Michelson used wrong logic

[Peter Riedt]

The Lorentz transforms and Einstein’s otiose Special Relativity Theory are no longer relevant because:

Both Einstein and Lorentz based their theories on a misconception by Michelson who made the incorrect assumption that the light paths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer equipment in his famous experiment differed by D(vv/VV). In fact, the two light paths are exactly equal.

Michelson and Morley used an interferometer in their 1887 experiment to detect the aether. This equipment according to M&M had a parallel arm with a light path of 22.00000022m [2D(1+vv/cc)] and a perpendicular arm with a light path of 22.00000011m [2D(1+vv/2cc)]. The difference of 0.00000011m [D(vv/VV)] should have produced an interference fringe ring shift but did not.

Michelson applied the law of reflection in his logic of the experiment but incorrectly so. He mistakenly had the ray on the perpendicular arm move to B1 placing the normal(N) from B1 to an incorrect point on distance AC. In the corrected version of the experiment a light ray leaves the beam splitter A at a right angle, impacts on the mirror at B and leaves it at a small acute angle towards C on the parallel arm. In the meantime the split ray moves from A to D and back to C where it meets the ray coming from B without interference because distance ABC equals distance ADC.

The Proof:

D=11m, c=300000000m/sec, c=30000m/sec
ADC = 22.00000022m [Michelson: 2D(1+vv/cc)]
AB = 11m [Riedt: D]
AC = 0.0000000733333340666667sec [Riedt: (2D(1+vv/cc))/c]
AC = 0.002200000022m [Riedt: ((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v]
BC = 11.00000022m [Riedt: sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)]
ABC = 11m + 11.00000022m = 22.00000022m
[Riedt: D + sqrt(D^2+(((2D(1+vv/cc))/c)*v)^2)]

B
|\
| \
| \
| \
| \
----A-----C------>D
<------




Click here to Reply

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:11:15 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> Both Einstein and Lorentz based their theories on a misconception by Michelson who made the incorrect assumption that the light paths of the perpendicular and parallel arms of the interferometer equipment in his famous experiment differed by D(vv/VV). In fact, the two light paths are exactly equal.

1. SR is not based on MMX
2. You are a cretin
3. You will die a cretin.

[donsto...@hotmail.com]

Not if he achieves everlasting life through Jesus Christ.

[Peter Riedt]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 5:12:49 AM UTC+8, donsto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Not if he achieves everlasting life through Jesus Christ.

I am a Buddhist but have not been a good one and cannot escape into Nirvana after this life and must return into another life cycle. No problem. I look forward to my next life.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:58:42 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> I am a Buddhist but have not been a good one and cannot escape into Nirvana
> after this life and must return into another life cycle. No problem. I look
> forward to my next life.

Let's hope you're MUCH smarter in that life than you are in this one.

[Peter Riedt]

I may not be smarter but will always out-think text book parrots.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 6:28:39 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> I may not be smarter but will always out-think text book parrots.

Cretin. Unfixable.

[Odd Bodkin]

Peter, to be honest, I think you are fooling yourself here. I don't
think you're out-thinking anyone.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Gary Harnagel]

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool.” -- Richard P. Feynman

[Peter Riedt]

'You' meaning Gary Harnagel.

[Gary Harnagel]

"You" meaning anyone proposing a new theory. I'm not the one doing that.
YOU are.

[Peter Riedt]

'New theories' surely include SR and GR.

[Gary Harnagel]

So you believe theories that are older than you (and which are confirmed
by experimental evidence), are "new"? But you DON'T believe your silly
ideas (that have no support whatever), are new? Interesting.

Peter, it's obvious you're trying to spin reality here.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

No, SR and GR are old, well-established theories supported by over a century
of success, experimental verification, and practical validation in real life.

[Peter Riedt]

In 1905 SR was a new theory. Without new theories there would be no old theories. So Feynman's statement is ..... BS, like the rest.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:

> In 1905 SR was a new theory. Without new theories there would be no old theories. So Feynman's statement is ..... BS, like the rest.

You are not qualified to judge Feynmen, a great, great physicist. You wouldn't be qualified to wash his jock strap.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 9 października 2016 13:20:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:

> No, SR and GR are old, well-established theories supported by over a century
> of success, experimental verification,

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

> and practical validation in real life.

Yeah. GPS validated your moronic concepts as
totally useless.

[Peter Riedt]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 10:33:57 AM UTC+8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 6:32:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> > In 1905 SR was a new theory. Without new theories there would be no old theories. So Feynman's statement is ..... BS, like the rest.
>
> You are not qualified to judge Feynmen, a great, great physicist.

I didn't judge the man but his statement and the theory. You however and the relativity fraternity always abuse dissenting voices. Look yourselves in the mirror.

[Gary Harnagel]

Somehow, you are letting the truth of Feynman's quote fly right over your
head. It's not whether a "theory" is new or old, it's whether it's foolish
or not. The one who proposes a new "theory" is often incapable of seeing
its flaws. You have to admit that that sort of thing is rampant in this
group :-)

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 10 października 2016 13:32:33 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> or not. The one who proposes a new "theory" is often incapable of seeing
> its flaws. You have to admit that that sort of thing is rampant in this
> group :-)

And it's even more rampant with fanatic believers of
old theories.

[Gary Harnagel]

And none is more fanatic than you in your belief of things like phlogiston
theory.

[Peter Riedt]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 7:32:33 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The one who proposes a new "theory" is often incapable of seeing
> its flaws. You have to admit that that sort of thing is rampant in this

> group.

Your assessment of new theories applies to all theories after 1900. The most bizarre theories have proliferated since then, science has taken over from religion, no more virgin births, miracles and resurrections but big bang, SR, GR, black holes, quantum mechanics, expansion of the universe, etc. All are believe systems overseen by popes, cardinals, bishops and high priests. All are treated as dogma and must be treated with political correctness.

[Melzzzzz]

Well, belief taht universe is 13 billions year old and that it begin
in BingBang is similar to belief that Earth is flat and center of
Universe ;)

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[pnal...@gmail.com]

OK, I'll amend my statement...you are not qualified to judge Feynman's theory. You really don't have a clue. His level of intelligence was so far above your own as to be laughable. I knew Feynman, I attended his lectures, and you are no match for the man's brilliance, Peter. It is no wonder that you don't understand his teachings, you are just another average person...

"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."

- Richard P. Feynman

[Dono,]

The fact that you are a cretin who cannot follow the above mentioned theories doesn't mean that they are "religion". It simply means you are a cretin.

[Peter Riedt]

I didn't judge Feynman's theory. I rejected a statement of his.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 7:51:45 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 7:32:33 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The one who proposes a new "theory" is often incapable of seeing
> > its flaws. You have to admit that that sort of thing is rampant in this
> > group.
>
> Your assessment of new theories applies to all theories after 1900.

So you don't believe the concept of photons but you do believe Maxwell's
equations? You believe E = h*f and E = p*c but you don't believe
c/f = h/p? How silly!

You believe Lorentz's ad hoc phenomenological transform but you don't
believe Einstein's logical derivation of the LT? How illogical!

> The most bizarre theories have proliferated since then,

Yes, there's Ned Latham's bizarre speculations and Wilson's refuted BaTh
and then there are YOUR bizarre ideas.

> science has taken over from religion, no more virgin births, miracles and
> resurrections but big bang,

There are alternative theories to the big bang (e.g., Paul Steinhardt's
ekpyrotic universe).

> SR,

Come now! SR is reconfirmed every day in particle accelerators.

> GR,

Come, come! GR has also been confirmed many, many times. Do you use a GPS
receiver? Also see Cassini's verification of the Shapiro effect, Gravity
Probe B, etc.

> black holes,

Well, there might not be such things. Certainly, the concept of the
singularity is non-physical.

> quantum mechanics,

Quantum mechanics is probably the mechanism that prevents formation of
a singularity.

> expansion of the universe, etc. All are believe systems overseen by popes,
> cardinals, bishops and high priests. All are treated as dogma and must be
> treated with political correctness.

I think you bizarrely overstate the case, as demonstrated by your rejection
of all the evidence surrounding you.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 11 października 2016 14:07:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> > SR,
>
> Come now! SR is reconfirmed every day in particle accelerators.

According to your "logic" whatever confirms SR
confirms also Lorentz's theory.

> > GR,
>
> Come, come! GR has also been confirmed many, many times. Do you use a GPS
> receiver?

A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.

IF GPS used your moronic standards and
procedures, it wouldn't work at all.

[paparios]

Do not feed the troll

[Odd Bodkin]

Peter, no scientist is ever asking you to accept something on faith.
Instead, they invite you to learn the subject by reading and study.

There are two kinds of responses to that invitation:
- There are those who jump in and read up on physics and learn it. This
is not brainwashing, it is education. There is nothing harmful about
education ever.
- There are those who shy away from reading and study and therefore
never learn the subject. That's fine, too. Anybody who does not learn
the subject will most sensibly say, "I have nothing to say on the
matter, because I know very little about it."

Where people get into trouble is when they are in the second camp, do
not read or study, but then insist that they have the sensible position
to reject claims in a subject they know nothing about. This is where you
are, Peter, and it's foolish.

[Peter Riedt]

I am thinking outside the box and consider education as conditioning and textbooks useful only to understand the arguments of opponents but not to be accepted as gospel.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 20:55:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

>
> Peter, no scientist is ever asking you to accept something on faith.
> Instead, they invite you to learn the subject by reading and study.

Odd, no priest is ever asking you to accept something

on faith. Instead, they invite you to learn the subject

by reading the Holy Books and study.

[Peter Riedt]

Both religion and science use their scriptures and dogma to achieve compliance, control and acquiescence.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Both religion and science are programming us.
Their goals differ, but their methods are
similiar.

[Poutnik]

The scientific dogma is,
that if you want to get to the top of the mountain of science,
you have to climb there with all your skills and effort,
if they are good enough.

There is no shortcut like a helicopter troop deployment.

But many people with minimal skills in math and physics
like to make speculative statements,
as if they have ever been there.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 12:09:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:
> On 10/18/2016 11:03 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:15:15 PM UTC+8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >> W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 20:55:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Peter, no scientist is ever asking you to accept something on faith.
> >>> Instead, they invite you to learn the subject by reading and study.
> >>
> >> Odd, no priest is ever asking you to accept something
> >> on faith. Instead, they invite you to learn the subject
> >> by reading the Holy Books and study.
> >
> > Both religion and science use their scriptures and dogma to achieve compliance, control and acquiescence.
>
> The scientific dogma is,
> that if you want to get to the top of the mountain of science,
> you have to climb there with all your skills and effort,
> if they are good enough.

Similiarly, if you want to reach the Kingdom of
Heavens, you have to climb there... blahblahblahblahblah.
Just be obedient, and reward will be great.

[Odd Bodkin]

That's a bad thinking there, Peter. Education is never "conditioning" or
harmful. And in science, it isn't about "the arguments of opponents".
It's one thing and one thing only: agreement with data.

If you have the impression that you have the freedom to disagree with
arguments and not bother with the support of experimental data, then I'm
afraid you're not following how science works. This, by the way, is
what's in books.

[Odd Bodkin]

Peter, science isn't about opinions. It's about data. If theory A agrees
with data better than theories B, C, D, or E, then theory A is a better
representation of nature than the other theories. Period. If you want to
maintain some kind of stance of "intellectual freedom" and insist that
you don't want to believe theory A anyway and prefer theory D instead,
then you are pissing upwind.

Science is designed to FORCE scientists to come into alignment on what
theory is most valid, because nature (as exposed in experimental
observation) trumps all matters of choice. Science is NOT about freedom
of thought or opinion. If you think this is poisonous, then science
isn't your thing and you should stick to matters where freedom of
opinion is important, like politics or the arts.

[Jim Barthel]

Poutnik wrote:

>> Both religion and science use their scriptures and dogma to achieve
>> compliance, control and acquiescence.
>
> The scientific dogma is, that if you want to get to the top of the
> mountain of science, you have to climb there with all your skills and
> effort, if they are good enough. There is no shortcut like a helicopter
> troop deployment. But many people with minimal skills in math and
> physics like to make speculative statements,

Budnig, let me guess. That people is not you in any sensible way.

[Peter Riedt]

I practice the freedom to point out the inconsistencies of science and its differences from facts and logic.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 17:13:36 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> That's a bad thinking there, Peter. Education is never "conditioning" or
> harmful. And in science, it isn't about "the arguments of opponents".
> It's one thing and one thing only: agreement with data.

You don't know much about both education and science.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 17:33:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> Peter, science isn't about opinions. It's about data. If theory A agrees
> with data better than theories B, C, D, or E, then theory A is a better
> representation of nature than the other theories.

That's how little Jonah imagines a war.

[Poutnik]

On 10/19/2016 06:09 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:

> I practice the freedom to point out the inconsistencies of science and its differences from facts and logic.

Pointing out inconsistencies requires understanding.
The freedom without it leads to free foolishness.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 11:23:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> > I practice the freedom to point out the inconsistencies of science and its differences from facts and logic.
>
> Pointing out inconsistencies requires understanding.

How dare you to criticize communism, fool!
Have you ever read just single book of comerade
Lenin? Not even talking about understanding
it...

[Odd Bodkin]

There are no inconsistencies in the scientists' presentation of
relativity. There may be some inconsistency between something they say
and something you believe (like what "real" length contraction would
mean), but that's irrelevant.

You cannot point to any two statements scientists make about relativity
that are contradictory to each other. There are no inconsistencies, if
you look.

> and its differences from facts and logic.

Sorry, but I don't necessarily buy into what YOU believe are "facts".
Name one thing you believe is a fact, and which is inconsistent with
relativity. When you state that fact, be sure to include the evidence
that shows this to be a fact.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 14:42:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> There are no inconsistencies in the scientists' presentation of
> relativity.

Buhahahahahahahaha.

[Peter Riedt]

The admission of Einstein that LC is not real for comoving observers is inconsistent with the claim that Lorentz gamma formula explains the null result of MMX and the claim that the null result of KTX explains that LC is responsible for the failure of KTX to observe a fringe shift. Fundamental facts.

[Dono,]

Stubborn imbecile,
Relativistic effects DO NOT EXIST for co-moving observers. Cretin. Incurable.

[Peter Riedt]

Neither for non-comoving observers.

[Dono,]

Cretin. Incurable.

[Odd Bodkin]

First of all, the explanation for the MMX result that invokes the
Lorentz contraction is not for the comoving observer.

Secondly, you have mistakenly taken Einstein's statement (for which you
STILL owe a reference), where you say he says that length contraction is
not "real" for the comoving observer and "real" for a relatively moving
observer, to mean that length contraction is not real at all but only an
apparent effect. Einstein did not say that or imply it.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/20/2016 1:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> Stubborn imbecile,
>> > Relativistic effects DO NOT EXIST for co-moving observers. Cretin. Incurable.
> Neither for non-comoving observers.

And this is where measurements prove that claim wrong.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 20 października 2016 14:15:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 10/20/2016 1:24 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> Stubborn imbecile,
> >> > Relativistic effects DO NOT EXIST for co-moving observers. Cretin. Incurable.
> > Neither for non-comoving observers.
>
> And this is where measurements prove that claim wrong.

Rather, this is where brainwashed moron lies.

[Peter Riedt]

Comoving and non-comoving are opposites. Einstein differentiated between them; one was not real and one 'could be demonstrated in principle to be real'. Michelson was a comoving observer and was not able to observe the Lorentz contraction because it was not real and did not exist. According to Einstein, if Michelson had been observing the interferometer measurements at a different speed of 30000m he may have been able 'to demonstrate in principle the Lorentz contraction'.

In any event the null result was caused by Michelson's error of the angle he wrongly assumed for the ray at the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.
Michelson realised this himself. In the supplement to his 1887 paper he tried to give a detailed explanation with diagram's of the laws of reflection, stating that they are different for moving surfaces. In the same place he suggested a different experimental arrangement to prove the motion of the solar system in reference to the stars AND the luminoferous aether.

[Dono,]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 5:45:32 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Einstein differentiated between them; one was not real and one 'could be demonstrated in principle to be real'.

Now you are compounding your imbecility by outright lies.

> According to Einstein, if Michelson had been observing the interferometer measurements at a different speed of 30000m he may have been able 'to demonstrate in principle the Lorentz contraction'.
>

Imbecile

SR shows that if there is no fringe shift for ONE observer then there is no fringe shift for ANY observer. Cretin. Pathological.

> In any event the null result was caused by Michelson's error of the angle he wrongly assumed for the ray at the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.

Repeating the same cretinism over and over doesn't make it true.

[Peter Riedt]

That only applies to you.

[Dono,]

You can stop proving your utter imbecility, everybody is convinced.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes.

> Einstein differentiated between them;
> one was not real and one 'could be demonstrated in principle to be real'.

Not quite what he was saying. What he was saying is that length
contraction is real, but it's a mistake to say that "real" means that it
will also appear to a comoving observer. The effect is real but it is
only present for relatively moving observers. This is not unusual. The
phenomenon of kinetic energy of an object is only present for a
relatively moving observer and no kinetic energy is there in the object
for a comoving observer. Nevertheless, kinetic energy is real. So is
length contraction.

> Michelson was a comoving observer and was not able to observe the Lorentz
> contraction because it was not real and did not exist.

This is true. However, from Michelson's frame, the accounting for the
null result of the MMX does not depend in any way on length contraction.

> According to Einstein,
> if Michelson had been observing the interferometer measurements at a different
> speed of 30000m he may have been able 'to demonstrate in principle the
> Lorentz contraction'.

30,000 m/s?
Yes, but that wasn't the point anyway.

>
> In any event the null result was caused by Michelson's error of the angle he
> wrongly assumed for the ray at the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.

No, the null result was due to the speed of light not being dependent on
an aether.

> Michelson realised this himself. In the supplement to his 1887 paper he tried
> to give a detailed explanation with diagram's of the laws of reflection, stating
> that they are different for moving surfaces. In the same place he suggested a
> different experimental arrangement to prove the motion of the solar system in
> reference to the stars AND the luminoferous aether.
>

[Peter Riedt]

It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is responsible for the null result. If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur. The opposite is claimed for MMX.

[Dono,]

Cretin. Incurable.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is
> responsible for the null result.

Either you misunderstood them or you picked some fools for your "authorities."

"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

> If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur.

See? This is what happens when you cut short your education.

> The opposite is claimed for MMX.

Not if you appeal to LET. You are extremely confused and disoriented.

[Peter Riedt]

Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around the sun".

I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being real for comoving observers.

Bod suggested that Einstein's response to Varicak meant that LC is real but cannot be identified by human efforts.

I could reply to Bod the aether is also real but this has not be directly identified by anyone as yet.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:24:07 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:26:56 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is
> > > responsible for the null result.
> >
> > Either you misunderstood them or you picked some fools for your
> > "authorities."
> >
> > "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
> > mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."
> >
> > https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
> >
> > > If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur.
> >
> > See? This is what happens when you cut short your education.
> >
> > > The opposite is claimed for MMX.
> >
> > Not if you appeal to LET. You are extremely confused and disoriented.
>
> Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley
> experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative
> result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in
> addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be
> detected while the earth moves around the sun".
>
> I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX
> is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being
> real for comoving observers.

This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page.
This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority."

Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it
makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable.
Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't
either.

By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't
see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector
are stationary in the laboratory frame.

> Bod suggested that Einstein's response to Varicak meant that LC is real
> but cannot be identified by human efforts.
>
> I could reply to Bod the aether is also real but this has not be directly
> identified by anyone as yet.

By LET it has not only not been identified, it CANNOT be identified by ANY
experiment. As Einstein said:

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence
of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to
it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical
characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_aether.html

If it has no "mechanical" attributes, does it have any existence at all?
Is it ectoplasm?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley
> > experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative
> > result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in
> > addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be
> > detected while the earth moves around the sun".
> >
> > I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX
> > is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being
> > real for comoving observers.
>
> This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page.
> This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority."
>
> Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
> explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it
> makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable.
> Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't
> either.
>
> By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't
> see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector
> are stationary in the laboratory frame.

I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment

Somebody who is *determined* to misread the page to justify his misconceptions
about special relativity will certainly be able to do so. I have certainly
found it to be the case that crackpots can misread Taylor & Wheeler, Ohanian
and other standard texts on the subject. Likewise, the New Testament can be
read to justify pogroms against the Jews, the Koran can be read to justify
ISIS atrocities, the Constitution could be read to justify the Dred Scott
decision, etc.

Peter is in the *determined* category.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/21/16 10/21/16 11:23 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley
> experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative result
> of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to
> length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the
> earth moves around the sun".
>
> I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX is
> real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being real for
> comoving observers.

That is TERRIBLE reading on your part -- the article does not say that AT ALL.

Hint: "explanation" is NOT AT ALL the same as "real".

Moreover, Wikipedia is no "expert" -- with such shoddy reading and such silly
misconceptions, it's no wonder you are so confused.

Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:55:45 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley
> > > experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative
> > > result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in
> > > addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be
> > > detected while the earth moves around the sun".
> > >
> > > I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX
> > > is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being
> > > real for comoving observers.
> >
> > This is why you need more understanding than you can get from a Wiki page.
> > This is a perfect example of baloney from an "authority."
> >
> > Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
> > explanation of the MMX. LET is rejected by mainstream science because it
> > makes the assumed ether theoretically and experimentally undetectable.
> > Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't
> > either.
> >
> > By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results. I can't
> > see why it would be any different for KTX since the source and detector
> > are stationary in the laboratory frame.
>
> I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment

Really? So how do you justify what it said:

"the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by
length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike
experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to
explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around
the sun."

This is 19th century mumbo jumbo.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:5a607ab2-d955-4e9e...@googlegroups.com...

|Science doesn't like assumptions that cannot be tested. You shouldn't
|either.

Surprisingly honest, probably because poor idiot Gary doesn't understand
what he is writing. Yes, these zillions of experiments confirming is a
pure bullshit. The true reasons relativists believe their Shit is -
they don't like other theories.

[Dwain Foster]

Il giorno martedì 11 ottobre 2016 09:46:59 UTC+-4, Gary Harnagel ha
scritto:

> "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained
> by length contraction alone, the negative result of the
> Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to
> length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while
> the earth moves around the sun."
>
> This is 19th century mumbo jumbo.

No, the above is in support of the Divergent Matter theory, whereas the
appearance of Time Dilation is present, but there is no Length Contraction.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/21/2016 7:55 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 10:08:16 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 7:45 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> In any event the null result was caused by Michelson's error of the angle he
>>> wrongly assumed for the ray at the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm.
>>
>> No, the null result was due to the speed of light not being dependent on
>> an aether.
>>
>
> It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is

Bullshit.

> responsible for the null result. If this is so it means the aether is real
> and LC did occur. The opposite is claimed for MMX.
>

[Dono,]

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 9:24:07 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 11:26:56 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 6:55:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > >
> > > It is claimed by the SR authorities that KTX proves that LC and TD is
> > > responsible for the null result.
> >
> > Either you misunderstood them or you picked some fools for your "authorities."
> >
> > "3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made
> > mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future."
> >
> > https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
> >
> > > If this is so it means the aether is real and LC did occur.
> >
> > See? This is what happens when you cut short your education.
> >
> > > The opposite is claimed for MMX.
> >
> > Not if you appeal to LET. You are extremely confused and disoriented.
>
> Wikipedia states: ".....while the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around the sun".
>
> I read this as an acceptance by mainstream science that LC in MMX and KTX is real but it is in contradiction of Einstein's rejection of LC being real for comoving observers.
>

Repeated cretin

LC is not APPLICABLE to co-moving observers. You have been told this repeatedly but you are to much of an imbecile to understand.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:55:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
> explanation of the MMX.

This is incorrect. LC enters the explanation of MMX in SR as well.

> LET is rejected by mainstream science

This is incorrect as well. LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

> By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results.

False. Both LC (and TD) are integral parts of explaining MMX by SR.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:34:21 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by
> length contraction alone,

Wiki is wrong on this. TD enters in the explanation of MMX. It is just that LC is pivotal in the explanation while TD is secondary.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:16:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:55:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
> > explanation of the MMX.
>
> This is incorrect. LC enters the explanation of MMX in SR as well.

Nope. in SR the invariant speed of light is all that is needed.

> > LET is rejected by mainstream science
>
> This is incorrect as well. LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

But it is STILL rejected by mainstream science.

> > By SR, neither LC nor TD is necessary to explain the MMX results.
>
>
> False. Both LC (and TD) are integral parts of explaining MMX by SR.

You really need to study harder.

> > "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained
> > by length contraction alone"
>

> Wiki is wrong on this.

Yes, it is.

> TD enters in the explanation of MMX.

No, it doesn't.

> It is just that LC is pivotal in the explanation while TD is secondary.

You need to get a better grip on what SR says.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:34:21 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:43:08 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > I see nothing "baloney" about the Wikipedia article on Kennedy-Thorndike
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment
>
> Really? So how do you justify what it said:
>
> "the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment can be explained by
> length contraction alone, the negative result of the Kennedy–Thorndike
> experiment requires time dilation in addition to length contraction to
> explain why no phase shifts will be detected while the earth moves around
> the sun."
>
> This is 19th century mumbo jumbo.

No, it is a fairly straightforward summary in English of the mathematical
argument presented in the following section of the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment#Basic_theory_of_the_experiment

What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would *YOU*
write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a better English
summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly. I am a reasonably well
respected Wikipedia editor of long standing.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:26:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:16:39 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:55:45 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > Only according to Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) does LC enter into an
> > > explanation of the MMX.
> >
> > This is incorrect. LC enters the explanation of MMX in SR as well.
>
> Nope. in SR the invariant speed of light is all that is needed.
>

Repeating the same idiocy is one of your trademarks. TD is unavoidable when calculating the time from a moving frame.

[Dwain Foster]

Il giorno martedì 11 ottobre 2016 09:46:59 UTC+-4, Gary Harnagel ha
scritto:

>> This is incorrect. LC enters the explanation of MMX in SR as well.
>
> Nope. in SR the invariant speed of light is all that is needed.

Then why is an invariant speed of light needed, when as you say, LC is not
needed. You contradict yourself, doctor. See it now?

>> TD enters in the explanation of MMX.
>
> No, it doesn't.

:) and how is that MMX suppose to happen, when TD must not enter? Very
funny indeed. At your age.

[Dono,]

You may want to change this:

"Although Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction (Lorentz contraction) BY ITSELF is fully able to explain the null results of the Michelson–Morley experiment,"

You will need to remove the "BY ITSELF" because it is incorrect.

[Gary Harnagel]

The "explanation" given in what I quoted from the wiki article has Lorentz
Ether Theory for its genesis. The modern interpretation does not involve
length contraction (or time dilation) because both source and detector
are stationary in the same inertial frame; i.e., v = 0 and gamma = 1.

The whole article is so screwed up that an "update" is hopeless.

[Gary Harnagel]

There is no "moving frame."

[Dono,]

Err,

The explanation has TWO pointsm, not one:

1. From the POV of the lab
2. From the POV of an observer moving wrt the lab. This explanation needs:

2.1. TD and LC for KTX
2.2. In the case of MMX it needs LC (in the frame of the moving observer) and LC+TD (in order to transform the result back into the frame of the lab).

[Dono,]

Don't be an idiot, the explanation is done from the POV of:

1. the lab comoving wrt the interferometer
2. an external observer in motion wrt the lab

BOTH explanations are equally valid and equally important.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of the MMX
experiment. Lorentz noted that the transformation equations implied by
FitzGerald contraction were inconsistent: they did not form a group. Consistency
required the addition of terms implying time dilation; hence length contraction
is now referred to as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction.

[Dwain Foster]

Il giorno martedì 11 ottobre 2016 09:46:59 UTC-4, Gary Harnagel ha
scritto:

>> > > This is incorrect. LC enters the explanation of MMX in SR as well.
>> >
>> > Nope. in SR the invariant speed of light is all that is needed.
>>
>> Repeating the same idiocy is one of your trademarks. TD is unavoidable
>> when calculating the time from a moving frame.
>
> There is no "moving frame."

Go get your money back from kindergarten.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:59:39 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of the MMX
> experiment.

Yes, from the assumption of an ether, which is no longer assumed.

> Lorentz noted that the transformation equations implied by FitzGerald
> contraction were inconsistent: they did not form a group. Consistency
> required the addition of terms implying time dilation; hence length
> contraction is now referred to as Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction.

IIRC, it was Poincare who noted the inconsistency. But all three were
assuming the existence of the ether. SR does not use the ether, so there
is no observer moving wrt the ether and no movement of instrument wrt the
observer. Hence no LC and no TD since v = 0.

[Gary Harnagel]

What observer is moving wrt the lab?

> 2.1. TD and LC for KTX
> 2.2. In the case of MMX it needs LC (in the frame of the moving observer)
> and LC+TD (in order to transform the result back into the frame of the lab).

There is no moving observer.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:56:45 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 7:49:31 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > The "explanation" given in what I quoted from the wiki article has Lorentz
> > > Ether Theory for its genesis. The modern interpretation does not involve
> > > length contraction (or time dilation) because both source and detector
> > > are stationary in the same inertial frame; i.e., v = 0 and gamma = 1.
> > >
> > > The whole article is so screwed up that an "update" is hopeless.
> >
> > Err,
> >
> > The explanation has TWO pointsm, not one:
> >
> > 1. From the POV of the lab
> > 2. From the POV of an observer moving wrt the lab. This explanation needs:
>
> What observer is moving wrt the lab?
>

ANY.

> > 2.1. TD and LC for KTX
> > 2.2. In the case of MMX it needs LC (in the frame of the moving observer)
> > and LC+TD (in order to transform the result back into the frame of the lab).
>
> There is no moving observer.

Repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it right. ANY observer wrt. the lab is moving is an example.

[Dwain Foster]

Il giorno martedì Sat, 22 Oct 2016 08:41:59 -0700-4, Gary Harnagel ha
scritto:

>> More precisely: FitzGerald contraction explained the null results of
>> the MMX experiment.
>
> Yes, from the assumption of an ether, which is no longer assumed.

This correct, however the signal is still present, for various reasons.
The signal indicates a Doppler Shift.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Sorting out who believed what and when is rather difficult for those of us who
are not professional historians of science. What is obvious is that
understanding came only gradually to those who were working on this issue.

FitzGerald proposed the contraction hypothesis in 1899 and Lorentz independently
proposed it in 1892. By 1892-1895, Lorentz had introduced the concept of "local
time" t' = t-vx/c^2, but it is clear that he wasn't thinking in terms of group
theory, but rather considered local time as a heuristic working hypothesis.
Poincare was the first to see Lorentz's local time hypothesis as being more than
just a math trick, and by 1900 wrote of local time as being an artifact of the
procedure used to synchronize clocks using light signals. So it would seem that
the complete set of equations making up the Lorentz transformation were
discovered before recognition that they formed a group, which seems to have been
in 1905.

So yes, it seems that I was off in my history.

I might mention that Kennedy and Thorndike did not presuppose SR in their
derivation of the effects that sought to measure (or not, as the case may be)
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test* of SR,
*** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***
The "test theory" employed by KT presumed the validity of LC but not TD within
the context of a semi-classical aether. Measurement of a fringe shift would
have invalidated the relativistic prediction of time dilation.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:47:30 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:42:23 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:56:45 AM UTC-6, Dono, wrote:
> > >
> > > The explanation has TWO pointsm, not one:
> > >
> > > 1. From the POV of the lab
> > > 2. From the POV of an observer moving wrt the lab. This explanation needs:
> >
> > What observer is moving wrt the lab?
> >
>
> ANY.

Nope. Not you, not me, not Michelson.

> > > 2.1. TD and LC for KTX
> > > 2.2. In the case of MMX it needs LC (in the frame of the moving observer)
> > > and LC+TD (in order to transform the result back into the frame of the
> > > lab).
> >
> > There is no moving observer.
>
> Repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it right.

And you keep repeating that "any" observer is moving, but neither you nor
me nor Michelson were moving wrt the instrumentation.

> ANY observer wrt. the lab is moving is an example.

Irrelevant. It is stationary wrt the observer. That's all that matters.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:35:54 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > What problems do you have with the math in the above section? How would
> > > *YOU* write an English summary of the math? If you manage to provide a
> > > better English summary of the math, I will update Wikipedia accordingly.
> > > I am a reasonably well respected Wikipedia editor of long standing.
> >
> > The "explanation" given in what I quoted from the wiki article has Lorentz
> > Ether Theory for its genesis. The modern interpretation does not involve
> > length contraction (or time dilation) because both source and detector
> > are stationary in the same inertial frame; i.e., v = 0 and gamma = 1.
> >
> > The whole article is so screwed up that an "update" is hopeless.
>
> I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test* of SR,
> *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***

So why does the article assume the validity of LET?

> The "test theory" employed by KT presumed the validity of LC but not TD
> within the context of a semi-classical aether.

Yes, but the article is about an ether solution, so why does it say the KTX
is "testing relativity"? The former requires LC and TD, the latter does
not.

> Measurement of a fringe shift would have invalidated the relativistic
> prediction of time dilation.

Sure, but neither is required for a SR explanation. For that, all you need
are the two postulates (plus homogeneity and linearity of space and time
in a given frame). In fact, all you need is the second postulate to
explain the MMX and the KTX.

[Dono,]

I can only waste that much time explaining things to you.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:23:09 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test* of SR,
> > *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***
>
> So why does the article assume the validity of LET?

Where does it state that?

> > The "test theory" employed by KT presumed the validity of LC but not TD
> > within the context of a semi-classical aether.
>
> Yes, but the article is about an ether solution,

What??? Are we reading the same article???

> so why does it say the KTX
> is "testing relativity"? The former requires LC and TD, the latter does
> not.
>
> > Measurement of a fringe shift would have invalidated the relativistic
> > prediction of time dilation.
>
> Sure, but neither is required for a SR explanation. For that, all you need
> are the two postulates (plus homogeneity and linearity of space and time
> in a given frame). In fact, all you need is the second postulate to
> explain the MMX and the KTX.

You are a bit confused here. You are thinking in terms of what it takes to
derive SR.
- Kennedy and Thorndike were not interested in *deriving* SR.
- Rather, Kennedy and Thorndike were interested in quantitatively measuring
one particular manner in which SR could fail.

Are you familiar with "test theories"? Test theories of special relativity are
not actual alternatives to relativity. Rather, they are parameterized frameworks
for analyzing results of experiments to verify special relativity. An experiment to test special relativity cannot assume that special relativity is true.
Rather, a test theory starts with different assumptions than special relativity.

Read up on test theories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity

[Edgar König]

W dniu poniedziałek, Sat, 22 Oct 2016 13:19:36 -0700 użytkownik
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:

> Are you familiar with "test theories"? Test theories of special
> relativity are not actual alternatives to relativity. Rather, they are
> parameterized frameworks for analyzing results of experiments to verify
> special relativity. An experiment to test special relativity cannot
> assume that special relativity is true.
> Rather, a test theory starts with different assumptions than special
> relativity.
>
> Read up on test theories:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity

I guess he is not aware that a mirror in motion, or vibrating, gives a
Doppler shift to the light incidenting it. But he is consistent otherwise.
Vigilant.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:19:39 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:23:09 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test*
> > > of SR,
> > > *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***
> >
> > So why does the article assume the validity of LET?
>
> Where does it state that?

It STRONGLY implies it by appealing to LC and TD which only occur whenone
of the objects under consideration is moving. In the MMX and KTX, nothing
is moving in the experimental equipment; ergo, the only thing left to move
is the ether.

> > > The "test theory" employed by KT presumed the validity of LC but not TD
> > > within the context of a semi-classical aether.
> >
> > Yes, but the article is about an ether solution,
>
> What??? Are we reading the same article???

I'm reading this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment

> > so why does it say the KTX is "testing relativity"? The former requires
> > LC and TD, the latter does not.
> >
> > > Measurement of a fringe shift would have invalidated the relativistic
> > > prediction of time dilation.
> >
> > Sure, but neither is required for a SR explanation. For that, all you need
> > are the two postulates (plus homogeneity and linearity of space and time
> > in a given frame). In fact, all you need is the second postulate to
> > explain the MMX and the KTX.
>
> You are a bit confused here. You are thinking in terms of what it takes to
> derive SR.

Nope. Invariant light speed explains the results. Actually, ballistic
light theory also explains them but is refuted by other experiments.

> - Kennedy and Thorndike were not interested in *deriving* SR.
> - Rather, Kennedy and Thorndike were interested in quantitatively measuring
> one particular manner in which SR could fail.

Yes, IF the motion of the earth had any affect on the speed of light:

"By making one arm of the experiment much shorter than the other, a change
in velocity of the earth would cause changes in the travel times of the
light rays"

Now what theory would predict THAT?

> Are you familiar with "test theories"? Test theories of special relativity
> are not actual alternatives to relativity. Rather, they are parameterized
> frameworks for analyzing results of experiments to verify special
> relativity. An experiment to test special relativity cannot assume that
> special relativity is true.
> Rather, a test theory starts with different assumptions than special
> relativity.
>
> Read up on test theories:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity

An interferometer experiment is hopeless at testing relativity because they
are consistent with too many other theories. Direct measurement of the speed
of light from moving sources and/or receivers is probably the best way to
nail it down. Time dilation of decaying particles is also conclusive but
has inaccuracies due to the random nature of the decay.

The PPN formalism is useful for analyzing GR predictions.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/22/16 10/22/16 1:12 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> So it would seem that
> the complete set of equations making up the Lorentz transformation were
> discovered before recognition that they formed a group, which seems to have been
> in 1905.

Yes. Lest anyone make an incorrect conclusion, I'll point out that the group
property of the Lorentz transformations was noted in 1905 by Poincaré (not
Einstein, who also wrote an important paper on this in 1905).

The history is complicated by the fact that when Lorentz presented his eponymous
transformations in 1904 he made a mistake, which Poincaré pointed out. Lorentz
also pulled his "derivation" out of thin air, without any justification except
that it worked for what he was trying to do (show that the Maxwell's equations
applied not only in the aether frame, but also in a moving frame, such as one
occupied by a lab on earth). It was some combination of Einstein and Poincaré
who turned this into invariance, and Einstein took that and made it an important
foundation of modern physics (all current fundamental theories of physics are
based on various types of invariance, of which Lorentz invariance is the most
fundamental [#]).

[#] The essence of SR is that all physics is Lorentz invariant.
This is modified in GR to be LOCALLY Lorentz invariant.

Tom Roberts

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:19:39 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:23:09 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > > > I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test*
> > > > of SR,
> > > > *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***
> > >
> > > So why does the article assume the validity of LET?
> >
> > Where does it state that?
>
> It STRONGLY implies it by appealing to LC and TD which only occur whenone
> of the objects under consideration is moving. In the MMX and KTX, nothing
> is moving in the experimental equipment; ergo, the only thing left to move
> is the ether.

The ***test theory*** assumed the existence of an aether. But the test theory
was not LET.

A ***test theory*** in which length contraction is true but not time dilation.

> > Are you familiar with "test theories"? Test theories of special relativity
> > are not actual alternatives to relativity. Rather, they are parameterized
> > frameworks for analyzing results of experiments to verify special
> > relativity. An experiment to test special relativity cannot assume that
> > special relativity is true.
> > Rather, a test theory starts with different assumptions than special
> > relativity.
> >
> > Read up on test theories:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity
>
> An interferometer experiment is hopeless at testing relativity because they
> are consistent with too many other theories.

No one experiment will do. KT specifically ruled out a ***test theory*** in
which length contraction is true but not time dilation.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:28:22 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 4:32:02 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:19:39 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 2:23:09 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 12:30:40 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I think that you are missing the point. If you are developing a *test*
> > > > > of SR,
> > > > > *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***
> > > >
> > > > So why does the article assume the validity of LET?
> > >
> > > Where does it state that?
> >
> > It STRONGLY implies it by appealing to LC and TD which only occur whenone
> > of the objects under consideration is moving. In the MMX and KTX, nothing
> > is moving in the experimental equipment; ergo, the only thing left to move
> > is the ether.
>
> The ***test theory*** assumed the existence of an aether. But the test theory
> was not LET.

Then why are they going into the LT and TD and LC?

IOW, an ether theory.

> > > Are you familiar with "test theories"? Test theories of special relativity
> > > are not actual alternatives to relativity. Rather, they are parameterized
> > > frameworks for analyzing results of experiments to verify special
> > > relativity. An experiment to test special relativity cannot assume that
> > > special relativity is true.
> > > Rather, a test theory starts with different assumptions than special
> > > relativity.
> > >
> > > Read up on test theories:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity
> >
> > An interferometer experiment is hopeless at testing relativity because they
> > are consistent with too many other theories.
>
> No one experiment will do. KT specifically ruled out a ***test theory*** in
> which length contraction is true but not time dilation.

Only in the context of an ether theory. The experiments had neither LC nor
TD according to SR.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/22/16 10/22/16 1:30 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> If you are developing a *test* of SR,
> *** you cannot assume the validity of SR ***

Hmmm. This depends on what you mean.

The essence of an experimental test of a theory is:
a. Think up some physical situation for which the theory makes a prediction
b. implement that physical situation and make measurements
c. calculate the predictions of the theory for the physical situation
d. compare the measurements to the prediction(s) of the theory.

In item c one does indeed assume the theory is valid.

But in modern experimental physics we usually follow a procedure we have found
to be better:
a. Think up some physical situation for which the theory makes a prediction
b. implement that physical situation and make measurements
c. create a test theory of the desired theory, which enhances the theory
with additional terms and factors that contain parameters (the form of
the additional terms and factors must be such that for some specific
set of values the original theory is reproduced).
d. fit the measurements to the test theory, treating the parameters as
unknowns to be determined by the fit; such a fit naturally determines
an errorbar for each parameter.
e. compare the results for the parameters WITH THEIR ERRORBARS to the
values they would have if the original theory is valid

In item d one does indeed assume the test theory is valid.

The challenge of item c is to create a believable and useful test theory. For SR
several are known, especially the one by Mansouri and Sexl. For the standard
model there is the standard model extension. For GR there is the PPN formalism.

There are several advantages to this approach:
1. one obtains a QUANTITATIVE measure of how accurately the theory
describes and agrees with the measurements
2. errorbars are handled in an authoritative and definitive manner
3. some experiments cannot determine the values of all parameters; that's
OK, and they can still set limits on the ones they do determine. One
then needs additional experiments that can determine the values of the
other parameters. So one can naturally and directly combine multiple
experiments to test a theory.
4. The errorbars on the parameters provide a way to compare competing
experiments that determine the same parameters. This is especially
valuable to funding agencies (funding proposals always estimate the
errorbars they expect from their measurement).

Tom Roberts

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Kennedy-Thorndike (1932), of course, considerably preceded Robertson (1949)
and Mansouri and Sexl (1977).

The test theory that they developed involved two assumptions:
a) A coordinate system exists in which Huyghen's principle is valid and in
which the velocity of light is the same in all directions.
b) A system moving with velocity v with respect to the system described in (a)
is length contracted by the ratio [1-v^2/c^2]^(1/2)

In the test theory that KT developed, the critical test of relativity was
whether n was constant in their equation (4) as v changes as a result of the
rotation of the Earth about its axis and its revolution around the Sun:
n = v'(t_1' - t_2') = v'Δs/c(1-β^2)^(1/2)

If n were constant, the Lorentz-Einstein transformations would be validated.
If n were not constant, then the Lorentz-Einstein transformations would be
invalidated, and the coordinate system satisfying (a) would be unique and would
correspond to the absolute reference frame of classical aether theory.
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf

Kennedy and Thorndike's test theory satisfied your proviso (c): it enhanced the
theory of special relativity with additional terms and factors that for some
specific set of values would reproduce special relativity, while other values
would serve to invalidate it.