info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jan 17, 2016, 8:44:52 AM1/17/16
to
Today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below) fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate but John Stachel and John Norton prefer to tell the truth:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
The situation is still strange - the Michelson-Morley experiment seems compatible with both the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and the assumption that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c). From a logical point of view, neither compatibility is valid. In other words, the following arguments are both invalid:
(A) If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
(B) If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not double-edged but this becomes clear when implicit assumptions are made explicit. The experiment is compatible with c'=c+v if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers) and compatible with c'=c if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers). In other words, the following arguments are both valid:
(A') If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v), and if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
(B') If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c), and if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
Argument B' is valid but is based on a false assumption - long objects cannot be trapped inside short containers:
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png
Indeed, there is nothing more absurd than the relativistic length contraction - see what happens at 7:12 and 9:53 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
Conclusion: The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and incompatible with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c).
Pentcho Valev
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
The situation is still strange - the Michelson-Morley experiment seems compatible with both the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and the assumption that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c). From a logical point of view, neither compatibility is valid. In other words, the following arguments are both invalid:
(A) If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
(B) If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not double-edged but this becomes clear when implicit assumptions are made explicit. The experiment is compatible with c'=c+v if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers) and compatible with c'=c if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers). In other words, the following arguments are both valid:
(A') If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v), and if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
(B') If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c), and if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
Argument B' is valid but is based on a false assumption - long objects cannot be trapped inside short containers:
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/images/Ladder_paradox_garage_irf1.png
Indeed, there is nothing more absurd than the relativistic length contraction - see what happens at 7:12 and 9:53 in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"
Conclusion: The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and incompatible with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c).
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jan 17, 2016, 9:50:57 AM1/17/16
to
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:44:52 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below)
> fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate
Of course the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905
>
> Today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below)
> fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate
constant-speed-of-light postulate. But Pentcho's thread title is
fraudulent baloney.
> The situation is still strange - the Michelson-Morley experiment seems
> compatible with both the assumption that the speed of light does depend
> on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and the assumption that the
> speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c).
> From a logical point of view, neither compatibility is valid.
> In other words, the following arguments are both invalid:
>
> (A) If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source
> (c'=c+v), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
ability can prove that.
> (B) If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light
> source (c'=c), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
ability can prove that.
> Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not double-edged but this
> becomes clear when implicit assumptions are made explicit. The
> experiment is compatible with c'=c+v if there is no relativistic length
> contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside
> unlimitedly short containers)
> and compatible with c'=c if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long
> objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).
ability can demonstrate.
> In other words, the following arguments are both valid:
>
> (A') If the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source
> (c'=c+v), and if there is no relativistic length contraction
> (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short
> containers), the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
that Pentcho's "logic" is invalid.
> (B') If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light
> source (c'=c), and if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long
> objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), the
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will be null.
which, in turn, is a consequence of c' = c. So it is redundant to
specify both c' = c AND length contraction. Once more Pentcho's illogic
rears its ugly head.
> Argument B' is valid but is based on a false assumption - long objects
> cannot be trapped inside short containers:
is a consequence. Once more Pentcho's illogic rears its ugly head.
> [Irrelevant baloney deleted]
>
> Conclusion: The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the
> assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
> source (c'=c+v) and incompatible with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-
> of-light postulate (c'=c).
>
> Pentcho Valev
Once more Pentcho's stupidity and illogic rears its ugly head :-)))
> Conclusion: The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the
> assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
> source (c'=c+v) and incompatible with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-
> of-light postulate (c'=c).
>
> Pentcho Valev
Gary
Maciej Woźniak
Jan 17, 2016, 10:11:50 AM1/17/16
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:c45d5572-9c96-4733...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:44:52 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below)
> fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate
|Of course the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905
shit he believes.
Gary Harnagel
Jan 17, 2016, 11:27:09 AM1/17/16
to
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 8:11:50 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> For a fanatic, brainwashed moron everything supports the
> shit he believes.
And Wozniak certainly does believe shit :-)
>
> For a fanatic, brainwashed moron everything supports the
> shit he believes.
Maciej Woźniak
Jan 17, 2016, 11:52:46 AM1/17/16
to
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
What a reality-denying nonsense, isn't it?
Gary Harnagel
Jan 17, 2016, 12:58:34 PM1/17/16
to
point is that they are not PROPER clocks. You display nothing but your
dishonesty with your post.
Pentcho Valev
Jan 17, 2016, 1:46:24 PM1/17/16
to
Another couple of valid arguments:
(A'') If there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's relativity should be discarded).
(B'') If relativistic length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source - a tenet of the ether theory that Einstein borrowed in 1905:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
And the relativistic length contraction is more than absurd indeed - it implies that any object can be compressed to an unlimitedly small volume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Pentcho Valev
(A'') If there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's relativity should be discarded).
(B'') If relativistic length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source - a tenet of the ether theory that Einstein borrowed in 1905:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
And the relativistic length contraction is more than absurd indeed - it implies that any object can be compressed to an unlimitedly small volume:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Jan 17, 2016, 2:32:43 PM1/17/16
to
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Another couple of valid arguments:
>
> (A'') If there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long
> objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if
> the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed
> of light does depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's
> relativity should be discarded).
Pentcho should stop trying to pretend he is logical and take the logic
>
> Another couple of valid arguments:
>
> (A'') If there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long
> objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if
> the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed
> of light does depend on the speed of the light source (Einstein's
> relativity should be discarded).
class he failed.
> (B'') If relativistic length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects
> CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers), and if the result of
> the Michelson-Morley experiment is null, then the speed of light does not
> depend on the speed of the light source
> - a tenet of the ether theory that Einstein borrowed in 1905:
> And the relativistic length contraction is more than absurd indeed - it
> implies that any object can be compressed to an unlimitedly small volume:
Gary
0 new messages