16
to
Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:f9bfd428-da4e-4a49...@googlegroups.com...
> Michelson said mirrors in motion do not follow the laws of reflection. He
> was wrong because the laws of reflection were derived from mirrors that
> were moving just like his mirrors in MMX
|What Michelson meant is this:
relativistic moron and you know.
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 23, 2016, 10:00:35 AM10/23/16
to
even if it may be a good approximation.
Your calculation seems reasonable, and I must admit
that I couldn't find any error in it.
I am pretty sure the below is correct, though.
The calculation is quite simple:
. (t,0,ct) the coordinates of an arbitrary
| event on the reflected ray
|
|
--------->/
"stationary frame" (ether frame)
We use the Galilean transform to transform
the coordinates of the event to the "moving frame"
. (t,vt,ct)
/
/
/
--------->/ -> v
"moving frame"
Angle of reflected ray from horizontal: arctan(c/v)
Angle of reflected ray from vertical: arctan(v/c)
This is the angle Michelson used in his paper:
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
"The length of the other path is evidently 2Dsqrt(1+v^2/c^2)"
/| tan(a) = v/c
d /a| cos(a) = 1/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2)
/ |D
/---| d = D/cos(a)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 10:18:53 AM10/23/16
to
overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that
the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle.
If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my
calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the
center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small
amount.
What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being
tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation.
When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the
beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR.
:-)
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 10:58:27 AM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:18:53 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> You are correct, I intentionally left out something since I didn't want to
> overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that
> the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle.
>
> If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my
> calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the
> center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small
> amount.
>
> What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being
> tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation.
> When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the
> beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR.
>
> :-)
Discussion of this point goes back a long ways.
> You are correct, I intentionally left out something since I didn't want to
> overwhelm Peter, and it wasn't relevant to my basic argument, which was that
> the beam does not reflect off a moving 45° mirror at exactly a 90° angle.
>
> If you carefully work out the horizontal distances, you will see that my
> calculated angle for the reflected transverse beam very slightly overshoots the
> center of the beam splitter. The calculated angle is too shallow by a very small
> amount.
>
> What I left out was length contraction, which results in the mirror being
> tilted slightly steeper than the angle that I presented in my naive calculation.
> When you take that into account, the reflected transverse beam strikes the
> beam splitter dead center, exactly as predicted by SR.
>
> :-)
To the best of my knowledge, the first *published* discussion of this was in a
paper by W.M. Hicks (1902). Philosophical Magazine sixth series, vol III, p 9
https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh631902lond#page/10/mode/2up
Morley and Miller discussed this issue in Phil. Mag. sixth series, vol 9, p 669
https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburgh691905lond#page/668/mode/2up
The first fully relativistic treatment of this issue appears to have been by
Harry Bateman:
https://archive.org/stream/londonedinburg6181909lond#page/890/mode/2up
A modern treatment is given by
Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). American Journal of Physics. 62: 609.
al...@interia.pl
Oct 23, 2016, 2:00:10 PM10/23/16
to
The standard rule for the angles under the reflection applies to the local frames only, thus you are unable to discover any deviations from this rule in any lab experiment!
Thomas Heger
Oct 23, 2016, 3:10:44 PM10/23/16
to
Am 23.10.2016 08:46, schrieb Poutnik:
>>
>> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
>> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which
>> would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such
>> an object.
>
> Length is a distance of endpoints.
> Using material objects like metre sticks
> is just one of methods to determine distance.
One method is comparison with other material objects.
>>
>> 'Length contraction' (of material objects in motion) is a silly
>> concept, since 'length' is also measured by material objects, which
>> would eventually shrink at the same rate, if moving together with such
>> an object.
>
> Length is a distance of endpoints.
> Using material objects like metre sticks
> is just one of methods to determine distance.
The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time
intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other.
> [....]
>
>> But this shrinking is an optical illusion, since any observer uses its
>> own personal time and under this prerequisite it could look like objects
>> would shrink and vanish in a black hole, while another space pops out of
>> a white hole.
>>
> As this contraction occurs as well if the object remains still
> as the observer starts moving wrt to it. As this contraction is an
> attribute of velocity of observer wrt to the observed object,
> regardless of their velocities wrt other objects.
>
> An observer in rest wrt object would see all moving observers
> measure the length wrong way, measuring both end points position
> in different time, therefore it is clear they got wrong value.
> For those observers, they measure the points simultaneously,
> but all others measure it wrong not simultaneously.
>
similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
material object.
But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with
e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points).
Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume,
you could measure positions precisely.
The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look
like shrinking, seen from a moving position.
TH
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 23, 2016, 3:54:29 PM10/23/16
to
But the phenomenon is simply aberration, and the general expression is:
y
| /
| /
| /
|/ a
------------------> x
"stationary frame"
y'
| /
| /
| /
|/ a'
------------------> x'
"moving frame"
SR: cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a))
Galilean: tan(a') = sin(a)/(cos(a)+v/c)
a = pi/2 yields:
SR:
a' = arccos(v/c)
v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042204 degrees
v = 0.1c a' = 84.261 degrees
Galilean: (Michelson)
a' = arctan(c/v)
v = 0.0001c a' = 89.99427042207 degrees
v = 0.1c a' = 84.289 degrees
Note that for v = the orbital speed of the Earth
it is not practically possible to discriminate between
the aberration predicted by SR and Galilean relativity.
This is also the case for stellar aberration.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 3:59:13 PM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 21:10 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
You can measure endpoints position independently.
>
> But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with
> e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points).
Yes.
But the problem is,
we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough,
to derectly observed changes.
Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small.
>
> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
>
> But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look
> like shrinking, seen from a moving position.
>
>
Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks.
With single object and N observers,
there are up to N different object length simultaneously.
> Am 23.10.2016 08:46, schrieb Poutnik:
>
>>>
>>
>> Length is a distance of endpoints.
>> Using material objects like metre sticks
>> is just one of methods to determine distance.
>
> One method is comparison with other material objects.
>
> The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time
> intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other.
There are not only 2 methods.
>
>>>
>>
>> Length is a distance of endpoints.
>> Using material objects like metre sticks
>> is just one of methods to determine distance.
>
> One method is comparison with other material objects.
>
> The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time
> intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other.
You can measure endpoints position independently.
>
> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or
> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
>
> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
> material object.
Sure. this method is not applicable.
> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or
> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
>
> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
> material object.
>
> But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with
> e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points).
>
> Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume,
> you could measure positions precisely.
Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely.
> Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume,
> you could measure positions precisely.
But the problem is,
we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough,
to derectly observed changes.
Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small.
>
> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
>
> But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look
> like shrinking, seen from a moving position.
>
>
With single object and N observers,
there are up to N different object length simultaneously.
al...@interia.pl
Oct 23, 2016, 4:46:11 PM10/23/16
to
W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 21:54:29 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen
You are wrong.
The Galilean formula is just:
cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a))
simply:
cosf = cx/c =>
cosf' = cx'/c' = ...
just because of the standard:
C' = C-V, this is just the galilean
using the standard geometry:
C(f) = (ccosf, csinf); V = (v,0);
then:
c'(f) = |C'(f)|, it's s speed of light along the line with an angle of f to the x axis.
but under the Lorentz's contraction the unit of longitudinal
distance is shorther k=gamma times;
so, finaly it's perfectly equal to:
c'(f) = |C'(f)| = k(c-vcosf);
and the: cx' = k(ccosf - v), of course;
thus:
cosf' = (ccosf - v) / (c-vcosf) = (cosf - v/c) / (1 - v/c cosf)
The Galilean formula is just:
cos(a') = (cos(a)-v/c)/(1-(v/c)cos(a))
simply:
cosf = cx/c =>
cosf' = cx'/c' = ...
just because of the standard:
C' = C-V, this is just the galilean
using the standard geometry:
C(f) = (ccosf, csinf); V = (v,0);
then:
c'(f) = |C'(f)|, it's s speed of light along the line with an angle of f to the x axis.
but under the Lorentz's contraction the unit of longitudinal
distance is shorther k=gamma times;
so, finaly it's perfectly equal to:
c'(f) = |C'(f)| = k(c-vcosf);
and the: cx' = k(ccosf - v), of course;
thus:
cosf' = (ccosf - v) / (c-vcosf) = (cosf - v/c) / (1 - v/c cosf)
Message has been deleted
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 6:16:47 PM10/23/16
to
(corrects typographical errors in deleted post)
The whole point of the analyses that I cited is that a calculation of aberration
on a beam emitted at right angles from the direction of motion yields different
results than a calculation of the reflection angle from a moving mirror. They
are not quite the same scenario, and the calculated angles are not quite the
same. Michelson's calculation using aberration formulas was very slightly off.
In the non-relativistic calculation of reflection angles, both the transverse and
longitudinal beams reflect at a slightly different angle from the beam splitter
than the calculation made using the aberration formula. A non-relativistic
calculation of reflection angles predicts that the longitudinal and transverse
beams do not quite meet squarely at the beam splitter, and they diverge as they
exit the beam splitter by about 1e−8 radians. This of course is not what actually
happens.
A relativistic calculation resolves the discrepancy.
The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
It is behind a paywall, so you'll have to visit your university library to get it.
Galilean calculation of abberation (Michelson): a' = arctan(c/v)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427042206779°
0.1000 c 84.28940686250036°
Reflection angle calculated using Huyghen's law: a' = 2 arctan(1 - v/c)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427013556024°
0.1000 c 83.97442499163332°
on a beam emitted at right angles from the direction of motion yields different
results than a calculation of the reflection angle from a moving mirror. They
are not quite the same scenario, and the calculated angles are not quite the
same. Michelson's calculation using aberration formulas was very slightly off.
In the non-relativistic calculation of reflection angles, both the transverse and
longitudinal beams reflect at a slightly different angle from the beam splitter
than the calculation made using the aberration formula. A non-relativistic
calculation of reflection angles predicts that the longitudinal and transverse
beams do not quite meet squarely at the beam splitter, and they diverge as they
exit the beam splitter by about 1e−8 radians. This of course is not what actually
happens.
A relativistic calculation resolves the discrepancy.
The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
It is behind a paywall, so you'll have to visit your university library to get it.
Galilean calculation of abberation (Michelson): a' = arctan(c/v)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427042206779°
0.1000 c 84.28940686250036°
Reflection angle calculated using Huyghen's law: a' = 2 arctan(1 - v/c)
v a'
--------------------------------------
0.0000 c 90°
0.0001 c 89.99427013556024°
0.1000 c 83.97442499163332°
al...@interia.pl
Oct 23, 2016, 7:08:52 PM10/23/16
to
The angles in any laboratory's measuremet are the same:
90 = 90,
77 = 77
there is no speed dependency!
v/c = 0 in any lab. exp.
understand?
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 7:48:50 PM10/23/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 8:07:23 PM10/23/16
to
Sylvia Else
Oct 23, 2016, 8:42:14 PM10/23/16
to
On 23/10/2016 10:31 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and
> orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth
> and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South
> and every compass point in between.
>
Whether this is exactly true was not something that had been tested.
> However, every mirror, not only the mirrors of his interferometer
> apparatus, partakes in the two motions of the earth; rotation and
> orbit around the sun. The laws of reflection have been established
> under these circumstances and are the same for every mirror on earth
> and regardless of their alignment with East, West, North and South
> and every compass point in between.
>
If one takes seriously the proposition that light is a wave propagating
through the aether, then the behaviour of mirrors follows directly from
wave theory, and from the point of view of an observer moving through
the aether, mirrors would not exactly obey that laws of reflection.
In the end, it doesn't matter how much double-think you engage in - if
you do the math right, you'll end up with the Lorentz transformation,
regardless of what you believe is the cause.
Sylvia.
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 9:06:50 PM10/23/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 9:13:55 PM10/23/16
to
In 1887 Michelson wrote: "It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration. Stokes has given a theory of aberration which assumes the ether at the earth's surface to be at rest with regard to the latter, and only requires in addition that the relative velocity has a potential; but
Lorentz shows that these conditions are incompatible. Lorentz
then proposes a modification which combines some ideas of
Stokes and Fresnel, and assumes the existence of a potential,
together with Fresnel's coefficient".
and
"...the difference in the results found for the velocity of
light when Jupiter is nearest to and farthest from the line of
motion will give, not merely the motion of the solar system
with reference to the stars, but with reference to the luminiferous
ether itself".
In 1887, Michelson no longer doubts the existence of the aether but explains a different logic of the laws of reflection and he also questions the laws of aberration.
Dono,
Oct 23, 2016, 9:38:04 PM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 6:06:50 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong?
He said no such thing, you are compounding your imbecility with your outright lies. You are really despicable. Peter. Your only consolation is that you will die this way, a cretin liar.
>
> But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong?
Dono,
Oct 23, 2016, 9:38:45 PM10/23/16
to
Sylvia Else
Oct 23, 2016, 9:46:22 PM10/23/16
to
"Real" is a difficult word. You need a precise definition if you want to
use it in such a question.
But it's irrelevant here. You get the same mathematical result regardless.
Sylvia.
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 11:00:13 PM10/23/16
to
A statement by Einstein in German is translated:
In 1911, a critic of Einstein, Vladimir Varićak, declared that length contraction is "real" according to Lorentz, while it is "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein.
Einstein rejected the criticism and replied:
“The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.”
Einstein made the distinction 'It does not "really" exist for a comoving observer but it does "really" exist for a non-comoving observer'. Michelson was a comoving observer. According to Einstein contraction was therefore not real in Michelson's experiment.
According to Varicak Einstein's perception of LC was apparent (not real) or subjective (not real). According to Einstein's other comment 'it (LC) "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer'.
Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist. His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted.
Message has been deleted
Peter Riedt
Oct 23, 2016, 11:21:11 PM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 6:18:29 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> What Michelson meant is this:
>
> If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
> *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
> an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
>
> If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
> reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
> calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
> essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
>
Bullshit. There are no *stationary* mirrors. All mirrors are subject to the motions of the earth. The laws of reflection are derived from moving mirrors only. No double laws exist. Period.
> What Michelson meant is this:
>
> If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
> *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
> an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
>
> If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
> reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
> calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
> essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
>
Sylvia Else
Oct 23, 2016, 11:24:51 PM10/23/16
to
fixated on having an exact single meaning. Is a mirage real? Well, the
thing apparently seen does not exist, or at least not where it appears
to be, so in that sense it's not. But the physical processes that cause
a mirage are well understood, and in that sense a mirage is real. No one
loses any sleep over the distinction.
I will definitely measure the length of a moving object as being less
than will a co-moving observer. So if by length contraction, one means
the results of measurement, then length contraction is real. On the
other hand, different observers moving at different speeds will get
different results, and they can't all be the true contracted length of
the object, and in that sense the length contraction is not real.
So it's only when you refuse to qualify your meaning of real in
situations where it needs qualifying do you run into problems.
Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely
pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one
meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is
intellectually dishonest.
Sylvia.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 23, 2016, 11:39:42 PM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 5:16:47 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
> Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
> interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
Paul -
> The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
> Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
> interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
I've uploaded a copy to Google Drive, and I will leave the link active for a
short time, long enough for you to download a copy. Since it is of recent
copyright, I'll be removing the link after one or two days. Leaving the link
active for any longer would be a clear violation of fair use. Let me know when
you've downloaded a copy so that I can disable the link.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcNjdCWi1XR3VEVVU
Thomas Heger
Oct 24, 2016, 12:34:11 AM10/24/16
to
Am 23.10.2016 21:59, schrieb Poutnik:
>>>
>>> Length is a distance of endpoints.
>>> Using material objects like metre sticks
>>> is just one of methods to determine distance.
>>
>> One method is comparison with other material objects.
>>
>> The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time
>> intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other.
>
> There are not only 2 methods.
> You can measure endpoints position independently.
'Use of beams with known velocity' was the actually, what I meant with
>>>
>>> Length is a distance of endpoints.
>>> Using material objects like metre sticks
>>> is just one of methods to determine distance.
>>
>> One method is comparison with other material objects.
>>
>> The other method is using beams of known velocity and measuring time
>> intervals, this beam needs from one spot to the other.
>
> There are not only 2 methods.
> You can measure endpoints position independently.
method. Certainly there are many different configurations for such beams
possible, but all use beams.
>> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or
>> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
>>
>> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
>> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
>> material object.
>
> Sure. this method is not applicable.
material object'.
>>
>> But we can leave the objects out and measure positions in space with
>> e.g. laser beams. (Supposed we are somehow able to define such points).
>
> Yes.
>>
>> Now you certainly do not want to move fast past those spots and assume,
>> you could measure positions precisely.
>
> Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely.
> But the problem is,
> we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough,
> to derectly observed changes.
>
> Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small.
certainly large enough. They are also quite fast - at least some.
>>
>> The reason: light has finite velocity and if you move towards a certain
>> formation with relativistic velocity, this object seems to shrink.
>
>>
>> But this does not say, the object would shrink, but only it would look
>> like shrinking, seen from a moving position.
>>
>>
> Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks.
> With single object and N observers,
> there are up to N different object length simultaneously.
If you want to use the term 'length' in somehow consistent ways, this
term should address a physical attribute of a material object and not
the impression of moving observers, passing by at high speed.
So: one object has only one length and this length can only be measured
in a comoving FoR if at rest in respect to this object.
Other observers see this length distorted, especially if they move fast
in respect to that object.
But this distortion is not a physical attribute of that object in
question, but of the observer and his movement.
There are other means thinkable, which would also distort the impression
of remote objects, like strong fields, lenses and mirrors or gravity.
But such means would not alter the object itself, only the picture we
receive.
TH
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 1:12:08 AM10/24/16
to
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 11:24:51 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely
> pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one
> meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is
> intellectually dishonest.
>
> Sylvia.
I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
>
> Getting into arguments about the meaning of words is a completely
> pointless and time-wasting exercise. Pretending that a word has one
> meaning when it actually has many, and using that in an argument, is
> intellectually dishonest.
>
> Sylvia.
Dono,
Oct 24, 2016, 1:34:57 AM10/24/16
to
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 1:59:42 AM10/24/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 06:34 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
It is just a practical method for everyday use.
>> Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely.
>> But the problem is,
>> we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough,
>> to derectly observed changes.
>>
>> Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small.
>
>
> All celestial objects move in one way or the other and they are
> certainly large enough. They are also quite fast - at least some.
Fast means not v << c.
>>>
>> Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks.
>> With single object and N observers,
>> there are up to N different object length simultaneously.
>
> This is a self-contradicting statement.
>
> If you want to use the term 'length' in somehow consistent ways, this
> term should address a physical attribute of a material object and not
> the impression of moving observers, passing by at high speed.
They you cannot determine size of any moving object.
You have to wait until it remains still.
A length as a physical attribute of a material object
is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
is considered the conventional length.
> Am 23.10.2016 21:59, schrieb Poutnik:
>>> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or
>>> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
>>>
>>> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
>>> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
>>> material object.
>>
>> Sure. this method is not applicable.
>
> But this method is the foundation of our definition of 'length of a
> material object'.
No, it is not.
>>> You cannot measure the length of an object with a meter stick or
>>> similar, unless you are at rest in respect to that object.
>>>
>>> So you need delta(v) = 0 for object, measuring device and yourself, if
>>> you want to measure the length of an object with the help of another
>>> material object.
>>
>> Sure. this method is not applicable.
>
> But this method is the foundation of our definition of 'length of a
> material object'.
It is just a practical method for everyday use.
>> Frequencies and time delays are measured quite precisely.
>> But the problem is,
>> we cannot move large enough obsject fast enough,
>> to derectly observed changes.
>>
>> Either big objects are to slow, or fast objects too small.
>
>
> All celestial objects move in one way or the other and they are
> certainly large enough. They are also quite fast - at least some.
>>>
>> Nobody reasonable says the object shrinks.
>> With single object and N observers,
>> there are up to N different object length simultaneously.
>
> This is a self-contradicting statement.
>
> If you want to use the term 'length' in somehow consistent ways, this
> term should address a physical attribute of a material object and not
> the impression of moving observers, passing by at high speed.
You have to wait until it remains still.
A length as a physical attribute of a material object
is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
is considered the conventional length.
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 2:02:49 AM10/24/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 07:12 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
In fact not ambivalent.
Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether,
while refute moving aether.
Other experiments are compliant with moving aether,
while refute stationary aether.
So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist.
Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether,
while refute moving aether.
Other experiments are compliant with moving aether,
while refute stationary aether.
So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist.
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 2:35:08 AM10/24/16
to
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 2:42:47 AM10/24/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:35 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
by later contributors to GR
and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:02:49 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
>>>
>> In fact not ambivalent.
>>
>> Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether,
>> while refute moving aether.
>>
>> Other experiments are compliant with moving aether,
>> while refute stationary aether.
>>
>> So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist.
>>
>
>>>
>>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
>>>
>> In fact not ambivalent.
>>
>> Some experiments are compliant with stationary aether,
>> while refute moving aether.
>>
>> Other experiments are compliant with moving aether,
>> while refute stationary aether.
>>
>> So neither stationary neither moving luminoferous aether can exist.
>>
>
> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
You misinterpret him.
What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
by later contributors to GR
and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 2:48:08 AM10/24/16
to
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 2:53:56 AM10/24/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
destroys creditability of the refuter.
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>
>> You misinterpret him.
>>
>> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
>> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
>> by later contributors to GR
>> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
>>
>
>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>
>> You misinterpret him.
>>
>> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
>> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
>> by later contributors to GR
>> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
>>
>
> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
>
Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it
>
destroys creditability of the refuter.
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 3:03:53 AM10/24/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 6:18:29 PM UTC+8, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> What Michelson meant is this:
>
> If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
> *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
> an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
>
> If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
> reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
> calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
> essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
>
There are no stationary mirrors; all mirrors are in motion. The beamsplitter was at 45 degrees and reflected the transverse and longitudinal rays at right angles. They were in turn reflected back at the same angles and arrived at the same time at a point to produce a null result.
>
> What Michelson meant is this:
>
> If a plane parallel beam of light traveling from left to right strikes a
> *stationary* mirror set at 45° from the vertical, the light will be reflected at
> an angle of 90° from the horizontal.
>
> If, however, the 45° mirror is *in motion*, the beam of light will not be
> reflected at precisely 90°, but will reflect at an angle that can easily be
> calculated using Huyghen's Principle and the superposition of waves, which in
> essence represents a specialized statement of the Principle of Least Action.
>
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 3:08:48 AM10/24/16
to
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 5:08:10 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/24/2016 09:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:53:56 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>>>
>>>> You misinterpret him.
>>>>
>>>> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
>>>> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
>>>> by later contributors to GR
>>>> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
>>>
>> Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it
>> destroys creditability of the refuter.
>>
>
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:53:56 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 24/10/2016 v 08:48 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:42:47 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>>>
>>>> You misinterpret him.
>>>>
>>>> What he named aether in GR was not luminoferous aether.
>>>> His terminology of GR aether was abandoned as unlucky and misleading
>>>> by later contributors to GR
>>>> and space-time geometry/metrics is used since then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
>>>
>> Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it
>> destroys creditability of the refuter.
>>
>
> I am not refuting it; I am questioning it.
You still skip the understanding step,
so such questioning can be taken as way of learning only.
The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy.
This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX,
either by many following experiments with increased accuracy,
using various techniques.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments
BTW, SR derivation was not based on MMX to explain its result,
but on electrodynamics of moving bodies.
In fact, Einstein wrote he was not aware of MMX.
He independently derived the Lorentz transformation
from different starting point than Lorentz.
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 6:17:26 AM10/24/16
to
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:08:10 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy.
>
> This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX,
> either by many following experiments with increased accuracy,
> using various techniques.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments
>
Thanks for the reference. The numerous experiments in the report were mostly based on MMX which tried to find the aether but failed. Not surprising as Michelson got his mirrors at a wrong angle.
> The MMX experiment is about confirming light speed anisotropy.
>
> This anisotropy was not confirmed either by MMX,
> either by many following experiments with increased accuracy,
> using various techniques.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments
>
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 7:09:36 AM10/24/16
to
Gary Harnagel
Oct 24, 2016, 7:13:06 AM10/24/16
to
very next heading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_experiments
you will find experiments that do not use mirrors at all (Mossbauer rotor
experiments, for one) and that carry the accuracy down to meters/second.
There is NO way to detect the presence of an undetectable "substance."
You are riding a dead horse.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 24, 2016, 7:55:35 AM10/24/16
to
thesis is based on concepts that fly in the face of *all* of physics, not
just relativity.
Sylvia Else
Oct 24, 2016, 8:13:50 AM10/24/16
to
aether has no role to play. It's only die-hards like you who continue to
try to argue that it exists.
Sylvia.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 8:41:34 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/22/2016 6:31 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed
> or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is
> fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula
> by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
You are STILL under the mistaken impression that special relativity was
developed in an attempt to explain the MMX. It was not. Get your history
straight first.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> No difference of the arms existed to detect the aether and no contraction existed
> or was necessary to explain the null result. Lorentz' gamma formula is
> fictitious/untrue/conjured etc and does not apply and the adoption of his formula
> by SR must be considered to be without foundation.
You are STILL under the mistaken impression that special relativity was
developed in an attempt to explain the MMX. It was not. Get your history
straight first.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 24, 2016, 8:45:43 AM10/24/16
to
(You can now remove the link.)
The relativistic Huygens principle give the same
result as aberration, which it obviously must do.
It is after all just a question of observing the same
beam of light in two frames of reference which are
moving relative to each other. That's aberration.
I never doubted that a solution using Huygens principle
would work in the the relativistic case, but since aberration
is simpler, I saw no reason to use it.
What I initially did find puzzling, though, was
why Huygens principle didn't give the same result
as aberration in the non-relativistic case.
I understand it now, though.
It is simply because:
In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
observe a beam from a mirror which is
stationary in the ether,
is different from:
In the ether frame to:
observe the beam from a mirror that
is moving in ether.
The former is aberration, while Huygens principle
is the right approach for the latter.
So Michelson's calculation was indeed slightly off.
The difference is however much smaller than
the other approximations done in his calculations.
But it doesn't really matter (not even in principle)
that the beams (according to Michelson's ether theory)
don't meet each other at the exact centre of the screen
(detector) because they are "blown off" the centre by
the ether wind. The beams must be slightly diverging,
so there is always a part of both beams that do meet
at the centre. As long as parts the two light spots on
the screen (detector) overlap, there will be an interference
pattern.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:04:12 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 1:48 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> I ignore your cherished principle of least action because it neither explains
>
> 1. why the laws of reflection should not apply in MMX
> 2. why LC should apply in MMX when there are no unequal arms
> 3. why LC does not apply in MMX according to some experts
> 4. why LC and TD apply in KTX when the aether is denied
> 5. why Einstein said there is an aether and SR says there is none
> 6. why Lorentz said there is a physical compression of the molecular structure of
> moving objects (LC) proportional to v but nobody can prove it
> 7. why some experts deny this compression but still accept LC to be real
> 8. why there is no explanation what causes LC in the absence of this compression
> (to difficult)
> 9. why is there both acceptance and denial of these questions in SR depending on
> what a respective expert believes or not (the discussions in this newsgroup are
> akin to videos about the gruesome fights of hyenas and lions in the internet
> media e.g. YOU TUBE)
>
Peter, this I believes lies at the crux of your problem. You are
confused as to why there are so many apparently contradicting assertions
surrounding what it going on in the MMX, and therefore you conclude that
there must be inconsistencies with the theory itself.
I assure you this is wrong. The theory is fine. The way you have learned
what the theory says, though, is hodge-podge and unstructured, and this
is why you have gotten confused and why you see conflicting information.
What you really need to do is to sit down with a real book and read it.
> I ignore your cherished principle of least action because it neither explains
>
> 1. why the laws of reflection should not apply in MMX
> 2. why LC should apply in MMX when there are no unequal arms
> 3. why LC does not apply in MMX according to some experts
> 4. why LC and TD apply in KTX when the aether is denied
> 5. why Einstein said there is an aether and SR says there is none
> 6. why Lorentz said there is a physical compression of the molecular structure of
> moving objects (LC) proportional to v but nobody can prove it
> 7. why some experts deny this compression but still accept LC to be real
> 8. why there is no explanation what causes LC in the absence of this compression
> (to difficult)
> 9. why is there both acceptance and denial of these questions in SR depending on
> what a respective expert believes or not (the discussions in this newsgroup are
> akin to videos about the gruesome fights of hyenas and lions in the internet
> media e.g. YOU TUBE)
>
Peter, this I believes lies at the crux of your problem. You are
confused as to why there are so many apparently contradicting assertions
surrounding what it going on in the MMX, and therefore you conclude that
there must be inconsistencies with the theory itself.
I assure you this is wrong. The theory is fine. The way you have learned
what the theory says, though, is hodge-podge and unstructured, and this
is why you have gotten confused and why you see conflicting information.
What you really need to do is to sit down with a real book and read it.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:21:38 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 8:06 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong?
>
You misunderstood his sentence.
>
> But Einstein said contraction is not real for comoving observers. Was he wrong?
>
Length contraction is a real effect. But one must be careful to be clear
about what "real" means.
Einstein was saying, if you mean by "real" that the effect should be
seen by all observers, then no, length contraction is not real in that
sense. However, Einstein also points out that it is certainly "real" in
that it is measurable by relatively moving observers, and this is the
sense of "real" that Einstein is using when he says that length
contraction is a real effect. He also points that that there are many
physical effects which are not "real" in the first sense, but very
"real" in the second sense.
So you need to be careful about what "real" actually means in this
context, NOT how you want to interpret that word.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:24:49 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 10:00 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Yes, the usual defence of SR is that the term 'real' is not what it means in English.
> In English it means 'real/true/existing/present'
> Yes, the usual defence of SR is that the term 'real' is not what it means in English.
Peter, you should know better. In the English dictionary are listed
several definitions of words, and which one is appropriate depends on
context. If you use the inappropriate definition for a given context,
then this is your own mistake.
> and their opposites are
> 'not real/untrue/non existing/non present'. The former do not apply to LC but the latter do.
>
> Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist.
No, Peter, what he said is that it depends on what you mean by "real".
And here he explained what HE means by real, and you insist on taking a
different definition.
> His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:27:50 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/24/2016 12:12 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson
> said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect
> the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
I think you will find that the ambivalence has been resolved in the 129
> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson
> said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect
> the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
years since 1887.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:36:39 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/24/2016 1:35 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
Again here, Peter, it's unwise to take Einstein's sentence out of
> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
context. What he stated at the time was that he felt that some kind of
ether was needed conceptually, but that whatever that is, it bears no
resemblance whatsover to the luminiferous ether that had been supposed
up until that point. So he was pretty clear in stating that the
luminiferous ether that had been supposed by his predecessors did NOT
exist.
The ether that remained for Einstein is what is now called spacetime.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:38:11 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/24/2016 1:48 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various
> sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
I'm sorry, Peter, but this is a vain hope on your part.
> Attempts to accept or deny the aether or change its definition by various
> sources destroyed the credibility of SR. Absolute ambivalence.
What was clear in the development of the theory of relativity was that
whatever scientists had conceived about what the ether was up until that
point was now ruled out. There is no ambiguity about that.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 9:39:24 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/24/2016 2:08 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it
>> > destroys creditability of the refuter.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> I am not refuting it; I am questioning it.
Peter, questioning from a position of ignorance accomplishes nothing.
>> Attempt to refute a theory without understanding it
>> > destroys creditability of the refuter.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
> I am not refuting it; I am questioning it.
Read up on the theory FIRST, and question AFTER.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 24, 2016, 9:55:45 AM10/24/16
to
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:45:43 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 24.10.2016 05:37, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 5:16:47 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> >> The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
> >> Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
> >> interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
> >
> > Paul -
> > I've uploaded a copy to Google Drive, and I will leave the link active for a
> > short time, long enough for you to download a copy. Since it is of recent
> > copyright, I'll be removing the link after one or two days. Leaving the link
> > active for any longer would be a clear violation of fair use. Let me know when
> > you've downloaded a copy so that I can disable the link.
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcNjdCWi1XR3VEVVU
> >
>
> Very interesting, thank you.
> (You can now remove the link.)
You're welcome!
> On 24.10.2016 05:37, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 5:16:47 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> >> The most accessible reference of the ones that I listed before was
> >> Schumacher, Richard A. (1994). "Special relativity and the Michelson–Morley
> >> interferometer". American Journal of Physics. 62: 609
> >
> > Paul -
> > I've uploaded a copy to Google Drive, and I will leave the link active for a
> > short time, long enough for you to download a copy. Since it is of recent
> > copyright, I'll be removing the link after one or two days. Leaving the link
> > active for any longer would be a clear violation of fair use. Let me know when
> > you've downloaded a copy so that I can disable the link.
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcNjdCWi1XR3VEVVU
> >
>
> Very interesting, thank you.
> (You can now remove the link.)
> The relativistic Huygens principle give the same
> result as aberration, which it obviously must do.
> It is after all just a question of observing the same
> beam of light in two frames of reference which are
> moving relative to each other. That's aberration.
> I never doubted that a solution using Huygens principle
> would work in the the relativistic case, but since aberration
> is simpler, I saw no reason to use it.
> What I initially did find puzzling, though, was
> why Huygens principle didn't give the same result
> as aberration in the non-relativistic case.
> I understand it now, though.
> It is simply because:
> In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
> observe a beam from a mirror which is
> stationary in the ether,
> is different from:
> In the ether frame to:
> observe the beam from a mirror that
> is moving in ether.
> The former is aberration, while Huygens principle
> is the right approach for the latter.
> So Michelson's calculation was indeed slightly off.
> The difference is however much smaller than
> the other approximations done in his calculations.
>
> But it doesn't really matter (not even in principle)
> that the beams (according to Michelson's ether theory)
> don't meet each other at the exact centre of the screen
> (detector) because they are "blown off" the centre by
> the ether wind. The beams must be slightly diverging,
> so there is always a part of both beams that do meet
> at the centre. As long as parts the two light spots on
> the screen (detector) overlap, there will be an interference
> pattern.
in which the analysis of the MMX results could be wrong. :-)
Peter is also desperate, but he doesn't have the mathematical competence to
do a decent job of it.
Thomas Heger
Oct 24, 2016, 4:55:57 PM10/24/16
to
Am 24.10.2016 07:59, schrieb Poutnik:
> A length as a physical attribute of a material object
> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
> is considered the conventional length.
No!
> A length as a physical attribute of a material object
> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
> is considered the conventional length.
Observation is irrelevant for the object observed.
'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A
typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute
belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation.
Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not
say, they are not there or have no attributes.
TH
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:29:16 PM10/24/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:30:52 PM10/24/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:33:51 PM10/24/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:43:49 PM10/24/16
to
Paul: It is simply because:
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:46:13 PM10/24/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:48:15 PM10/24/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 24, 2016, 7:52:42 PM10/24/16
to
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 24, 2016, 10:34:50 PM10/24/16
to
***SEVERE*** problems in interpreting other people's points of view. Paul
and I can discuss consequences of aether theory without believing in it,
in the same way that I can animatedly discuss The Lord of the Rings with my
daughters without believing in orcs, elves and wizards.
The various issues that you have in communications, your focused interests
in subjects for which you have a demonstrated lack of understanding, your
lack of ability to pick up social cues in these newsgroups etc. lead me to
suspect that you could have some sort of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Have you
ever been diagnosed with such?
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 24, 2016, 10:41:59 PM10/24/16
to
had to say. You blithely ignore bedrock principles that underly
practically all of physics, principles that may be even more fundamental
than relativity itself.
Peter Riedt
Oct 25, 2016, 1:04:57 AM10/25/16
to
> > It is simply because:
> > In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
> > observe a beam from a mirror which is
> > stationary in the ether,
> > is different from:
> > In the ether frame to:
> > observe the beam from a mirror that
> > is moving in ether.
>
Paul believes according to what he stated in stationary and moving mirrors in the aether. I ask again 'where can we find stationary mirrors'?
> > In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
> > observe a beam from a mirror which is
> > stationary in the ether,
> > is different from:
> > In the ether frame to:
> > observe the beam from a mirror that
> > is moving in ether.
>
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 2:23:37 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 22:55 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
All object attributes, including length as distance
are gained by observation,
unless they are predicted by calculation.
Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
is arbitrary definition of the material length.
This length equals to length as distance
at and only at the rest condition.
are gained by observation,
unless they are predicted by calculation.
Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
is arbitrary definition of the material length.
This length equals to length as distance
at and only at the rest condition.
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 2:25:25 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 25/10/2016 v 01:29 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
No, Einstein called spacetime the aether.
You do not bother to realize, what he meant by it.
You do not bother to realize, what he meant by it.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 25, 2016, 2:37:28 AM10/25/16
to
aether that physicists of a century below believed in. Neither of us
personally believe in this aether, any more than we believe in orcs, elves
or wizards, although I am quite sure that Paul and I could discuss the
works of Toklein at a reasonable level of fluency.
Don't you understand the difference between understanding the premises of
an obsolete, currently abandoned theory versus believing in it?
Peter Riedt
Oct 25, 2016, 2:41:04 AM10/25/16
to
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 2:25:25 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 25/10/2016 v 01:29 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:36:39 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 1:35 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
> >>
> >> Again here, Peter, it's unwise to take Einstein's sentence out of
> >> context. What he stated at the time was that he felt that some kind of
> >> ether was needed conceptually, but that whatever that is, it bears no
> >> resemblance whatsover to the luminiferous ether that had been supposed
> >> up until that point. So he was pretty clear in stating that the
> >> luminiferous ether that had been supposed by his predecessors did NOT
> >> exist.
> >>
> >> The ether that remained for Einstein is what is now called spacetime.
> >>
> > Einstein did not call the aether spacetime; he called the aether aether. Michelson also did in 1887 again accept the aether when he suggested different experiments to identify it.
> >
> No, Einstein called spacetime the aether.
He called it space time.
> Dne 25/10/2016 v 01:29 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:36:39 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 10/24/2016 1:35 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
> >>
> >> Again here, Peter, it's unwise to take Einstein's sentence out of
> >> context. What he stated at the time was that he felt that some kind of
> >> ether was needed conceptually, but that whatever that is, it bears no
> >> resemblance whatsover to the luminiferous ether that had been supposed
> >> up until that point. So he was pretty clear in stating that the
> >> luminiferous ether that had been supposed by his predecessors did NOT
> >> exist.
> >>
> >> The ether that remained for Einstein is what is now called spacetime.
> >>
> > Einstein did not call the aether spacetime; he called the aether aether. Michelson also did in 1887 again accept the aether when he suggested different experiments to identify it.
> >
> No, Einstein called spacetime the aether.
> You do not bother to realize, what he meant by it.
Irrelevant.
>
Many scientists inquired into the aether. Only minions of SR and GR disown it.
The aether transmits light and generates gravity and inertia throughout the universe. Without the aether (spacetime is a bad name) the universe would not be possible.
Peter Riedt
Oct 25, 2016, 2:45:17 AM10/25/16
to
Peter Riedt
Oct 25, 2016, 2:47:55 AM10/25/16
to
>
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 2:51:40 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 25/10/2016 v 08:23 Poutnik napsal(a):
>
> Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
> is arbitrary definition of the material length.
> This length equals to length as distance
> at and only at the rest condition.
>
P.S.:
As length as material length is not the same quantity
as length as distance of endpoints.
The former is invariant like mass,
the latter is not invariant, like kinetic energy.
For moving objects, measuring of the former is not available,
only the latter. The former can be just calculated via LT.
Fortunately, the difference is negligible for very most scenarios.
Exception is high energy particle physics
and its effects or electromagnetic systems.
( mutually transforming charge and current density,
See Feynman lectures about an electron
moving along a wire with current. )
>
> Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
> is arbitrary definition of the material length.
> This length equals to length as distance
> at and only at the rest condition.
>
As length as material length is not the same quantity
as length as distance of endpoints.
The former is invariant like mass,
the latter is not invariant, like kinetic energy.
For moving objects, measuring of the former is not available,
only the latter. The former can be just calculated via LT.
Fortunately, the difference is negligible for very most scenarios.
Exception is high energy particle physics
and its effects or electromagnetic systems.
( mutually transforming charge and current density,
See Feynman lectures about an electron
moving along a wire with current. )
Thomas Heger
Oct 25, 2016, 2:54:34 AM10/25/16
to
Am 25.10.2016 08:23, schrieb Poutnik:
>>> A length as a physical attribute of a material object
>>> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
>>> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
>>> is considered the conventional length.
>>
>> No!
>>
>> Observation is irrelevant for the object observed.
>>
>> 'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A
>> typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute
>> belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation.
>>
>> Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not
>> say, they are not there or have no attributes.
>
> All object attributes, including length as distance
> are gained by observation,
> unless they are predicted by calculation.
>
> Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
> is arbitrary definition of the material length.
> This length equals to length as distance
> at and only at the rest condition.
>
The exist a zen riddle, which goes roughly like this:
>>> A length as a physical attribute of a material object
>>> is the impression of its observers. As that is the only value
>>> he can measure. The impression of observer in rest wrt object
>>> is considered the conventional length.
>>
>> No!
>>
>> Observation is irrelevant for the object observed.
>>
>> 'Length' is a physical attribute, which is used for material objects. A
>> typical example is a rod. This has a certain length and this attribute
>> belongs to the object 'rod' and not to the observation.
>>
>> Many things cannot be seen or precisely be measured. But this would not
>> say, they are not there or have no attributes.
>
> All object attributes, including length as distance
> are gained by observation,
> unless they are predicted by calculation.
>
> Observation with observer at rest wrt the object
> is arbitrary definition of the material length.
> This length equals to length as distance
> at and only at the rest condition.
>
how does it sound, when a tree falls down, when nobody listens?
Well... 'sound' is our (human) impression of this observation, but not
the 'real thing'.
This 'real thing' (falling tree) does exist, whether someone listens or not.
So the 'real thing' (falling tree) is, what gets the attributes and not
the remote listener.
Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much
higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we
could listen.
But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something
we have created in our brain.
These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man
could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither,
since they are, what humans read from certain devices.
So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
the thing itself.
TH
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 2:57:49 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 25/10/2016 v 08:41 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>> You do not bother to realize, what he meant by it.
> Irrelevant.
How funny.
and different definitions of a term in different contexts?
Forget aether and stay with Kepler laws.
Other you would have to work with math....
>> You do not bother to realize, what he meant by it.
> Irrelevant.
>>
> Many scientists inquired into the aether. Only minions of SR and GR disown it.
> The aether transmits light and generates gravity and inertia throughout the universe. Without the aether (spacetime is a bad name) the universe would not be possible.
Have not you ever heard about homonyms
> Many scientists inquired into the aether. Only minions of SR and GR disown it.
> The aether transmits light and generates gravity and inertia throughout the universe. Without the aether (spacetime is a bad name) the universe would not be possible.
and different definitions of a term in different contexts?
Forget aether and stay with Kepler laws.
Other you would have to work with math....
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 3:39:13 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 25/10/2016 v 08:54 Thomas Heger napsal(a):
>>
>
> The exist a zen riddle, which goes roughly like this:
>
> how does it sound, when a tree falls down, when nobody listens?
>
> Well... 'sound' is our (human) impression of this observation, but not
> the 'real thing'.
>
> This 'real thing' (falling tree) does exist, whether someone listens or
> not.
>
> So the 'real thing' (falling tree) is, what gets the attributes and not
> the remote listener.
>
> Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much
> higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we
> could listen.
>
> But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something
> we have created in our brain.
>
> These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man
> could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither,
> since they are, what humans read from certain devices.
>
> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
>
> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
> the thing itself.
It can be summarized as you misinterpret me.
I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance
exists regardless we observe it or not.
But the only parameter that is observable
is length as the point distance that is not invariant.
while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
and not the material length, that is real.
You confuse real and invariant.
>>
>
> The exist a zen riddle, which goes roughly like this:
>
> how does it sound, when a tree falls down, when nobody listens?
>
> Well... 'sound' is our (human) impression of this observation, but not
> the 'real thing'.
>
> This 'real thing' (falling tree) does exist, whether someone listens or
> not.
>
> So the 'real thing' (falling tree) is, what gets the attributes and not
> the remote listener.
>
> Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much
> higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we
> could listen.
>
> But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something
> we have created in our brain.
>
> These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man
> could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither,
> since they are, what humans read from certain devices.
>
> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
>
> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
> the thing itself.
I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance
exists regardless we observe it or not.
But the only parameter that is observable
is length as the point distance that is not invariant.
while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
and not the material length, that is real.
You confuse real and invariant.
Poutnik
Oct 25, 2016, 3:50:13 AM10/25/16
to
Dne 25/10/2016 v 09:39 Poutnik napsal(a):
>
> while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
> and not the material length, that is real.
>
> You confuse real and invariant.
>
P.S. you can observe falling tree if you want,
but you cannot observe material length of moving object,
what is the object length in a different frame.
Similarly as you cannot observe kinetic energy
that the object has in different frame.
It would be like if you said the only real kinetic energy
is the one in the frame where the object is in the rest.
Kinetic energy of the object in all other frames is unreal.
but with available distance measuring technology
it does not matter what length you measure.
>
> while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
> and not the material length, that is real.
>
> You confuse real and invariant.
>
but you cannot observe material length of moving object,
what is the object length in a different frame.
Similarly as you cannot observe kinetic energy
that the object has in different frame.
It would be like if you said the only real kinetic energy
is the one in the frame where the object is in the rest.
Kinetic energy of the object in all other frames is unreal.
but with available distance measuring technology
it does not matter what length you measure.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 25, 2016, 7:50:25 AM10/25/16
to
mlwo...@wp.pl
Oct 25, 2016, 8:05:51 AM10/25/16
to
W dniu wtorek, 25 października 2016 08:54:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
This is just one of options.
> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
> the thing itself.
They are some information created by some procedures,
usually useful for other procedures.
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 25, 2016, 8:31:39 AM10/25/16
to
On 25.10.2016 01:43, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:45:43 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> What I initially did find puzzling, though, was
>> why Huygens principle didn't give the same result
>> as aberration in the non-relativistic case.
>> I understand it now, though.
>> It is simply because:
>> In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
>> observe a beam from a mirror which is
>> stationary in the ether,
>> is different from:
>> In the ether frame to:
>> observe the beam from a mirror that
>> is moving in ether.
>>
>> The former is aberration, while Huygens principle
>> is the right approach for the latter.
>> So Michelson's calculation was indeed slightly off.
>> The difference is however much smaller than
>> the other approximations done in his calculations.
>>
>
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:45:43 PM UTC+8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> What I initially did find puzzling, though, was
>> why Huygens principle didn't give the same result
>> as aberration in the non-relativistic case.
>> I understand it now, though.
>> It is simply because:
>> In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
>> observe a beam from a mirror which is
>> stationary in the ether,
>> is different from:
>> In the ether frame to:
>> observe the beam from a mirror that
>> is moving in ether.
>>
>> The former is aberration, while Huygens principle
>> is the right approach for the latter.
>> So Michelson's calculation was indeed slightly off.
>> The difference is however much smaller than
>> the other approximations done in his calculations.
>>
>
> I note that you accept the existence of the aether
> but please enlighten us where 'stationary' mirrors
> or frames can be found in the universe.
Don't be ridiculous.
> but please enlighten us where 'stationary' mirrors
> or frames can be found in the universe.
We are discussing the MMX which was designed to test
the rigid ether theory which Michelson and most
scientists of the 19. century thought had to be valid.
Now we all know that the MMX falsified this ether theory.
(In the following: "Michelson's Ether Theory")
Understand this:
When performing an experiment to test a theory,
one must:
1) Calculate what the theory predicts will be
measured when the experiment is performed.
2) Perform the experiment.
3) Compare the results of the experiment
with the predictions of the theory.
If the results of the experiment are in
accordance with the predictions of the theory
within the precision of the measurements,
then the theory is confirmed. (NOT proven!)
If the results of the experiment are different
from the predictions of the theory by more than
the precision of the measurements, then the theory
is falsified (proven wrong, not valid)
The discussion here was:
Did Michelson correctly calculate the predictions
of "Michelson's Ether Theory" in his 1887 paper?
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
Specifically has the discussion been about
the pathlength of the beam along the transverse arm.
(Michelson had got this wrong in the paper for his
1881 experiment, where he simply assumed the pathlength
to be 2D where D is the length of the arm.)
In his 1887 paper he corrected this pathlength to be
2D sqrt(1+v^2/c^2) which means that the angle of
the beam from the beam splitter is arctan(c/v).
Since this is the same as non-relativistic aberration,
I have always considered this to be correct.
However, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog made me aware
of the fact that the correct angle, calculated
according to Huygens principle is: 2 arctan(1-v/c)
The reason for this difference is:
> Paul: It is simply because:
> In a frame which is moving in the ether to:
> observe a beam from a mirror which is
> stationary in the ether,
> is different from:
> In the ether frame to:
> observe the beam from a mirror that
> is moving in ether.
The difference is however smaller than
the other approximations done in his calculations.
For v/c = 0.0001c, the orbital speed of the Earth we have:
arctan(c/v) = 89,99427014 degrees
2 arctan(1-v/c) = 89,99427042 degrees
The relative difference is less than 10^-8,
which is of the same order of magnitude as the other
approximations in his equations, where v^2/c^2 = 10^-8
is ignored compared to 1.
So the bottom line is:
Michelson's calculations of the prediction of his theory
are correct. (The error in the approximations are orders
of magnitude less than the error bars in the measurements.)
The MMX falsified "Michelson's Ether Theory".
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Oct 25, 2016, 9:49:34 AM10/25/16
to
We also note that the angle calculation for *relativistic* aberration matches
the angle calculation for *relativistic* mirror reflection.
Special relativity is internally consistent.
Dono,
Oct 25, 2016, 10:58:21 AM10/25/16
to
Thomas Heger
Oct 26, 2016, 1:57:03 AM10/26/16
to
Am 25.10.2016 09:39, schrieb Poutnik:
>> Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much
>> higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we
>> could listen.
>>
>> But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something
>> we have created in our brain.
>>
>> These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man
>> could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither,
>> since they are, what humans read from certain devices.
>>
>> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
>> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
>>
>> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
>> the thing itself.
>
> It can be summarized as you misinterpret me.
>
> I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance
> exists regardless we observe it or not.
>
> But the only parameter that is observable
> is length as the point distance that is not invariant.
>
> while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
> and not the material length, that is real.
I dislike 'schizophrenic definitions'.
>> Seeing is quite similar to listening, but uses much faster waves of much
>> higher frequency. So we could see things much more precise, than we
>> could listen.
>>
>> But still the visual impression is not the 'real thing', but something
>> we have created in our brain.
>>
>> These 'real things' are now the carriers of physical attributes and man
>> could eventually measure them. These measurements are not real neither,
>> since they are, what humans read from certain devices.
>>
>> So we need to assume the existence of something, we could eventually not
>> see, hear or measure, but what is actually real.
>>
>> Our observations or measurements are our (human) approximations and not
>> the thing itself.
>
> It can be summarized as you misinterpret me.
>
> I do not deny that the material length equal to the rest point distance
> exists regardless we observe it or not.
>
> But the only parameter that is observable
> is length as the point distance that is not invariant.
>
> while moving wrt the observer, it is length as the point distance
> and not the material length, that is real.
If 'length of a material object' is defined in a certain way, than the
term 'length' means just that, what the definition says.
So we have two distinct realms, which have different attributes, which
must not be confused:
- material objects
- space (vacuum)
Vacuum and material objects behave somehow antagonistic features and an
attribute of vacuum can hardly be applied to a material object.
So for reasons of consistency of definitions, we need to define the term
'length' as attribute of a material object, which is measured in in the
rest frame of that object.
'Point in space' is apparently not a material object and distance of
coordinates could be defined without anything like a rod.
So we have a material object in one case and coordinates in space as a
different topic.
These two distinct topics deserve different names for respective attributes.
And, sure, usually we do not a call a distance in space 'length'.
TH
Thomas Heger
Oct 27, 2016, 2:28:31 AM10/27/16
to
Am 25.10.2016 01:33, schrieb Peter Riedt:
>> Peter, you should know better. In the English dictionary are listed
>> several definitions of words, and which one is appropriate depends on
>> context. If you use the inappropriate definition for a given context,
>> then this is your own mistake.
>>
>>> and their opposites are
>>> 'not real/untrue/non existing/non present'. The former do not apply to LC but the latter do.
>>>
>>> Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist.
>>
>> No, Peter, what he said is that it depends on what you mean by "real".
>> And here he explained what HE means by real, and you insist on taking a
>> different definition.
>>
>>> His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is affected by LC.
The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction' because the
>> Peter, you should know better. In the English dictionary are listed
>> several definitions of words, and which one is appropriate depends on
>> context. If you use the inappropriate definition for a given context,
>> then this is your own mistake.
>>
>>> and their opposites are
>>> 'not real/untrue/non existing/non present'. The former do not apply to LC but the latter do.
>>>
>>> Einstein did not give a logically conclusive reply, he said LC does and doesn't exist.
>>
>> No, Peter, what he said is that it depends on what you mean by "real".
>> And here he explained what HE means by real, and you insist on taking a
>> different definition.
>>
>>> His reply is only accepted on the basis that a genius cannot be doubted.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is affected by LC.
device was rotated only horizontal.
They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed.
This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical,
not horizontal.
Actually the assumptions about 'ether' by Michelson and Morley were
unclear and at least twisted. They assumed something like a thin,
invisible gas, that fills all space.
But 'thin invisible gas' is called 'atmosphere' near the surface of
planet Earth. And this is - of course - there.
But apparently this 'ether' does not make interferometer-arms longer or
shorter.
So: 'ether' is not a gas and can apparently fall and vanish into the Earth.
This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether
and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance.
To illustrate this behaviour I use the picture of a pair of scissors.
If closed, the thing is simply not there. If it opens, then two
antagonistic rotations appear out of nowhere - like in pair creation.
But these rotations like to reconnect and would like to close the blades
again and vanish into nothing, what makes the thing drop (and the Earth
grow).
Well, certainly sounds weird. But - fortunately - I have written this
'book':
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
TH
Gary Harnagel
Oct 27, 2016, 8:51:18 AM10/27/16
to
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 12:28:31 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 25.10.2016 01:33, schrieb Peter Riedt:
> >
> > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is
> > affected by LC.
>
> The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction'
True.
>
> Am 25.10.2016 01:33, schrieb Peter Riedt:
> >
> > Please tell me your version how MMX, the experiment in the lab, is
> > affected by LC.
>
> The MMX experiment is not affected by 'length contraction'
> because the device was rotated only horizontal.
position of the lab as the earth rotates and moves about the sun. If you
do this correctly, you will see that the horizontal rotation causes the
beams to lie along the earth's motion about the sun part of the time.
> They attempted to measure 'ether drift', but failed.
> This was inevitable, since 'ether drift' is assumed to occur vertical,
> not horizontal.
> Actually the assumptions about 'ether' by Michelson and Morley were
> unclear and at least twisted. They assumed something like a thin,
> invisible gas, that fills all space.
>
> But 'thin invisible gas' is called 'atmosphere' near the surface of
> planet Earth. And this is - of course - there.
> But apparently this 'ether' does not make interferometer-arms longer or
> shorter.
> So: 'ether' is not a gas and can apparently fall and vanish into the Earth.
was that the ether was "entrained" by the rotation of the earth (this
assumption has been refuted by experiment).
> This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether
> and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance.
sun by now.
> [More crazy stuff deleted]
Walter Bautista
Oct 27, 2016, 10:21:49 AM10/27/16
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether
>> and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance.
>
> Then the earth should be heating up and should be the temperature of the
> sun by now.
No, since a hypothetical existing Aether would contain planets along its
>> This could be understood as is Earth would be a 'vortex' of this ether
>> and what is falling is something carrying energy, not a substance.
>
> Then the earth should be heating up and should be the temperature of the
> sun by now.
structure (crystal undeformable). Things deforms, not the Aether. You both
are getting it upside-down, symmetrical.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 27, 2016, 10:55:11 AM10/27/16
to
On 10/24/2016 6:29 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:36:39 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 1:35 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>
>> Again here, Peter, it's unwise to take Einstein's sentence out of
>> context. What he stated at the time was that he felt that some kind of
>> ether was needed conceptually, but that whatever that is, it bears no
>> resemblance whatsover to the luminiferous ether that had been supposed
>> up until that point. So he was pretty clear in stating that the
>> luminiferous ether that had been supposed by his predecessors did NOT
>> exist.
>>
>> The ether that remained for Einstein is what is now called spacetime.
>>
> Einstein did not call the aether spacetime; he called the aether aether.
That's true in the one article you're thinking of. Elsewhere he said
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:36:39 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 1:35 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> Einstein confirmed that the aether cannot be denied; it exists. Was he wrong?
>>
>> Again here, Peter, it's unwise to take Einstein's sentence out of
>> context. What he stated at the time was that he felt that some kind of
>> ether was needed conceptually, but that whatever that is, it bears no
>> resemblance whatsover to the luminiferous ether that had been supposed
>> up until that point. So he was pretty clear in stating that the
>> luminiferous ether that had been supposed by his predecessors did NOT
>> exist.
>>
>> The ether that remained for Einstein is what is now called spacetime.
>>
> Einstein did not call the aether spacetime; he called the aether aether.
differently. Moreover, Einstein is not the sole source of what
relativity says.
> Michelson also did in 1887 again accept the aether when he suggested
> different experiments to identify it.
things had changed.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 27, 2016, 10:55:20 AM10/27/16
to
On 10/24/2016 6:30 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:27:50 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 12:12 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson
>>> said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect
>>> the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
>>
>> I think you will find that the ambivalence has been resolved in the 129
>> years since 1887.
>
I disagree. This is based on READING recent books, which I gather you
have not done.
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 9:27:50 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 12:12 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> I agree. The real issue for me is the confusion about the aether. In 1881 Michelson
>>> said there is no aether. In 1887 he suggested different experiments that could detect
>>> the aether. Ever since, science has been ambivalent about this elusive substance.
>>
>> I think you will find that the ambivalence has been resolved in the 129
>> years since 1887.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> On the contrary, the ambivalence has been reinforced.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
I disagree. This is based on READING recent books, which I gather you
have not done.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages