info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WHAT MICHELSON AND MORLEY REALLY PROVED
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Apr 29, 2012, 6:00:44 PM4/29/12
to
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."
Alternatively, one can assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).
Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."
Alternatively, one can assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).
Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein
Apr 29, 2012, 8:22:43 PM4/29/12
to
making your own stupid conclusions about it. It wouldn't have made a
difference in the measurement in the interferometer even at a
relativistic speed in an ether. But if one arm was vertical it
would. But you'd have to have an expert knowledge of the real physic
to realize that. Post again in 35 years or so.
xxein
Apr 29, 2012, 8:23:11 PM4/29/12
to
Tyler Dresden
Apr 29, 2012, 9:47:09 PM4/29/12
to
second
Tom Roberts
Apr 29, 2012, 10:40:49 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/29/12 4/29/12 5:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [...]
Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
of light being independent of the motion of the light source. No experiment can
refute a theory with which it is in agreement.
Note the difference: no experiment can "prove" anything, because "proof" is
inapplicable in physical theories and experiments. An experiment can refute
theories with which its results are inconsistent. An experiment can also be said
to support or confirm a theory with which it is consistent. Note these are
THEORIES, an dnot merely statements such as "the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the light source" -- it takes a complete THEORY to compute a
prediction of a given experiment, to which the experiment's result can be compared.
It's sad how much time you waste posting nonsense to the 'net, when you don't
understand the very basic foundations of modern science or physics.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
> Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that
> the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
> light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of
> the motion of the light source.
Nonsense. The MMX "proved" nothing of the sort.
> the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
> light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of
> the motion of the light source.
Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
of light being independent of the motion of the light source. No experiment can
refute a theory with which it is in agreement.
Note the difference: no experiment can "prove" anything, because "proof" is
inapplicable in physical theories and experiments. An experiment can refute
theories with which its results are inconsistent. An experiment can also be said
to support or confirm a theory with which it is consistent. Note these are
THEORIES, an dnot merely statements such as "the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the light source" -- it takes a complete THEORY to compute a
prediction of a given experiment, to which the experiment's result can be compared.
It's sad how much time you waste posting nonsense to the 'net, when you don't
understand the very basic foundations of modern science or physics.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Apr 30, 2012, 12:28:42 AM4/30/12
to
On Monday, April 30, 2012 4:40:49 AM UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/29/12 4/29/12 5:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > [...]
> > Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that
> > the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
> > light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of
> > the motion of the light source.
>
> Nonsense. The MMX "proved" nothing of the sort.
>
> Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
> But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
> of light being independent of the motion of the light source.
Honest Roberts,
> On 4/29/12 4/29/12 5:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > [...]
> > Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that
> > the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
> > light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of
> > the motion of the light source.
>
> Nonsense. The MMX "proved" nothing of the sort.
>
> Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
> But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
> of light being independent of the motion of the light source.
In 1887 SR did not exist, even the length contraction hypothesis did not exist, so you will have to admit: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed (if "proved" bothers you) that the speed of light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. Then of course you are free to start singing "Divine Einstein" and explain why "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" had to be involved in the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
Apr 30, 2012, 4:59:47 AM4/30/12
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5904813.3403.1335763266650.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbki8...
The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the
standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then
calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for
the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the
direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in
contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are
EQUAL.
My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially
assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
==============================================
Trivial. Covered in
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
_______________________________
VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1. Jan 1965
_____________________________
Evidence Against Emission Theories
J.G. Fox
Pentcho Valev
Apr 30, 2012, 5:07:32 AM4/30/12
to
Einsteiniana's blatant lies:
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement. Autrement dit, la lumière n'obéit pas à la loi d'additivité des vitesses de la cinématique newtonienne (héritée de Galilée). Or la cinématique est l'étude des mouvements de la matière libre de toute interaction, et qui ne dépendent donc que des propriétés de l'espace et du temps. L'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière entraînait donc une remise en cause des notions newtoniennes de temps et d'espace absolus, ce qu'Einstein fut le premier à reconnaître pleinement."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement. Autrement dit, la lumière n'obéit pas à la loi d'additivité des vitesses de la cinématique newtonienne (héritée de Galilée). Or la cinématique est l'étude des mouvements de la matière libre de toute interaction, et qui ne dépendent donc que des propriétés de l'espace et du temps. L'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière entraînait donc une remise en cause des notions newtoniennes de temps et d'espace absolus, ce qu'Einstein fut le premier à reconnaître pleinement."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tyler Dresden
Apr 30, 2012, 7:43:11 AM4/30/12
to
Tyler Dresden
Apr 30, 2012, 7:47:10 AM4/30/12
to
balanced to the predicted Grain size of our universe.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7pbAu80BIvM_0uw-xpyDqdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/gallery/fuchs/tris.gif
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Apr 30, 2012, 10:52:19 AM4/30/12
to
Earth moved through.
The aether is not immobile. The aether is, or behaves similar to, a
superfluid with properties of a solid.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state
of displacement of the ether.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Apr 30, 2012, 5:53:47 PM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:40:49 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 4/29/12 5:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [...]
>> Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that
>> the speed of the light is c'=cąv, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
SR merely stated that the speed of light used in the experiment is always c
wrt the source and therefore wrt all components used in the apparatus.
In other words, it simply copied the explanation of Newton's emission
theory.
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 4/29/12 5:00 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [...]
>> Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that
>> light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of
>> the motion of the light source.
>
>Nonsense. The MMX "proved" nothing of the sort.
>
>Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
>But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
>of light being independent of the motion of the light source. No experiment can
>refute a theory with which it is in agreement.
This has nothing to do with SR's explanation of the MMX.
>> the motion of the light source.
>
>Nonsense. The MMX "proved" nothing of the sort.
>
>Yes, it is consistent with the predictions of Newton's emission theory of light.
>But it is also consistent with the predictions of SR, which includes the speed
>of light being independent of the motion of the light source. No experiment can
>refute a theory with which it is in agreement.
SR merely stated that the speed of light used in the experiment is always c
wrt the source and therefore wrt all components used in the apparatus.
In other words, it simply copied the explanation of Newton's emission
theory.
Vilas Tamhane
May 2, 2012, 11:23:21 AM5/2/12
to
light is independent of the velocity of the source.
2) Forgetting ether, MM should not expect phase shift as, according to
them they are not moving at all.
3) When they expect phase shift, they are relying on the knowledge
that they are moving. In relativity such a use of knowledge is
forbidden. In other words, SR forbids use of physics.
4) When MM expect phase shift they are actually in the other frame,
frame of ether. However phase shift is an event which cannot be
different for any observer.
5) This dilemma is eminently solved by SR. However the theory is based
on irrational assumptions. In fact, the basic mistake was to use
relativity for a theory. Because results of relativity are, and will
always be, apparent and so useless.
6) There is no need to use a completely idiotic theory of relativity.
In absence of a proper theory, one can simply rely on Lorentz
equations.
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 2, 2012, 6:56:20 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012 08:23:21 -0700 (PDT), Vilas Tamhane
<vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
>> "Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."
>>
>> Alternatively, one can assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is cąv, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).
<vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
>> "Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."
>>
>>
>> Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=cąv, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...@yahoo.com
>
>1) It is observed, for example in the binary star trajectories, that
>light is independent of the velocity of the source.
Quite the contrary.
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...@yahoo.com
>
>1) It is observed, for example in the binary star trajectories, that
>light is independent of the velocity of the source.
Virtually all variable star curves can be atttributed solely to periodic c+v
effects. Why don't you behave like a scientist instead of sprouting
Lorentz/Einstein crap.
>2) Forgetting ether, MM should not expect phase shift as, according to
>them they are not moving at all.
moves at c wrt the light source and all other components of the apparatus no
matter how it is orientated.
.
>3) When they expect phase shift, they are relying on the knowledge
>that they are moving. In relativity such a use of knowledge is
>forbidden. In other words, SR forbids use of physics.
The problem with ALL Einstein worshippers is that they never completely rid
>3) When they expect phase shift, they are relying on the knowledge
>that they are moving. In relativity such a use of knowledge is
>forbidden. In other words, SR forbids use of physics.
their minds of the aether concept....which is not surprising since SR is
nothing but LET in disguise.
>4) When MM expect phase shift they are actually in the other frame,
>frame of ether. However phase shift is an event which cannot be
>different for any observer.
with even half a brain.
>5) This dilemma is eminently solved by SR.
Here is why: www.scisite.info/ros.html
>However the theory is based
>on irrational assumptions. In fact, the basic mistake was to use
>relativity for a theory. Because results of relativity are, and will
>always be, apparent and so useless.
>6) There is no need to use a completely idiotic theory of relativity.
>In absence of a proper theory, one can simply rely on Lorentz
>equations.
0 new messages