Re: michelson morley experiment questions
Koobee Wublee
> 1. Is it true that after a 90 degree rotation, the interference
> pattern should change (assuming the ether theory is correct) - e.g.
> would a 70 degree phase difference have a different interference
> pattern to a 20 degree phase difference?
During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
allows for sound propagation. <shrug>
> 2. (this question has a yes or no answer) - is it possible to show
> mathematically that as the apparatus is rotated, the interference
> pattern and the phase difference should change (assuming the ether
> theory is correct).
Yes. This is true for sound waves. <shrug>
> 3. Was the "null result" of the experiment the fact that the
> interference pattern didn't change when the apparatus was rotated?
According to expert interpretations, yes.
> 4. Did the experiment at the time, depend on the path lengths of the
> two paths being exactly equal and was any effort made to make them
> equal or was this completely unnecessary?
If the experiment is performed through all orientations, it becomes
unnecessary to set the lengths of each arm precisely.
> 5. I've heard that the error/noise/inaccuracy of the original
> experiment was too great for its result to be meaningful. If the
> experiment depended only on observing the change in interference
> pattern, what kind of error could invalidate this result?
This is a good question. There have been enough interpretations to
the null results. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are
indeed correct but willing to keep an open mind.
The absolute frame of reference was actually detected through a
Doppler shift in the Cosmic background radiation 100 years after the
MMX. The self-styled physicists turned their backs on this monumental
discovery because they have already BELIEVE IN the nonsense of SR.
Well, Peter did not recognize Christ three times anyway. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
>
> During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
> propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
> propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
> results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
> that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
> allows for sound propagation. <shrug>
>
The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with no aether
at all.
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether
Whoever
news:hND%l.752563$yE1.444103@attbi_s21...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>
>> During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
>> propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
>> propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
>> results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
>> that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
>> allows for sound propagation. <shrug>
>>
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with no aether
> at all.
It is perfectly consistent with LET, which has an aether, and also with
ballistic theories.
Sam Wormley
See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Sam Wormley
See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Whoever
Can't read it .. have to subscribe.
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
Says nothing about aether or not
> No aether
So you say, but there is no evidence that there is no aether .. nor is there
evidence that there is an aether. Its pretty much a matter of faith. There
is SR worths fine without an aether, and LET that is identical
mathematically to SR, has an aether. Basically, we have no need of an
aether for us to make experimental predictions.
Whoever
You're spamming. See my previous reply .. we don't know if there is an
aether or not .. and it doesn't really matter as far as physic predicting
what we observe to be happening in the universe. Its a matter more of faith
and philosophy.
Koobee Wublee
+------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
| PLEASE | | BEST TO IGNORE ATTENTION SEEKING
TROLLS |
| DO NOT | | LIKE Sam Wormley -- THEY
DRY |
| FEED | | UP AND BLOW AWAY WITHOUT
FEEDBACK |
| DA |
| |
| TROLLS | | http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
|
+------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
`\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ / ' / `\ '/ /
' /
Whoever
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d7d52ad-c24b-4a50...@v38g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Daryl McCullough
I assume that when Koobee says things like that, or
talks about people being liars and nitwits, he's actually
talking about himself. At some level, he knows what he is.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Uncle Al
>
> On Jun 20, 5:26 pm, gamma wrote:
>
> > 1. Is it true that after a 90 degree rotation, the interference
> > pattern should change (assuming the ether theory is correct) - e.g.
> > would a 70 degree phase difference have a different interference
> > pattern to a 20 degree phase difference?
>
> During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
> propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
> propagation.
idiot
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
empirical idiot
> Well, Peter did not recognize Christ three times anyway. <shrug>
hind gut-fermenting christ-besotted idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sam Wormley
Koobee hardly ever knows who he is talking about. He even gets
Einstein mixed up as if he talking about himself.
Koobee Wublee
> I assume that when Koobee says things like that, or
> talks about people being liars and nitwits, he's actually
> talking about himself. At some level, he knows what he is.
Most people are ignorant. They rely on these so-called “experts” to
think for them. When these so-called “experts” tell them that
Einstein was a god, they BELIEVE IN the lies. In truth, Einstein was
nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. In the past, I
have explained very cleared why Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist,
and a liar. A few of the zealous type would start to bully me around
instead of attacking what I have said. Please note. I am not easily
intimidated by bullies. <shrug>
Q: Who first came up with the principle of relativity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo.
Q: Who first came up with the invariant speed of light thing?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first came up with the Lorentz transform?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first discovered relative simultaneity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Poincare
despite relative simultaneity thing being completely illogical and
thus wrong.
Q: Who first interpreted the Lorentz transform in SR?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Poincare. SR is the interpretation to the Lorentz transform with
relative simultaneity as the property of the Lorentz transform.
Q: Who first came up with the principle of equivalence?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo
again.
Q: Who first came up with the mathematical description of curved
space?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Riemann.
Q: Who first came up with the geodesic equations?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Christoffel.
Q: Who first came up with the Riemann curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Ricci.
Q: Who first came up with the Ricci curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Levi-
Civita.
Q: Who first came up with a set of field equations that satisfy only
the Laplace equations (in vacuum)?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Nordstrom.
Q: Who first came up with the set of field equations that satisfy the
Poison equation?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Hilbert.
Q: Who first came up with the photo-electric effect?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Planck.
Q: So, what did Einstein do?
A: Nothing, Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar.
<shrug>
Q: On the subject of differential geometry, is it not the geometry
invariant regardless whichever observer using whichever coordinate
system describing this geometry?
A: The answer must be yes. Or else, there is no need to continue.
<shrug>
Q: Can a series of coordinates sufficiently describe an invariant
geometry?
A: No, you still need to find out what the metric is. The invariant
geometry can only be described mathematically by the presence of both
the metric and the coordinates. <shrug>
Q: Can the metric alone describe the invariant geometry with knowing
what coordinate system is utilized?
A: No, again for the benefit of the retarded, it takes both the
metric and the coordinate system to describe the geometry. <shrug>
Q: Are there any more questions?
A: Oh, yes. Koobee Wublee raises his hand.
Q: What are solutions to the field equations that are static,
spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat?
A: There was Schwarzschild’s original solution. He knew by selecting
a metric with a determinant of -1, the Ricci curvature tensor can be
drastically reduced. In doing so, he had to transform his coordinate
to another one that results in the metric with a determinant of -1.
After he obtained the solution, to comply with the rules of
mathematics, he must covert his solution back to the original
spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. Although his original
solution has nothing like the Schwarzschild metric and does not
manifest any black holes, nevertheless his solution before the
transformation resembles the Schwarzschild metric in some way.
Q: Then, who actually came up with the Schwarzschild metric?
A: It was none other than the wizard himself --- Hilbert.
Q: So, why do the self-styled physicists insist on the Schwarzschild
metric (which manifest black holes) as the true solution while others
such as Schwarzschild’s original solution as a mere coordinate
transform of the Schwarzschild metric itself?
A: It is mostly the fact of the self-styled physicists do not
understand the mathematics involved despite it being very straight
forward. There was this guy Birkhoff who one day out of the blues
started singing the song the self-styled physicists love to hear.
That is the Birkhoff’s theorem in which it states that all solutions
that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat must
be the Schwarzschild metric.
Q: What is the support to the Birkhoff’s theorem?
A: There is none. When confronted, the self-styled physicists are
so
embarrassed to show any works related to the phony claim of the
Birkhoff’s theorem. It is not even funny but fraud. <shrug>
Q: Without Birkhoff’s theorem (which is a fraud that is proven false
by examples), what is other basis for the self-styled physicists to
claim all the infinite number of static, spherically symmetric,
asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations as a mere
transformation of the divine Schwarzschild metric?
A: There is none besides more bullying. <shrug>
Q: So, the following is also a solution that does not manifest any
black holes, to the field equations, that is static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. What is the basis that it is a
coordinate transformation of the Schwarzschild metric but not the
other way around?
ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2
dO^2
Where
** K, T = Integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
A: Beats me. It is a religious belief thing. <shrug>
Orwellian education is already here deeply rooted in the minds of the
self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
Whoever
> On Jun 22, 5:52 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>> I assume that when Koobee says things like that, or
>> talks about people being liars and nitwits, he's actually
>> talking about himself. At some level, he knows what he is.
>
> think for them. When these so-called �experts� tell them that
> Einstein was a god, they BELIEVE IN the lies.
No expert says that.
> In truth, Einstein was
> nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Frankly, I don't care. And neither should any physicist. What matters is
the theories. SR is self-consistent and elegant, nicely derived from its
postulates. It predictions are supported by experimental evidence and have
not been refuted.
Einstein is dead and gone .. his personal characteristics, and your opinions
of them, have nothing to do with whether or not SR theory is a good one.
Obviously you aren't interest in physics, only in petty character
assassination of someone who is now dead and cannot defend himself. How low
an act is that. Sad.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
> > Most people are ignorant. They rely on these so-called “experts” to
> > think for them. When these so-called “experts” tell them that
> > Einstein was a god, they BELIEVE IN the lies.
>
> No expert says that.
Not exactly word for word so, but the meaning is the same. <shrug>
> > In truth, Einstein was
> > nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
>
> Frankly, I don't care.
Yes, you do, and here is why...
> And neither should any physicist.
Yes, it should be so, but in reality not so. Talking about SR and GR,
the phrase “Einstein’s SR” or “Einstein’s GR” would always come up.
Einstein is your God, and you worship Einstein. That is why you are
deeply moved. <shrug>
> What matters is the theories.
Yes, once again it should be so, but in reality it is not. Adding a
Cosmological constant to the field equations, the self-physicists are
licking up every single drop of fermented diarrhea from Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. In proper mathematical
interpretation, the Cosmological constant represents a negative mass
density in vacuum. Gee! How fvcing stupid can that concept be? The
self-styled physicists are plainly and zombie-likely licking up every
single drop of Einstein’s fermented diarrhea as I said before.
<shrug>
> SR is self-consistent and elegant, nicely derived from its
> postulates.
This is absolutely nonsense. You have to overcome the twins paradox
to say so. Although there are numerous claims to do so in which
everyone contradicts with the others. Which one is your favorite de-
paradox-idol?
> It predictions are supported by experimental evidence and have
> not been refuted.
It does not matter. There is at least one claim to the GPS time
dilation anomaly without using GR. Do you call that credible? A
theory must be mathematically consistent. Is that too much to ask
from self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries?
> Einstein is dead and gone ..
Thank God that the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is. <shrug>
> his personal characteristics,
Einstein’s personal characteristics is all about being a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
> and your opinions
> of them, have nothing to do with whether or not SR theory is a good one.
Have you read through all my Q and A? No. I see. And you are making
this liar’s comment. <shrug>
> Obviously you aren't interest in physics, only in petty character
> assassination of someone who is now dead and cannot defend himself.
Where in the Q and A shows so? You are hurt because your fvcking idol
Einstein is nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Get
over with it. <shrug>
> How low an act is that.
How can the truth be an act?
> Sad.
Yes, indeed for a zealous RELIGIOUS NUT who worships Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Here are the Q and A asked by self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries once again for your benefit. After all, you just show
yourself being an Einstein Dingleberry. Ahahaha...
Whoever
> On Jun 22, 10:47 pm, "Whoever" wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
>
>> > think for them. When these so-called �experts� tell them that
>> > Einstein was a god, they BELIEVE IN the lies.
>>
>> No expert says that.
>
> Not exactly word for word so, but the meaning is the same. <shrug>
Meaning of what . .The only ones claiming any sort of worship of Einstein
are the crackpots who deny the validity of relativity and want ot attack
Einstein for whatever their personal reasons.
>> > In truth, Einstein was
>> > nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't care.
>
> Yes, you do, and here is why...
No
>> And neither should any physicist.
>
> Yes, it should be so, but in reality not so.
It "not so" only In your warped imagination.
> Talking about SR and GR,
> the phrase �Einstein�s SR� or �Einstein�s GR� would always come up.
Really? I rarely if ever see that phrase. That Einstein was the one to
publish a theory named 'special relativity' is probably good grounds for
calling it "Einstein's SR" .. though mostly its just called "SR"
> Einstein is your God, and you worship Einstein. That is why you are
> deeply moved. <shrug>
What a load of crap. I don't worship anyone or anything.
>> What matters is the theories.
>
> Yes, once again it should be so, but in reality it is not.
It "not so" only In your warped imagination.
[snip more unnecessary bad language that says nothing relevant]
>
>> SR is self-consistent and elegant, nicely derived from its
>> postulates.
>
> This is absolutely nonsense.
Then you don't understand it .. not surprising as your focus is on personal
attacks and not physics.
> You have to overcome the twins paradox to say so.
There is nothing inconsistent or inelegant about it
> Although there are numerous claims to do so in which
> everyone contradicts with the others.
Only the crackpots or those who don't understand contradict
> Which one is your favorite de-paradox-idol?
You don't need to de-paradox it.
>> It predictions are supported by experimental evidence and have
>> not been refuted.
>
> It does not matter.
Of course it does .. that is what matters in physics. Maybe not to you.
> There is at least one claim to the GPS time
> dilation anomaly without using GR. Do you call that credible?
That sentence makes no sense.
>A theory must be mathematically consistent. Is that too much to ask
> from self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries?
It is consistent.
>> Einstein is dead and gone ..
>
> Thank God that the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar is. <shrug>
What a low thing to say
>> his personal characteristics,
>
> Einstein�s personal characteristics is all about being a nitwit, a
> plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
And yours of launching personal attack. A very low act
>> and your opinions
>> of them, have nothing to do with whether or not SR theory is a good one.
>
> Have you read through all my Q and A? No. I see. And you are making
> this liar�s comment. <shrug>
Eh?
>> Obviously you aren't interest in physics, only in petty character
>> assassination of someone who is now dead and cannot defend himself.
>
> Where in the Q and A shows so?
Who cares. Your opinions are of importance to noone but yourself.
> You are hurt because your fvcking idol
I'm not hurt. And what does fvcking mean?
> Einstein is nothing more than a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Get
> over with it. <shrug>
I'm not hurt. I don't care what he was or wasn't .. That has nothing to do
with the physics.
>> How low an act is that.
>
> How can the truth be an act?
What do you care of truth?
>> Sad.
[snip more irrelevance]
Benj
>
> See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
> No aether
Thank you for your expression of religious faith. I'm sure it gives
you comfort.
Unfortunately you are still a moron. MMX does NOT prove "No Aether".
It proved "No Aether drift" which is a different phenomena. You are as
bad a Uncle Al on this point. I can understand that you are that dumb
but I can't figure what happened to Al.
Being "consistent with no aether" is not a proof that aether does not
exist. You and Al are operating on pure faith and dogma.
Benj
wrote:
> I assume that when Koobee says things like that, or
> talks about people being liars and nitwits, he's actually
> talking about himself. At some level, he knows what he is.
But Mr. Wormy IS an idiot and liar too. Not to mention a serious
troll.
Now we are waiting for "Uncle Al" to chime in with his usual nonsense
where he claims MMX proves there was no aether.
(His ignorant logic ill-befitting a Mensan is that according to the
theory of the aether PRIOR to MMX, an aether drift SHOULD have been
found and therefore the fact that it wasn't disproves the early
theory. Al then jumps to the conclusion that NO aether theory is
therefore valid. Needless to say that is equivalent to saying "I'm
stooopid!"
Idiot.
Oh wait. I see Al's usual spamming post down a few...
Whoever
news:e0ee02bd-066a-483c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 22, 12:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
>> http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
>> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
>> No aether
>
> Thank you for your expression of religious faith. I'm sure it gives
> you comfort.
>
> Unfortunately you are still a moron. MMX does NOT prove "No Aether".
It proves no simple ether as was expected at the time. And that light is
not moving at c wrt a fixed ether in a simple non-relativistic 3D world.
> It proved "No Aether drift" which is a different phenomena. You are as
> bad a Uncle Al on this point. I can understand that you are that dumb
> but I can't figure what happened to Al.
>
> Being "consistent with no aether" is not a proof that aether does not
> exist. You and Al are operating on pure faith and dogma.
MMX is of course compatible with LET, which has an ether that magically,
when things move in it, makes all lengths (and gaps between them) contract
and all processes slow down.
Benj
> So you say, but there is no evidence that there is no aether .. nor is there
> evidence that there is an aether. Its pretty much a matter of faith. There
> is SR worths fine without an aether, and LET that is identical
> mathematically to SR, has an aether. Basically, we have no need of an
> aether for us to make experimental predictions.
This is of course the correct statement. The conclusion of MMX and SR
was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
necessary. However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in. To
argue otherwise as modern physics does is totally insane. "Modern
physics" argues that light and EM waves move through "nothing at all",
This might make sense if Light were a particle. Particles can and do
carry energy through "nothing at all". And obviously we do observe
particle characteristics of light and call them "photons". However,
light ALSO displays wave properties such as interference and
diffraction. How particles can create this in "nothing at all" is not
clear.
And there is more. With an Aether, empty space is filled with aether.
"Nature abhors a vacuum" and that means the vacuum of space is
actually filled with the medium of wave transmission which has been
termed "aether" since the time of Homer. Thus it is clear that a
"true" vacuum would be a place where the aether was removed from
space. Logically such a vacuum would be "nothing at all" and as such
would neither transmit waves nor have observable properties. The
idiocy of "modern physics" is that there are actually people out there
who argue that while empty space is "nothing at all" it still can have
properties. They even take it one step further arguing that BEHAVIOR
is a real object when there is nothing that the behavior is "of". They
promote the existence of "behavior fields" where some how "behavior"
exists without applying to any real objects. In the old days there was
a term for all this: "magic". The bottom line is that "empty
space" (not our "true" vacuum) has properties which pretty much
establishes it is NOT "nothing at all".
And wait, it gets STILL better! Now comes the arguments that the
observed fact that information (energy) never travels faster than the
speed of light, isn't really true. There are proposed "non-local"
actions which is nothing more than a resurrection of the bogus "action
at a distance" theory. I'm wondering why MMX somehow didn't also
disprove "action at a distance"? And waves are not gone, at the
microscopic level (quantum) all actions are again determined by some
kind of waves. Only these are "probability waves", whatever that is,
that travel once again through "nothing at all" and the icing on the
magic cake is that there now is added the assertion that objects don't
exist at all until someone views them! And this is regarded as a
totally sane theory. Well it does match some of the modern theories of
"education" such as letting kids guess how to spell words and never
give them the correct answer so as not to damage their sensitive
"personalities", but for those of us who were not turned out on the
streets when the state mental hospitals closed, it doesn't quite
measure up to reason as a viable physics theory. It used to be that
you could be pretty sure that anyone who believed in magic wasn't a
scientist, but those days are sure long gone.
The bottom line is that experiments over time have pretty much shown
SR and MMX to be how the universe operates. But neither of those
things proved that there is no aether. I don't need a bunch of apples
to prove that 2+2=4 either. I can ignore the apples and show the math
works. But you geniuses tell me, if I add 2+2 without using any
apples, does that "prove" that apples aren't real and don't exist?
Right. You are all morons.
Of course few posting here are real physicists. Most are amateur or
student trolls who just like the sound of their own voice. And few
"real" physicists are willing to wander in among all the ignorance and
trolls. And even fewer would dare question physics dogma. They
certainly would not wish to face the modern equivalent of the stake
for such heresy (loss of job and being blackballed from getting
another one). So the beat goes on. DO YOU BELIEVE?
Whoever
> On Jun 22, 1:04 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> So you say, but there is no evidence that there is no aether .. nor is
>> there
>> evidence that there is an aether. Its pretty much a matter of faith.
>> There
>> is SR worths fine without an aether, and LET that is identical
>> mathematically to SR, has an aether. Basically, we have no need of an
>> aether for us to make experimental predictions.
>
> This is of course the correct statement. The conclusion of MMX and SR
> was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
> necessary. However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
> aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
> then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
Light behaves as both a particle and a wave though. That doesn't mean it is
really either.
> To
> argue otherwise as modern physics does is totally insane. "Modern
> physics" argues that light and EM waves move through "nothing at all",
> This might make sense if Light were a particle.
Which it is, as much as it is a wave
> Particles can and do
> carry energy through "nothing at all". And obviously we do observe
> particle characteristics of light and call them "photons". However,
> light ALSO displays wave properties such as interference and
> diffraction. How particles can create this in "nothing at all" is not
> clear.
> And there is more. With an Aether, empty space is filled with aether.
> "Nature abhors a vacuum"
That's not a law .. just a saying
Yeup. There could well be one. But it would have to be at rest in every
frame .. so light can propagate at c in it in every frame. How can it do
that? LET proposes that things moving thru the ether shrink in the direction
of movement, and the gapes between things shrink by the same amount, and all
processes slow down by the same factor. All due to movement through the
ether. No explanation of how the ether can change the rates than all
processes happen at, or how it can shrink gaps and lengths. It must be
magic :)
Tom Roberts
> The conclusion of MMX and SR
> was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
> necessary.
Not even that. The primary conclusion of the MMX was that the
then-current aether theory was invalid. Physicists of the day who
thought about this plus related experiments quickly realized that all
aether theories were in trouble. So they started thinking about
alternatives.... Over the following half-century, with numerous
additional discoveries, that led to LET, SR, QED, etc.
LET of course has fallen by the wayside.
> However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
> aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
> then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better. Well, those of us who
have studied modern physics know better; people like yourself who have
not studied modern physics remain mystified.
You may not realize that you are mystified, but your
writings show that you are.
> To
> argue otherwise as modern physics does is totally insane.
No. It is YOUR attempt to discuss modern physics without understanding
that is "insane".
Moreover, there is no requirement on nature to be "not
insane". Indeed, we know full well that in regimes far
from our everyday experience, some physical phenomena
behave in a manner that could only be described as
"insane". As Heinlein said, the rituals and mores of your
tribe are not laws of the universe -- even if "tribe"
includes all of humanity.
> "Modern
> physics" argues that light and EM waves move through "nothing at all",
This is plain not true. You need to get some REAL physics books and
study them. Coffee table books and comic books will not do.
> This might make sense if Light were a particle. Particles can and do
> carry energy through "nothing at all". And obviously we do observe
> particle characteristics of light and call them "photons". However,
> light ALSO displays wave properties such as interference and
> diffraction. How particles can create this in "nothing at all" is not
> clear.
I repeat: it's "not clear" to you because you have clearly never studied
modern physics. What is not clear to me is why you think you have
anything useful to say about a subject of which you display abject
ignorance.
All of the "wave properties" you mention are not modeled as "waves" in
anything. Instead, light is modeled as quantum objects (called photons)
that carry probability amplitudes with them, and it is the combinations
of those amplitudes that give rise to the effects you naively describe
as "wave phenomena". Speaking loosely, this is "waves" in PROBABILITY,
and it ought to be clear that there is no possible "medium" that could
"carry" PROBABILITIES.
If you are actually interested in learning about this,
start with a non-mathematical treatment:
Feynman, _QED_.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:dbeb6019-92e6-4ab9...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> So you say, but there is no evidence that there is no aether .. nor is
> there
> evidence that there is an aether. Its pretty much a matter of faith. There
> is SR worths fine without an aether, and LET that is identical
> mathematically to SR, has an aether. Basically, we have no need of an
> aether for us to make experimental predictions.
This is of course the correct statement. The conclusion of MMX and SR
was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
necessary. However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
aether was proposed in the first place was that
if (1) light were waves
then (4)
some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
==================================================
(1) In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
(2) E = -dB/dt (Faraday)
(3) cos a = -d(sin a + pi)/dt (solution to the differential equation in 2)
(4) Prove that a medium is necessary for a magnetic field (B.sin a) to
create an electric field (E.cos a) and vice versa.
(5) Idiot.
(6) No aether medium needed and none found.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
(7) See 5. See 6.
Koobee Wublee
> Benj wrote:
> > The conclusion of MMX and SR
> > was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
> > necessary.
>
> Not even that. The primary conclusion of the MMX was that the
> then-current aether theory was invalid. Physicists of the day who
> thought about this plus related experiments quickly realized that all
> aether theories were in trouble.
This is just not true. Voigt was the first to have interpreted the
predecessor of the MMX and concluded with the Voigt transform which
satisfies the existence of the Aether. <shrug>
> So they started thinking about
> alternatives.... Over the following half-century, with numerous
> additional discoveries, that led to LET, SR, QED, etc.
These alternatives were all based on the faulty mathematics of the
Lorentz transform in which Voigt discarded earlier. <shrug>
> LET of course has fallen by the wayside.
I wonder why? SR and LET are the same theory but different
interpretations to the null results of the MMX. That means both SR
and LET are experimentally indistinguishable. <shrug>
> > However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
> > aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
> > then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
>
> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better.
You mean TODAY YOU ARE MORE MYSTIFIED. :-)
> Well, those of us who
> have studied modern physics know better;
You have not scratched the surface of your occult science. <shrug>
> people like yourself who have
> not studied modern physics remain mystified.
You have not studied deeper. If so, you will see the same fallacy in
SR as yours truly. <shrug>
> You may not realize that you are mystified, but your
> writings show that you are.
Generations later, they will laugh at the Einstein Dingleberries who
cannot even understand the very simple Lorentz transform to see its
fault. Even if the twins paradox were displayed right in front of
their noise, they would choose to remain mystified. <shrug>
> > "Modern
> > physics" argues that light and EM waves move through "nothing at all",
>
> This is plain not true. You need to get some REAL physics books and
> study them. Coffee table books and comic books will not do.
I have. Indeed, that is why the lack of Aether means ---
nothingness. Well, unless you are talking about the vacuum energy
myth. You are seeing traces of the Aether and continue to be
mystified. When the Doppler shift of the cosmic background radiation
was discovered, what did you do? Continuing to be mystified. That is
OK. Peter only did not recognize Christ three times. How many times
are you going to remain mystified? In the meantime, the sign of the
Aether is still all around you. It is in the light you see. <shrug>
> > This might make sense if Light were a particle. Particles can and do
> > carry energy through "nothing at all". And obviously we do observe
> > particle characteristics of light and call them "photons". However,
> > light ALSO displays wave properties such as interference and
> > diffraction. How particles can create this in "nothing at all" is not
> > clear.
>
> I repeat: it's "not clear" to you because you have clearly never studied
> modern physics. What is not clear to me is why you think you have
> anything useful to say about a subject of which you display abject
> ignorance.
>
> All of the "wave properties" you mention are not modeled as "waves" in
> anything.
Apparently, you have never studied Maxwell/Heaviside’s works. <shrug>
> Instead, light is modeled as quantum objects (called photons)
> that carry probability amplitudes with them, and it is the combinations
> of those amplitudes that give rise to the effects you naively describe
> as "wave phenomena". Speaking loosely, this is "waves" in PROBABILITY,
> and it ought to be clear that there is no possible "medium" that could
> "carry" PROBABILITIES.
If photons do carry probabilistic amplitudes with them whenever they
travel, you would not have received any coherency out of a photon.
That is because its frequency must be probabilistic. This fails any
experimental data in observing light. <shrug>
> If you are actually interested in learning about this,
> start with a non-mathematical treatment:
> Feynman, _QED_.
You can always find an excuse to remain mystified. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
Koobee-You get so confused by words and your perceived history.
The physics and math work!
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> These alternatives were all based on the faulty mathematics of the
> Lorentz transform
[snip rest of crap]
empirical idiot
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
empirical idiot
--
Whoever
> On Jun 23, 8:11 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Benj wrote:
>
>> > The conclusion of MMX and SR
>> > was NOT that an aether "did not exist" but that it simply wasn't
>> > necessary.
>>
>> Not even that. The primary conclusion of the MMX was that the
>> then-current aether theory was invalid. Physicists of the day who
>> thought about this plus related experiments quickly realized that all
>> aether theories were in trouble.
>
> This is just not true. Voigt was the first to have interpreted the
> predecessor of the MMX and concluded with the Voigt transform which
> satisfies the existence of the Aether. <shrug>
That was NOT the then-current theory of aether. <shrug>
>> So they started thinking about
>> alternatives.... Over the following half-century, with numerous
>> additional discoveries, that led to LET, SR, QED, etc.
>
> These alternatives were all based on the faulty mathematics of the
> Lorentz transform in which Voigt discarded earlier. <shrug>
There is nothing faulty about Lorentz transforms.
>> LET of course has fallen by the wayside.
>
> I wonder why? SR and LET are the same theory but different
> interpretations to the null results of the MMX. That means both SR
> and LET are experimentally indistinguishable. <shrug>
And SR is simpler, not requiring a magical ether
>> > However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
>> > aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
>> > then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
>>
>> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better.
>
> You mean TODAY YOU ARE MORE MYSTIFIED. :-)
>
>> Well, those of us who
>> have studied modern physics know better;
>
> You have not scratched the surface of your occult science. <shrug>
Physics is not occult
>> people like yourself who have
>> not studied modern physics remain mystified.
>
> You have not studied deeper. If so, you will see the same fallacy in
> SR as yours truly. <shrug>
What fallacy is that?
[snip]
Aetherist
>"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1e539e39-00ae-4cf3...@p21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 23, 8:11 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Benj wrote:
>>
>>> Not even that. The primary conclusion of the MMX was that the
>>> then-current aether theory was invalid. Physicists of the day who
>>> thought about this plus related experiments quickly realized that all
>>> aether theories were in trouble.
>>
>> This is just not true. Voigt was the first to have interpreted the
>> predecessor of the MMX and concluded with the Voigt transform which
>> satisfies the existence of the Aether. <shrug>
>
> That was NOT the then-current theory of aether. <shrug>
What was the "then-current theory of aether"? Maxwell-Helmholtz model
right?
>>> So they started thinking about
>>> alternatives.... Over the following half-century, with numerous
>>> additional discoveries, that led to LET, SR, QED, etc.
>>
>> These alternatives were all based on the faulty mathematics of the
>> Lorentz transform in which Voigt discarded earlier. <shrug>
>
> There is nothing faulty about Lorentz transforms.
What, physically, makes the Lorentz transform the right transform.
It's the one that give the right answer does NOT! answer this question.
>>> LET of course has fallen by the wayside.
>>
>> I wonder why? SR and LET are the same theory but different
>> interpretations to the null results of the MMX. That means both SR
>> and LET are experimentally indistinguishable. <shrug>
>
> And SR is simpler, not requiring a magical ether
How is that? What is different and thus simpler in the
mathematical formulation of LET?
>>> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better.
>>
>> You mean TODAY YOU ARE MORE MYSTIFIED. :-)
>>
>>> Well, those of us who
>>> have studied modern physics know better;
>>
>> You have not scratched the surface of your occult science. <shrug>
>
>Physics is not occult
What give c its value?
Why is c invariant in inertial frames?
Give me an answer from SR other that an occult one.
MeAmI.org
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:31:42 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
One can argue it only makes sense to marvel at the utility of
mathematics if one assumes C for any phenomenal system is an a-priori
given.
Martin Musatov
Koobee Wublee
> "Whoever" wrote:
> > That was NOT the then-current theory of aether. <shrug>
>
> What was the "then-current theory of aether"? Maxwell-Helmholtz model
> right?
Whoever is lost somewhere.
> > There is nothing faulty about Lorentz transforms.
>
> What, physically, makes the Lorentz transform the right transform.
> It's the one that give the right answer does NOT! answer this question.
The Einstein Dingleberries love the Lorentz transform because it was
endorsed by their idol Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar.
> > And SR is simpler, not requiring a magical ether
>
> How is that? What is different and thus simpler in the
> mathematical formulation of LET?
Einstein Dingleberries are totally mystified. They think the same
mathematics is simpler if interpreted one way versus the other. If
you want to call the Einstein Dingleberries idiots, please don’t
expect me to come to their rescue.
> >Physics is not occult
>
> What give c its value?
> Why is c invariant in inertial frames?
>
> Give me an answer from SR other that an occult one.
Good questions.
> >[snip]
Whoever sounds a lot like Eric Gisse the college dropout, the troll,
and the liar.
Benj
> Benj wrote:
> > However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
> > aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
> > then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
>
> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better. Well, those of us who
> have studied modern physics know better; people like yourself who have
> not studied modern physics remain mystified.
"We "know better"? This sounds an awful lot like "in the old says
everybody thought Zeus was God, but now we know better!" Since you
are such an "expert" in modern physics, please explain to me this
mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
to propagate without a medium. Please explain to me the sense that
"everybody now understands because they've studied modern physics" of
how behavior can exist independently of the thing (a real object)
which possesses the behavior? I do hope you can explain these thing
to us, because they sure sound illogical and insane to me. You do
understand that words actually have real meanings, right?
> You may not realize that you are mystified, but your
> writings show that you are.
Yes, I am mystified. I really can't quite understand what light is.
Can you explain it to me? I'd like to know more about these "photons"
that exist but don't exist that are particles but go through two holes
at once and are only one thing but interfere with themselves and in
fact only are there when someone is watching them. I'm glad this
makes perfect sense to you because we REALLY need someone to explain
it to us all! Please keep your hands in your pockets when offering
this explanation!
> > To
> > argue otherwise as modern physics does is totally insane.
> No. It is YOUR attempt to discuss modern physics without understanding
> that is "insane".
"Insane" means doesn't follow observed facts of reality. Tis YOU who
are saying the insane things such as "if nobody looks at the moon is
doesn't exist" "Waves are propagated through nothing at all",
"causality is not a true law in the earth", "'action at a distance' is
proven core principle of physics" and on and on. I find it hilarious
that you then try to turn it all around and say that *I* am the one
out of touch with reality! BWAhahahaha! Idiot.
> Moreover, there is no requirement on nature to be "not
> insane". Indeed, we know full well that in regimes far
> from our everyday experience, some physical phenomena
> behave in a manner that could only be described as
> "insane". As Heinlein said, the rituals and mores of your
> tribe are not laws of the universe -- even if "tribe"
> includes all of humanity.
You abuse the poor term insane. If some things (like er...ah... say
MMX) don't behave as you in your infinite wisdom think they should,
that does not make the universe "insane" because it does not recognize
you as a God. It makes YOU insane for thinking that the universe needs
to act the way YOU say it should. Reality is as it is. The job of
physics is to understand that phenomena. It is insane to think that
you are going to tell reality how to behave. The universe does not
give a rat's ass about any of your or anybody else's oh so clever and
complex theories.
However, that said, one must also recognize that our understanding is
much less than infinite. But our experience with reality today has
shown that certain principles seem to hold. They may be wrong, but it
takes real experimental data to overturn them. In the past men had
lots of theories such as "magic" and "actions of gods" etc. to
"explain" certain phenomena. Over the years these theories have been
rejected as untenable and illogical and unsupported by experiment. So
the mystery is just why you and those like you are trying so hard to
return to these long-discredited ideas? Must be a personality
weakness.
> > "Modern
> > physics" argues that light and EM waves move through "nothing at all",
>
> This is plain not true. You need to get some REAL physics books and
> study them. Coffee table books and comic books will not do.
You are a liar and an idiot. You think you can get out of this with
insults? You think you know more than anyone else in the universe?
You think you can "win" by just making stuff up?
Proof: The following is from one of THE most popular freshman physics
texts for many years, Resnick and Halliday, p393.
"No medium is necessary for the transmission of electromagnetic waves,
light passing freely, for example, through the vacuum of outer space
from the stars."
So this is the "truth" that is being taught to young people as a
"foundation" of physics? This is the faith-based physics you are a
high priest of? I sure as Hell hope that YOU have nothing at all to
do with the technical education of young people! God help us. With
statements like this, this textbook might as well be a comic book. At
least then you might get something out of looking at the pictures.
Tell us again how "nothing at all" has "properties"? Even Einstein
didn't go that far! And please spare me your assertions that the
vacuum of outer space is really an "object" known as Minkowski
spacetime or the like. Here's a hint. Mathematics is ABSTRACT.
> > This might make sense if Light were a particle. Particles can and do
> > carry energy through "nothing at all". And obviously we do observe
> > particle characteristics of light and call them "photons". However,
> > light ALSO displays wave properties such as interference and
> > diffraction. How particles can create this in "nothing at all" is not
> > clear.
>
> I repeat: it's "not clear" to you because you have clearly never studied
> modern physics. What is not clear to me is why you think you have
> anything useful to say about a subject of which you display abject
> ignorance.
You have no idea to what level I have studied modern physics. You
simply operate under the assumption that everything your professors
ever said is true and it's your duty to spread the faith by
proselytizing for your mystic faith. How did you ever get to be so
arrogant as to think that only you "know it all"? I'll bet you were
an "A" student who dutifully barfed back every word you were
told...and you still can't find your own ass even if you were allowed
to use both hands.
> All of the "wave properties" you mention are not modeled as "waves" in
> anything. Instead, light is modeled as quantum objects (called photons)
> that carry probability amplitudes with them, and it is the combinations
> of those amplitudes that give rise to the effects you naively describe
> as "wave phenomena". Speaking loosely, this is "waves" in PROBABILITY,
> and it ought to be clear that there is no possible "medium" that could
> "carry" PROBABILITIES.
Ah, so you admit that you are a "true believer" that waves travel in
"nothing at all"! Next why don't we go for math is more real than
reality? Thus clearly it follows that not only do you believe in
something so totally abstract that it's impossible to exist, but that
it doesn't even give a definitive answer. It only is the "science of
ignorance". The best you can to is calculate some statistics and then
claim you know "all there is to know' about the subject. And worst of
all this position makes perfect sense in your brainwashed mind. Even
Einstein didn't go this far!
[And Uncle Al don't bother to bring up Godel, the theorem doesn't
apply to physics because physics tests exist outside the mathematical
consistent system (proof by experiment not by internal masturbation)]
> If you are actually interested in learning about this,
> start with a non-mathematical treatment:
> Feynman, _QED_.
And perhaps you should step back and start with a philosophical
treatment of basic ideas rather than get lost in a bunch of
mathematics with no relationship to phenomena. Physics is the study
of phenomena. It is not a contest to see who can generate the most
obscure mathematics. Perhaps if YOU are interested in learning about
this YOU should take some time and read Feynman. He was a wonderful
physicist, (unlike you), because he was ALWAYS worried about the
philosophical basis of phenomena and did not buy into faith-based
physics unless he had no other options. And he would never say that
insanity was was more real than reality. He knew the difference
between mathematical models and the reality which they approximate. He
knew how to look at the philosophical basis of a theory and use that
to extend it to a mathematical model of greater and greater accuracy.
He never thought [as do so many post-Einstein so-called "scientists"]
that math is more real than reality. And as a major heretic often
risked the stake with opinions and suggestions contrary to your faith-
based dogma.
The truly funny thing about you is that the ones who post here that
obviously need to learn the MOST are the same ones who always think
that everybody else is "insane" or needs to go read some "freshman
textbook". Sad and pitiful. Reminds me of a woman I know who had a
sister in the State mental hospital. During one visit her sister bent
over and whispered in her ear: "You know everybody in here is crazy
except you and me!"
Bottom line:
You: "Waves are mathematical vibrations in nothing at all".
Me: "Waves are vibrations which means that *something* must be
vibrating".
OK Andro, you vote. Which one of us makes the most sense?
Nevermind. :)
Androcles
> > However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
> > aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
> > then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
>
> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better. Well, those of us who
> have studied modern physics know better; people like yourself who have
> not studied modern physics remain mystified.
"We "know better"? This sounds an awful lot like "in the old says
everybody thought Zeus was God, but now we know better!" Since you
are such an "expert" in modern physics, please explain to me this
mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
to propagate without a medium.
===========================================
I did. You choose not to believe it, that's your problem.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
The electric field is measured at the brushes. I know better.
===========================================
=============================================
This works:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/1stPostulate.gif
It even works as it rushes through the aether.
Electric and magnetic fields are easily detectable, aether is not.
Movement of one cause the other. You are both raving loonies.
This works:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
It even works as it rushes through the aether.
Electric and magnetic fields are easily detectable, aether is not.
Movement of one cause the other. You are both raving loonies.
This works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CRT_color_enhanced.png
It even works as it rushes through the aether.
Electric and magnetic fields are easily detectable, aether is not.
Movement of one cause the other. You are both raving loonies.
Sad and pitiful. Reminds me of a drunken fuckwit I know who had an
aether ego in the State mental hospital. During one visit his aether ego
bent
over and whispered in his ear: "You know everybody in here is crazy
except you and me!"
MeAmI.org
Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "Spirit of Truth" <juneh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:0vi_l.72$Wj...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> > news:6I7_l.23213$FO5....@newsfe08.ams2...
> >>
> >> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> news:GJ5_l.1472$9Z....@newsfe08.iad...
> >>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>> news:tkMZl.50$dg5...@newsfe25.iad...
> >>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>>>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:h0rZl.13217$v24....@newsfe13.iad...
> >>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:7cNYl.135$jI6...@newsfe11.iad...
> >>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:I5PWl.21823$xW6....@newsfe11.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Added to and correction of typo:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:uouWl.597$h53...@newsfe10.iad...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [nothing worth reading]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contrary to people who critize what you post, you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MMX did NOT prove anything. ANY child could expain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if light was ballistic the two way result would have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result they got OR if one simply looked at Galileon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local distance the light travelled would obviously not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change so would have given the same result.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on your frequently displayed "knowledge" of facts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spirit, your choice of stage name is oxymoronic. What the MMX
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "proved" is that light wasn't a wave traveling through a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> material substance - an important discovery since, based on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of other discoveries, light was presumed to be a wave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And, although some later discoveries were consistent with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> particulate light, it's clear, at this point, that light isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ballistic (e.g., the GPS wouldn't work if it were).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jem, you should know better than that. Many experts in SR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> state exactly what I stated above about MMX.. And, anybody
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with even a modicum understanding of math (a child) could
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it to you.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein using, or anyone else using, MMX to justify SR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or length contraction is just plain incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Single experimental results don't justify theories, viable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theories have to agree with ALL experimental results.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Spirit, speaking of things "ANY child could explain",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> have you realized yet that not both observers, in Einstein's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> train gedanken,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can simultaneously see the light flashes?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jem, you still are not confronting that both rest frames would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Spirit, both rest frames wouldn't say exactly that, since
> >>>>>>>>>>> /that/ is an impossibility.
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Jem, you are incorrect. What is an impossibility in this
> >>>>>>>>>> universe is lack of simultaneity.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone who dismisses a contradiction in order to maintain a belief
> >>>>>>>>> hardly deserves the moniker "Spirit of Truth".
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, and BTW, June, at least express that irrational fear of yours
> >>>>>>>>> correctly. It's not "lack of simultaneity" that cowers you -
> >>>>>>>>> simultaneity is ubiquitous in Relativity. Your phobia is for lack
> >>>>>>>>> of /absolute/ simultaneity.
> >>>>>>>>> Although, FYI, June, absolute simultaneity could be introduced
> >>>>>>>>> into the relativistic model with the greatest of ease, without
> >>>>>>>>> changing the theory one iota.
> >>>>>>>> .....................................................................................................
> >>>>>>>> .....................................................................................................
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Really? How?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're gonna have to do a little thinking in order to find out how.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred
> >>>>>>> simultaneously?
> >>>>>> ...............................................................................................................
> >>>>>> ..............................................................................................................
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jem, with SR there is no simultaneity except spacetime simultaneity
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> means a block universe, and of course that is false.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No, June, it isn't false, it's gibberish, and a pretty clear
> >>>>> indication that you don't know what "simultaneity" means.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If you think you know
> >>>>>> something else please be good enough to tell us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> OK. "Simultaneity" means "condition where two or more events occur at
> >>>>> the same time", which has nothing to do with spacetime or block
> >>>>> universes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So again, (assuming you still want an answer to the question you
> >>>>> asked), how can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred
> >>>>> simultaneously?
> >>>>
> >>>> Stop being silly, Jem, you don't even understand your own religion.
> >>>> First figure out why a block universe is the result, then come back and
> >>>> I
> >>>> will explain to you why looking is superior to thinking.
> >>> No need to explain why you find looking superior to thinking, June. It
> >>> makes it easier to turn your back on the things you don't want to see.
> >
> > Silly.
> >
> >> Einstein was correct in his result, the passenger sees the forward flash
> >> before the backward flash. After all, he's closer to it. Why shouldn't
> >> he?
> >> He'd have to be a idiot to say the flashes were not simultaneous, though.
> >> That would be like claiming thunder and lightning were not simultaneous
> >> because we always hear the thunder after the lightning. Even little
> >> kiddies
> >> understand sound has a finite speed.
> >
> > Are you saying that above? > "explain" certain phenomena. Over the years these theories have been
Martin Michael Musatov
sci.physics.relativity Martin Musatov; Re: A thought experiment for Bruce and Dono (and anyone else interested) ... Re: Difference between Quantum Mechanics and Aether Displacement .... What, physically, makes the Lorentz transform the right transform. ...http://www.livephysics.com/newsgroups/sci-physics-relativity.html - sci.physics.relativity Re: Proof That Simultaneity is Absolute and Universal, Paul B. Andersen. Differential form of a Lorentz transformation, blackhead ...http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2009-05/
Math Forum Discussions the other calls ether or attributes to dynamic effect ... but instead of using a lorentz invariant interpretation .... Martin Michael Musatov. 5/22/09 ...http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa%3FmessageID%3D6732454%26tstart%3D0 Math Forum Discussions - Re: Relativity Cranks versus Quantum Geniuses for which the lorentz metric is not invariant .... is not observable - a play in three parts :: with a passing yet poignant mention of ether theories] ...http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa%3FforumID%3D13%26threadID%3D1938025%26messageID%3D6732181
Chertok front matterStanding (from right to left): Major B. Chertok, Major Musatov, Colonel ...... transmitter sending its dots and dashes into the ether in a series of blinding ...... The Lorentz and Blaupunkt companies provided large television screens ...http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050010181_2005010059.pdf - The Theory of Relativity - Physics Banter"Martin Michael Musatov" wrote in message ... Harris method of solving a... 17 Hours Ago by VMCM1905 · Go to last post ...http://www.physicsbanter.com/theory-relativity/ 1.1 Fields and Particles These groups contain higher dimensional Lorentz groups in the ...... A. Mukherjee, iv Musatov, hc Pauli and av Radyushkin, “Power-law wave ...http://theor.jinr.ru/Report/2002/Fields_Particles.pdf
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote in message
news:ca2b43ca-2a36-499a...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
...
> One can argue it only makes sense to marvel at
> the utility of mathematics if one assumes C for any
> phenomenal system is an a-priori given.
One can feign some relly nice postures, if one forgets that a
constant speed of light is a result of Maxwells' equations, and
no sort of "a-priori given".
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> On Jun 23, 11:11 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Benj wrote:
>>> However, I contest this assertion. The very reason that
>>> aether was proposed in the first place was that if light were waves
>>> then some medium is necessary for those waves to be propagated in.
>> Sure, a century ago. But TODAY we know better. Well, those of us who
>> have studied modern physics know better; people like yourself who have
>> not studied modern physics remain mystified.
>
> "We "know better"? This sounds an awful lot like "in the old says
> everybody thought Zeus was God, but now we know better!"
If that's what it sounds like to you, then you need to learn to read the
entire article before responding, and you need to learn to read more
accurately.
> please explain to me this
> mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
> to propagate without a medium.
That is the WRONG QUESTION. Because in modern physics, LIGHT IS NOT A
WAVE. Had you read my earlier posts you would know this -- light is a
collection of quantum objects (photons) that carry probability
amplitudes, and the combinations of those probability amplitudes
generate wave-LIKE behavior in appropriate circumstances.
PHOTONS ARE NOT PARTICLES, THEY ARE QUANTUM OBJECTS.
Even though many popular writings call them "particles".
> Please explain to me the sense that
> "everybody now understands because they've studied modern physics" of
> how behavior can exist independently of the thing (a real object)
> which possesses the behavior?
Again the WRONG QUESTION. See above. Light ACTS LIKE A WAVE in many
respects, but light IS NOT A WAVE in our modern theories, such as QED
and the standard model.
>> No. It is YOUR attempt to discuss modern physics without understanding
>> that is "insane".
>
> "Insane" means doesn't follow observed facts of reality.
That's one meaning, but not the only one. It can also mean "contrary to
accepted wisdom", and that is the sense I used the word. Yes, PUNs
abound here.
> [... no point in continuing, except for this:]
> Bottom line:
> You: "Waves are mathematical vibrations in nothing at all".
You need to learn how to read -- I never said anything remotely like
that! You are ascribing YOUR misconceptions to me. DON'T DO THAT.
Somehow you seem to have gotten it into your head that
light is some kind of wave, and cannot get past it.
That prejudice gets in the way of everything you read.
You MUST learn how to read what is written, without
re-interpreting it so it conforms to whatever nonsense
you personally happen to believe at the time.
If you think this is not true, just look at what you wrote,
and how you use "wave" as essentially synonymous with "light",
yet I never applied the word "wave" to light, except as
"wave-LIKE" or when I explicitly said I was speaking loosely.
That is your prejudice, not my writing.
Tom Roberts
Aetherist
Yup, the equation causes physics... just like little pink elephants do!
Actually Maxwell defines the speed of light in Part III of "On Physical
Lines of Force" page 22, Equation 132. See:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf
as,
V = Sqrt(m/p)
Where m is the aether modulus and p is its density. Go look for yourself...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Aetherist" <TheAet...@best.net> wrote in message
news:inq545l26c65tuk4c...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>>"MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote in message
>>news:ca2b43ca-2a36-499a...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>...
>>> One can argue it only makes sense to marvel at
>>> the utility of mathematics if one assumes C for any
>>> phenomenal system is an a-priori given.
>>
>>One can feign some relly nice postures, if one
>>forgets that a constant speed of light is a result of
>>Maxwells' equations, and no sort of "a-priori given".
>
> Yup, the equation causes physics...
No amount if intelligence can make your statement coherent.
Maxwells' equations have been extensively tested and are *based*
on physics.
<snip link that is a strawman argument, since Maxwell's equations
*generate* a constant speed of light *without* any additional
"postulates">
Under what conditions do you feel we should observe light that
moves faster than c? Moving sources doesn't do it. So what else
did you have in mind?
David A.Smith
Aetherist
>Dear Aetherist:
>
>"Aetherist" <TheAet...@best.net> wrote in message
>news:inq545l26c65tuk4c...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:21:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
>> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>"MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ca2b43ca-2a36-499a...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>...
>>>> One can argue it only makes sense to marvel at
>>>> the utility of mathematics if one assumes C for any
>>>> phenomenal system is an a-priori given.
>>>
>>>One can feign some relly nice postures, if one
>>>forgets that a constant speed of light is a result of
>>>Maxwells' equations, and no sort of "a-priori given".
>>
>> Yup, the equation causes physics...
>
>No amount if intelligence can make your statement coherent.
>Maxwells' equations have been extensively tested and are *based*
>on physics.
And are meticulously derived from a physical model. That
model gave Maxwell his displacement current.
><snip link that is a strawman argument, since Maxwell's equations
>*generate* a constant speed of light *without* any additional
>"postulates">
Yeah, like Maxwell penned those equations ordained by God on
stone tablets. Those equations are the results of a physical
model of a vortex perfect fluid. The specfic behavior is described
in detail. You sure don't want that niggle reference to that now
do we?
>Under what conditions do you feel we should observe light that
>moves faster than c? Moving sources doesn't do it. So what else
>did you have in mind?
For example, increase the density in a region and the seed of
c decrease. Something moving at c in a lower density region
when entering the higher density will, suddenly find itself
moving at greater than c. Ever heard of Cherenkov radiation?
Go back & look at Maxwell's Equation 132...
>David A.Smith
>
MeAmI.org
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:31:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Dear Aetherist:
>
Science and Math can be mass produced when mixed with equal parts hard
work and imagination.
1.
Physics Letters B : On the relation of Regge-trajectories.
We assume w + p = np + rcp [26], where n is the density of moving
particles and partial differential equations (Holden-Day, San
Francisco, 1965) p. 272.(Fayos, Llanta, Llosa: Maxwell's equations in
the Debye potential).
Maxwell's equations in the Debye potential formalism. Annales de
l'institut Henri Poincaré (A) Physique théorique, 43 no. 2 (1985), p.
195-209 ...
A family of cylindrically symmetric solutions to Einstein-Maxwell ...
The only Maxwell equation left to be solved with the NP equations
is ... p(p + 27) + 422,. (44) np = 2( - )p. (45). Moreover, eqs. ...
P/NP, and the quantum field<img src="corehtml/pmc/pmcents/x2009 ...
P-hard [Jaeger, F., Vertigen, D. & Welsh, D. (1990) Math. .... If an
alternating current is sent through α, Maxwell's equations tell us
that a current will ...
Optics InfoBase - Block-iterative frequency-domain methods for ...
Jan 29, 2001 ... Block-iterative frequency-domain methods for
Maxwell's equations in a .... P. Yeh, Optical Waves in Layered Media
(Wiley, New York, 1988). ...
Physics Letters A : The interior field of a magnetized Einstein ...
ELSEVIER Physics Letters A 249 (1998) 271274 7 December 1998 PHYSICS
LETTERS .... In terms of the function r, the Maxwell equations read
A,P,P = QW e'r,S, ... for arbitrary constants No and d, provided that N
(N,PP+N,SS)=2[(NP)2+(NS)2]. ...
Phys. Rev. E 57, 7239 (1998): Hillion - Maxwell's equations and ...
0 0 0 1 22 N P, 17 and we get easily g det g 57 MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS
AND .... Fiz. 25, 148 1977 JETP Lett. 25, 135 1977 . 27 P. Hillion
unpublished . ...
Physics Letters B : Instability of the parallelized seven-sphere ...
The field equations. In the bosonic sector the classical equations
which arise from the ... Picking up one of these spinors, say ri =
170, we may define Maxwell field ..... L. Castellani and N.P. Warner
Phys. Lett. 130B (1983), p. 47. ...
P NP , and the quantum field computer 98–101, January 1998. Computer
Sciences. P NP, and the quantum field computer ..... is sent through ,
Maxwell's equations tell us that a current will ...
Knotted solutions of the Maxwell equations in vacuum where P is an
action constant, which necessarily must be introduced in order
that ... the second pair of Maxwell equations, the first pair being
automatically verified. The ... being equal to nP, even if the fields
are c-numbers. ..... [2] Bott R and Tu L W 1982 Diflerential Forms in
Algebraic Topology (Berlin: ...
References
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/23/16/007/jav23i16pL815.pdf
by AF Rafiada - 1990 - Cited by 8 - Related articles
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/1/98.full.pdf
by MH Freedman - 1998 - Cited by 44 - Related articles - All 10
versions
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0370269384901990
by B Biran - 1984 - Cited by 9 - Related articles
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.57.7239
by P Hillion - 1998 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0375960198007750
by T Matos - 1998 - Cited by 4 - Related articles\
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-8-3-173
by S Johnson - 2001 - Cited by 1050 - Related articles
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18139
by MH Freedman - 1998 - Cited by 44 - Related articles
http://www.numdam.org/numdam-bin/fitem?id=AIHPA_1985__43_2...
by F Fayos - 1985 - Related articles
http://www.springerlink.com/index/N167435781677030.pdf
by C Liang - 1995 - Cited by 8 - Related articles
http:??linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0370269378904793
by HA Kastrup - 1978 - Cited by 11 - Related articles - All 3 versions
Martin M. Musatov
Koobee Wublee
> Benj wrote:
> > "We "know better"? This sounds an awful lot like "in the old says
> > everybody thought Zeus was God, but now we know better!"
>
> If that's what it sounds like to you, then you need to learn to read the
> entire article before responding, and you need to learn to read more
> accurately.
Hmmm... It sounds like you are trying desperately to avoid this
issue. <shrug>
> > please explain to me this
> > mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
> > to propagate without a medium.
>
> That is the WRONG QUESTION. Because in modern physics, LIGHT IS NOT A
> WAVE. Had you read my earlier posts you would know this -- light is a
> collection of quantum objects (photons) that carry probability
> amplitudes, and the combinations of those probability amplitudes
> generate wave-LIKE behavior in appropriate circumstances.
>
> PHOTONS ARE NOT PARTICLES, THEY ARE QUANTUM OBJECTS.
> Even though many popular writings call them "particles".
That is according to your (could be plural) own speculation(s).
Maxwell’s equations are against you. They are able to give you a
precise and coherent laser beam. Your interpretation cannot. Do you
want to pull out the mathematics of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
(h-bar / 2 <= E / f) to justify your mathematics if any?
> > Please explain to me the sense that
> > "everybody now understands because they've studied modern physics" of
> > how behavior can exist independently of the thing (a real object)
> > which possesses the behavior?
>
> Again the WRONG QUESTION. See above. Light ACTS LIKE A WAVE in many
> respects, but light IS NOT A WAVE in our modern theories, such as QED
> and the standard model.
Hmmm... Experiments prove light can be wavelike. You need to have a
better explanation instead of handwaving. Is that too much to ask?
> > "Insane" means doesn't follow observed facts of reality.
>
> That's one meaning, but not the only one. It can also mean "contrary to
> accepted wisdom", and that is the sense I used the word. Yes, PUNs
> abound here.
I think you could have made a very good lawyer. <shrug>
> > [... no point in continuing, except for this:]
> > Bottom line:
> > You: "Waves are mathematical vibrations in nothing at all".
>
> You need to learn how to read -- I never said anything remotely like
> that! You are ascribing YOUR misconceptions to me. DON'T DO THAT.
I am sorry. That is exactly the impression I got from reading your
posts, too. <shrug>
> Somehow you seem to have gotten it into your head that
> light is some kind of wave, and cannot get past it.
> That prejudice gets in the way of everything you read.
> You MUST learn how to read what is written, without
> re-interpreting it so it conforms to whatever nonsense
> you personally happen to believe at the time.
Well, you have not offered anything better than light being wavelike.
You just continually telling everyone who do not subscribe to your
(could be plural) nonsense that they need to study more about some
priests’ interpretations of scriptures. <shrug>
> If you think this is not true, just look at what you wrote,
> and how you use "wave" as essentially synonymous with "light",
> yet I never applied the word "wave" to light, except as
> "wave-LIKE" or when I explicitly said I was speaking loosely.
> That is your prejudice, not my writing.
I think I have enough of your weaseling. Mr. Jacobs asked you a very
fair and square question, and all we got back is garbage. You need to
show that your model of light also satisfies Maxwell’s equations in a
Newtonian sense. I do not think it is too much to ask. <shrug>
Musatov
Moeblee,
Get off it, please. Now you are recycling weaseling from Edison's
time. Please.
Listen, I am well aware of the old debate of "Is light a wave or a
stream of particles? ...
But the bottom line is IT IS A WAVE.
Whether a wave in the pure sense or a wave of a stream of particles.
There is a "wavelength" to light.
In fact, though I am not ready to push this theory, as some of the old
goats, my simply have heart attacks with their deep breaths before
they hurl insults at me reserved formally for heretics by people who
called themselves "Christians".
But to put it another way, and to just get you thinking past this
stuck-button point, the theory is, there is more than a "wavelength"
to light.
There is actually a multi-directional "weave-length" to light.
Listen, I am tired of playing "Oracle" here. Can we get to the Clay
Prize already?
Koobee Wublee
> Moeblee,
>
> Get off it, please. Now you are recycling weaseling from Edison's
> time. Please.
>
> Listen, I am well aware of the old debate of "Is light a wave or a
> stream of particles? ...
>
> But the bottom line is IT IS A WAVE.
>
> [...]
You make no logical sense. However, it sounds like a confession, and
that is between you and the Church. So, please visit your church. In
the meantime, we have serious scientific issues to be discussed. OK?
Surfer
wrote:
>
>Since you
>are such an "expert" in modern physics, please explain to me this
>mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
>to propagate without a medium.
>
system, then anything would be possible.
However, in reality, it appears that various experiments HAVE detected
a medium.
Eg.
The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
Motion of the Earth
Dayton C. Miller
Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 203 - 242 (1933)
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Sam Wormley
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>> Since you
>> are such an "expert" in modern physics, please explain to me this
>> mechanism that everybody now "knows better" about which allows waves
>> to propagate without a medium.
>>
> If the universe, at a fundamental level, was like a giant computing
> system, then anything would be possible.
Bzzzzt! Even mathematics has its constraints.
>
> However, in reality, it appears that various experiments HAVE detected
> a medium.
Not the aether of the 19th century.
dlzc
On Jun 24, 9:01 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@best.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:31:04 -0700, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> >Under what conditions do you feel we should
> >observe light that moves faster than c?
> >Moving sources doesn't do it. So what else
> >did you have in mind?
>
> For example, increase the density in a region
> and the seed of c decrease.
c does not decrease. c_medium for transmitted wavelengths is less.
Gamma radiation tunnels through dense and non-dense matter at the same
speed of c, because it is not *transmitted*... it does not dance with
"charge fields" until the last dance.
> Something moving at c in a lower density
> region when entering the higher density
> will, suddenly find itself moving at
> greater than c.
... c_medium ...
> Ever heard of Cherenkov radiation?
So my question remains unanswered. Under what conditions do you
expect we will have light travelling > c (as measured by an inertial
observer, of course)?
> Go back & look at Maxwell's Equation 132...
... full reference is...???
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Jun 24, 9:45 pm, "MeAmI.org" <Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote:
...
> Science and Math can be mass produced
> when mixed with equal parts hard work
> and imagination.
<snip citations that do not address macroscopic c measurements>
If a chicken and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half,
how long does it take an ant with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out
of a dill pickle? None, because ice cream has no bones.
You are following Sue's excellent model, and posting the first
interesting-looking papers you can find, even though they provide no
support to your claim.
c is a defined constant. If it changes based on source velocity, then
the length standard is different for different light sources. This is
not seen in Nature.
David A. Smith
Aetherist
Light moves at the speed the medium sets, that is based upon
its modulus and and density. The modulus of free space is
the inverse of its permeability. Density is permittivity
You can formulate Maxwell's equations using these terms and c
never enters the picture... Actually these is a better and
more precise way of expressing them.
But, the answer to your question is since c is a property
of the medium's modulus & density with light being the phonon
of that medium it always travels a c, because the medium itself
creates and regulates set the speed.
>> Go back & look at Maxwell's Equation 132...
>
>... full reference is...???
Same as it was earlier,
Part III of "On Physical Lines of Force" page 22, Equation 132. See:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf
>David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> However, in reality, it appears that various experiments HAVE detected
> a medium.
> Motion of the Earth
> Dayton C. Miller
> Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 203 - 242 (1933)
> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Nope.
* A basic error analysis of his data shows QUITE CLEARLY that all
the variations he measured were STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
This error analysis is indisputable, as it is based purely on
his averaging of the data points.
* Miller made a major mistake in his analysis which completely
negates his conclusions -- his averaging FORCED his noise to
mimic the appearance of a "signal".
* A modern analysis of a subset of his raw data, which avoids the
errors he made and models his interferometer's drift, obtains a
value for his ether drift of 0 with an upper bound of 6 km/s
(90% confidence level).
Any one of these is sufficient to completely negate his conclusions.
Miller could not have known of these disasters, because they are based
on techniques not common back then, and on knowledge gained after his
death. You have no such excuse. Nor does Cahill.
See http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> RustyJames wrote:
> > Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all
> > frames?
He got it from Voigt. <shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
> It is not what "I think", but rather what Einstein said and wrote about
> this:
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care
about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
> it comes from Maxwell's equations and the notion that the
> Principle of Relativity holds for them.
This is a totally false. The invariance in the speed of light by any
observers has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. <shrug>
Besides Maxwell’s equations do not support the principle of
relativity. The Voigt transform actually fits much better with
Maxwell’s equations. <shrug>
> Maxwell's equations, when written in an inertial frame,
> imply that all self-propagating EM waves propagate
> with speed c.
Again, this is totally untrue. The constancy of the speed of light in
the medium of Maxwell’s equations is a postulate according to sound
waves. It is not a manifestation of the equations themselves but a
permeability-permittivity thing. <shrug>
> If that holds in every inertial frame,
> Einstein showed that the transformations between inertial
> frames must be Lorentz transforms, not Galilean transforms.
> Einstein simply followed where those two assumptions led,
> and deduced a number of important physical consequences.
Nonsense! Einstein showed nothing. Remember that Einstein was a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? In section 3 of Einstein’s 1905
paper, the coordinate transformation was total garbage. The Lorentz
transform is linear. Einstein’s plagiarism went non-linear. In
section 4, the whole business of coordinate transform becomes ever
more mathemagical. That is why no one endorses Einstein’s approach
ever. <shrug>
> Poincaré came to essentially the same conclusion by considering the
> invariance group of Maxwell's equations. But he did not have the
> physical insight of Einstein, and did not follow it through. Lorentz
> also came to this conclusion, but he thought the coordinates in the
> moving frame were merely mathematical artifacts, and also did not follow
> through.
This once again is totally untrue. It is another lame excuse to
continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. <shrug>
Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The
Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins’
paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug>
Dono.
> On Jun 25, 5:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > RustyJames wrote:
> > > Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all
> > > frames?
>
> He got it from Voigt. <shrug>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
>
Nitwit, old fart, Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment. It
only passes MMX and KTX but it fails Ives.
Sam Wormley
> Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The
> Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins’
> paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug>
>
>
All you are doing, Koobee, is demonstrating you don't understand
the Twins Paradox.
Surfer
While your paper is interesting, I did not find it convincing.
I did my own analysis and placed it here:
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Miller/1933/Analysis_of_Fig8/
I think its easier to follow and more convincing than your paper.
My conclusion is that Miller's data is reliable, but it needs to be
interpreted using a more advanced theory. (Eg Cahill's dynamical
3-space theory.)
Peter Webb
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec30f34b-0e3a-4bc4...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 5:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> RustyJames wrote:
> > Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all
> > frames?
He got it from Voigt. <shrug>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
> It is not what "I think", but rather what Einstein said and wrote about
> this:
Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care
about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
****************
No, that's wrong. He was the greatest scientist of the 20th Century. Just
read any books on cosmology, quantum physics or statistical mechanics to see
the enormous contribution he has made to modern physics.
> it comes from Maxwell's equations and the notion that the
> Principle of Relativity holds for them.
This is a totally false. The invariance in the speed of light by any
observers has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. <shrug>
***************
That's wrong as well. The principle of relativity demands that there is no
priveleged intertial frame; unless physical object use the same
transformations as electromagnetic radiation (ie the Lorentz transform) this
would be violated.
Besides Maxwell�s equations do not support the principle of
relativity. The Voigt transform actually fits much better with
Maxwell�s equations. <shrug>
> Maxwell's equations, when written in an inertial frame,
> imply that all self-propagating EM waves propagate
> with speed c.
Again, this is totally untrue. The constancy of the speed of light in
the medium of Maxwell�s equations is a postulate according to sound
waves. It is not a manifestation of the equations themselves but a
permeability-permittivity thing. <shrug>
*****************
No, it is a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
> If that holds in every inertial frame,
> Einstein showed that the transformations between inertial
> frames must be Lorentz transforms, not Galilean transforms.
> Einstein simply followed where those two assumptions led,
> and deduced a number of important physical consequences.
Nonsense! Einstein showed nothing. Remember that Einstein was a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar?
***********************
No, that's wrong. Again, if you had studied physics, you would be aware of
his huge contribution, even if you don't understand all of it.
In section 3 of Einstein�s 1905
paper, the coordinate transformation was total garbage.
*************************
It was peer reviewed. Perhaps if you provided the exact thing in his paper
you don't understand, then someone can explain it to you.
The Lorentz
transform is linear. Einstein�s plagiarism went non-linear. In
section 4, the whole business of coordinate transform becomes ever
more mathemagical.
*********************
Reading Einstein is difficult if you don't have good maths knowledge and
skills. Perhaps you need to brush up on your maths before trying to study
any more physics.
That is why no one endorses Einstein�s approach
ever. <shrug>
************************
Huh? What exactly is this supposed to mean? That nobody believes in SR?
> Poincar� came to essentially the same conclusion by considering the
> invariance group of Maxwell's equations. But he did not have the
> physical insight of Einstein, and did not follow it through. Lorentz
> also came to this conclusion, but he thought the coordinates in the
> moving frame were merely mathematical artifacts, and also did not follow
> through.
This once again is totally untrue. It is another lame excuse to
continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. <shrug>
***********************
He wasn't. If you don't understand Einstein's work, it is probably because
you don't have enough maths and physics background to do so.
Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The
Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins�
paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug>
**********************
Well, SR is tested everyday. The equations obviously work. If you don't like
them, blame the universe, not Einstein.
Jerry
> However, in reality, it appears that various experiments HAVE detected
> a medium.
>
> Eg.
>
> The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute
> Motion of the Earth
> Dayton C. Miller
> Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 203 - 242 (1933)http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
Miller blatantly LIED about the supposed insensitivity of his
apparatus to temperature gradients. Although Miller asserted on
page 220 of his paper that his apparatus, with the light path
covered by glass and cardboard, showed no periodic effects when
tested with artificial heat, examination of his notebooks shows
that even with full insulation, the apparatus showed second
harmonics on the order of 0.05 fringe, while if covered only by
glass as at Mt. Wilson, second harmonics on the order of 0.07
fringe were observed. A laboratory notebook entry for April 14,
1921 reads, "Sun shining full on side of house. There was a very
large drift which seems to be in the direction of the sun..."
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Shankland_1955.pdf
Overall, I would guess that the periodic residuals detected by
Miller were due to a COMBINATION of effects: diurnally varying
temperature gradients, plus constant magnetostrictive effects.
Jerry
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care
> > about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
>
> No, that's wrong. He was the greatest scientist of the 20th Century. Just
> read any books on cosmology, quantum physics or statistical mechanics to see
> the enormous contribution he has made to modern physics.
Only Einstein Dingleberries would think Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar as the greatest scientist in the 20th
century. It is totally faith talking. <shrug>
> > This is a totally false. The invariance in the speed of light by any
> > observers has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> That's wrong as well. The principle of relativity demands that there is no
> priveleged intertial frame; unless physical object use the same
> transformations as electromagnetic radiation (ie the Lorentz transform) this
> would be violated.
Your reasoning is correct. However, the MMX does not prove in the
validity of the principle of relativity. Voigt’s single postulate is
enough to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
> > Besides Maxwell’s equations do not support the principle of
> > relativity. The Voigt transform actually fits much better with
> > Maxwell’s equations. <shrug>
>
> > The constancy of the speed of light in
> > the medium of Maxwell’s equations is a postulate according to sound
> > waves. It is not a manifestation of the equations themselves but a
> > permeability-permittivity thing. <shrug>
>
> No, it is a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
No, it isn’t. <shrgu>
> > Nonsense! Einstein showed nothing. Remember that Einstein was a
> > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar?
>
> No, that's wrong. Again, if you had studied physics, you would be aware of
> his huge contribution, even if you don't understand all of it.
Again, I have studied Einstein’s works. All I see is nothing but
plagiarism. Your idol Einstein was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
a liar. <shrug>
> > In section 3 of Einstein’s 1905
> > paper, the coordinate transformation was total garbage.
>
> It was peer reviewed.
Oh, by who? Which peer?
> Perhaps if you provided the exact thing in his paper
> you don't understand, then someone can explain it to you.
Hmmm... This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark. <shrug>
> > The Lorentz
> > transform is linear. Einstein’s plagiarism went non-linear. In
> > section 4, the whole business of coordinate transform becomes ever
> > more mathemagical.
>
> Reading Einstein is difficult if you don't have good maths knowledge and
> skills. Perhaps you need to brush up on your maths before trying to study
> any more physics.
I am very certain that you do not understand Einstein’s 1905 paper.
<shrug>
> > That is why no one endorses Einstein’s approach
> > ever. <shrug>
>
> Huh? What exactly is this supposed to mean?
That is why no one endorses Einstein’s approach ever. <shrug>
> > That nobody believes in SR?
There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries who BELIEVE IN SR. Believe
me on this one. <srug>
> > This once again is totally untrue. It is another lame excuse to
> > continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar. <shrug>
>
> He wasn't. If you don't understand Einstein's work, it is probably because
> you don't have enough maths and physics background to do so.
This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark that the scholar does
not have enough mathematical skills to see through the nonsense of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
> > Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The
> > Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins’
> > paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug>
>
> Well, SR is tested everyday.
Nonsense. SR is BELIEVED and tested only with biased opionions.
<shrug>
> The equations obviously work.
No, it does not work in real life. <shrug>
> If you don't like
> them, blame the universe, not Einstein.
I say the equations of the Lorentz transform must be wrong. I did not
say I don’t like them. In fact, I actually like them for the
beautiful symmetry, but that does not make them valid. <shrug>
Liking equations or not has nothing to do with the validity in these
equations. You need to get over with this fact. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
>
> Nitwit, old fart, Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment. It
> only passes MMX and KTX but it fails Ives.
Does SR pass the longitudinal Doppler experiment?
According to Ives, the Doppler shift is observed to be redshifted.
Derived from time dilation point of view, it seems to agree with
Ives. However, derived from energy point of view, it has the exact
opposite conclusion. So, you cannot say Ives agree with SR because SR
got both ends covered. Some nitwits would say a theory that can
explain everything is far superior than any others. In reality, a
theory that got both results covered is nonsense. You need to possess
some minimum IQ to understand this one. <shrug>
Peter Webb
On Jun 25, 10:04 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care
> > about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
>
> No, that's wrong. He was the greatest scientist of the 20th Century. Just
> read any books on cosmology, quantum physics or statistical mechanics to
> see
> the enormous contribution he has made to modern physics.
Only Einstein Dingleberries would think Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar as the greatest scientist in the 20th
century. It is totally faith talking. <shrug>
****************
No, he is pretty well universally recognised as one of the greatest
scientists of all time. You should study physics and learn of the enormous
contributions he made to many areas.
> > This is a totally false. The invariance in the speed of light by any
> > observers has nothing to do with the principle of relativity. <shrug>
>
> That's wrong as well. The principle of relativity demands that there is no
> priveleged intertial frame; unless physical object use the same
> transformations as electromagnetic radiation (ie the Lorentz transform)
> this
> would be violated.
Your reasoning is correct. However, the MMX does not prove in the
validity of the principle of relativity. Voigt�s single postulate is
enough to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
******************************
MMX doesn't solely prove Einstein's SR. However, as I said before, it is
directly tested every day in many different ways, don't get too hung up
about the MMX, its only one of thousands of experiments that are consistent
with SR. Amateurs such as yourself place disproportionate importance of MMX
in verifying SR; it is significant mostly for historical reasons. If you
want far better evidence, just visit any particle accelerator and measure
the momentom and energy of particles travelling near c.
> > Besides Maxwell�s equations do not support the principle of
> > relativity. The Voigt transform actually fits much better with
> > Maxwell�s equations. <shrug>
>
> > The constancy of the speed of light in
> > the medium of Maxwell�s equations is a postulate according to sound
> > waves. It is not a manifestation of the equations themselves but a
> > permeability-permittivity thing. <shrug>
>
> No, it is a direct result of Maxwell's equations.
No, it isn�t. <shrgu>
> > Nonsense! Einstein showed nothing. Remember that Einstein was a
> > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar?
>
> No, that's wrong. Again, if you had studied physics, you would be aware of
> his huge contribution, even if you don't understand all of it.
Again, I have studied Einstein�s works. All I see is nothing but
plagiarism. Your idol Einstein was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
a liar. <shrug>
******************************
He's not my idol. And if you don't understand what he has written in some
places, you probably need more background in maths and physics.
> > In section 3 of Einstein�s 1905
> > paper, the coordinate transformation was total garbage.
>
> It was peer reviewed.
Oh, by who? Which peer?
Which 1905 paper?
Gee, and you are supposed to have studied Einstein's work, all three 1905
papers were in peer reviewed journals, and generated substantial peer
review.
I am surprised that you think he only wrote one paper in 1905, and didn't
know they were in peer reviewed journals, I guess that bit about you having
studied Einstein's work is crap, you clearly haven't.
> Perhaps if you provided the exact thing in his paper
> you don't understand, then someone can explain it to you.
Hmmm... This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark. <shrug>
*****************************
So, you say there is an error, but won't say what it is.
> > The Lorentz
> > transform is linear. Einstein�s plagiarism went non-linear. In
> > section 4, the whole business of coordinate transform becomes ever
> > more mathemagical.
>
> Reading Einstein is difficult if you don't have good maths knowledge and
> skills. Perhaps you need to brush up on your maths before trying to study
> any more physics.
I am very certain that you do not understand Einstein�s 1905 paper.
<shrug>
*************************
Well, perhaps if you posted the bit in the paper you don't understand ... or
even said which paper you are referring to ... I could help.
> > That is why no one endorses Einstein�s approach
> > ever. <shrug>
>
> Huh? What exactly is this supposed to mean?
That is why no one endorses Einstein�s approach ever. <shrug>
************************
What does "approach" mean in this context? The analytic methods he used? If
so, they are still in widespread use today, but again if you were to say
exactly what you mean, perhaps I could point out any errors.
> > That nobody believes in SR?
There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries who BELIEVE IN SR. Believe
me on this one. <srug>
***********************
Indeed, as well as almost every physicist on the planet.
> > This once again is totally untrue. It is another lame excuse to
> > continue worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
> > liar. <shrug>
>
> He wasn't. If you don't understand Einstein's work, it is probably because
> you don't have enough maths and physics background to do so.
This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark that the scholar does
not have enough mathematical skills to see through the nonsense of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
*************************
It is a sad fact that you do need a good basis in maths and physics to
u8nderstand much of Einstein's work. As you have not provided a single
example of something Einstein said about physics that you don't understand,
its hard to see what your problem is. I am assuming its much the same reason
as my 15 year old daughter knows nothing about Einstein's theories; she
doesn't have the mathematical background to read and understand any of
Einstein's papers from 1905 or any other period of his life.
> > Of course, this does not mean Lorentz or Poincare were right. The
> > Lorentz transform is totally rubbish because it manifests the twins�
> > paradox. The Voigt transform does not. <shrug>
>
> Well, SR is tested everyday.
Nonsense. SR is BELIEVED and tested only with biased opionions.
<shrug>
******************************
No, its tested every day in particle accelerators.
> The equations obviously work.
No, it does not work in real life. <shrug>
***************************
It works in partyicle accelerators and lots of other places that are clearly
part of "real life". perhaps you need to study some more physics?
> If you don't like
> them, blame the universe, not Einstein.
I say the equations of the Lorentz transform must be wrong. I did not
say I don�t like them. In fact, I actually like them for the
beautiful symmetry, but that does not make them valid. <shrug>
Liking equations or not has nothing to do with the validity in these
equations. You need to get over with this fact. <shrug>
***********************
It is whether they work. They do. You really, really need to learn some more
maths and physics. A good place to start would be a thorough understanding
of Newtonian physics, including Hamiltonian formulations of dynamics. Then,
enough calculus to solve Maxwell's equations as PDEs sufficient to form an
understanding of EM propogation and how the solutions transform in different
frames of reference. This is pretty much the starting point of Einstein's
1905 paper on SR, and without that background of course there will be things
you don't understand ...
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 25, 5:13 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > RustyJames wrote:
> > > Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all
> > > frames?
>
> He got it from Voigt. <shrug>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
>
> > It is not what "I think", but rather what Einstein said and wrote about
> > this:
>
> Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Why does anyone care
> about what this nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar thinks?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/
Be as disgusting of a person as you want. It won't change anything.
[...]
Surfer
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
>results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
>simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
>celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
>azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
>with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
>Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
>drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
>
Miller himself pointed that out. Why couldn't it be simply due to some
kind of systematic error?, eg a diurnally varying temperature
gradient?
>
>Miller blatantly LIED about the supposed insensitivity of his
>apparatus to temperature gradients. Although Miller asserted on
>page 220 of his paper that his apparatus, with the light path
>covered by glass and cardboard, showed no periodic effects when
>tested with artificial heat, examination of his notebooks shows
>that even with full insulation, the apparatus showed second
>harmonics on the order of 0.05 fringe, while if covered only by
>glass as at Mt. Wilson, second harmonics on the order of 0.07
>fringe were observed. A laboratory notebook entry for April 14,
>1921 reads, "Sun shining full on side of house. There was a very
>large drift which seems to be in the direction of the sun..."
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Shankland_1955.pdf
>
>Overall, I would guess that the periodic residuals detected by
>Miller were due to a COMBINATION of effects: diurnally varying
>temperature gradients, plus constant magnetostrictive effects.
>
Those effects would have been present. But if they were the only
effects present, the direction of indicated motion would have been
fixed with relation to solar time.
Instead the indicated motion was found to be fixed with relation to
sideral time.
Musatov
Michelson and Morley have nothing on me. I pick up their good
intuition and wrap it with Edison's duty of good service and
innovation to pass generously.
I am most modest in my success. I am least modest when repressed and
met with ignorance. If anything it is a fault in my genius. I say this
however, as modestly as one can, who is a genius.
I do not need anything, but what God allows me. I never have and I
never will.
To the theist, it is my free will.
--
Musatov
Jerry
>
> >In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
> >results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
> >simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
> >celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
> >azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
> >with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
> >Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
> >drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
>
> Miller himself pointed that out. Why couldn't it be simply due to some
> kind of systematic error?, eg a diurnally varying temperature
> gradient?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly! Miller's results are 100% systematic error,
due mostly to diurnally varying temperature gradients.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >Miller blatantly LIED about the supposed insensitivity of his
> >apparatus to temperature gradients. Although Miller asserted on
> >page 220 of his paper that his apparatus, with the light path
> >covered by glass and cardboard, showed no periodic effects when
> >tested with artificial heat, examination of his notebooks shows
> >that even with full insulation, the apparatus showed second
> >harmonics on the order of 0.05 fringe, while if covered only by
> >glass as at Mt. Wilson, second harmonics on the order of 0.07
> >fringe were observed. A laboratory notebook entry for April 14,
> >1921 reads, "Sun shining full on side of house. There was a very
> >large drift which seems to be in the direction of the sun..."
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Shankland_1955.pdf
>
> >Overall, I would guess that the periodic residuals detected by
> >Miller were due to a COMBINATION of effects: diurnally varying
> >temperature gradients, plus constant magnetostrictive effects.
>
> Those effects would have been present. But if they were the only
> effects present, the direction of indicated motion would have been
> fixed with relation to solar time.
>
> Instead the indicated motion was found to be fixed with relation to
> sideral time.
Not so simple. Over the years, Miller completely flip-flopped in
the direction of indicated motion, from a direction towards the
northern pole of the ecliptic, to a direction towards the
southern pole (4h 54m RA -70d 20m DEC). His data was thus indeed
quite dreadful.
None of the wildly varying directions to which he assigned the
apex has any relation to any known physically relevant celestial
feature or motion: They coincide neither with the CMBR anisotropy,
nor with the direction of motion of the solar system towards the
Great Attractor, nor with the Sun's motion about the Milky Way
galaxy, nor with the direction of the galactic center, etc. etc.
They are singular, unconfirmed results.
Jerry
Dono.
> On Jun 25, 9:19 pm, "Dono." wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
>
> > Nitwit, old fart, Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment. It
> > only passes MMX and KTX but it fails Ives.
>
> Does SR pass the longitudinal Doppler experiment?
>
Kookee, old nitwit fart
Why are you changing the subject? "Voigt theory FAILS Ives". That's
it.
> According to Ives, the Doppler shift is observed to be redshifted.
>
> Derived from time dilation point of view, it seems to agree with
> Ives. However, derived from energy point of view, it has the exact
> opposite conclusion.
Kookee, old nitwit fart
You don't understand the Ives experiment, you little plagiarist :-)
Repeat "Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment".
Lather,rinse,repeat.
Sam Wormley
>
> He got it from Voigt. <shrug>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
From your reference, Koobee:
"Since Voigt's transformation preserves the speed of light
in all frames, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment can not distinguish between
the two transformations. The crucial question is the issue
of time dilation. The experimental measurement of time
dilation by Ives and Stillwell (1938) and others settled
the issue in favor of the Lorentz transformation".
Surfer
I don't see your point. The interferometer doesn't distinguish between
directions that differ by 180 degrees, so deciding between the two
would seem to be at least partially a matter of guess work.
>
>None of the wildly varying directions to which he assigned the
>apex has any relation to any known physically relevant celestial
>feature or motion: They coincide neither with the CMBR anisotropy,
>nor with the direction of motion of the solar system towards the
>Great Attractor, nor with the Sun's motion about the Milky Way
>galaxy, nor with the direction of the galactic center, etc. etc.
>
Again I don't see your point. So far as I know there is no theoretical
reason why the absolute motion of the earth should be related to any
such feature.
>
>They are singular, unconfirmed results.
>
Not so. This paper describes a number of related experiments:
Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an
Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment
Hector A. Munera, Daniel Hernandez-Deckers, German Arenas, Edgar
Alfonso
Department of Physics, National University, Bogota, Colombia
Electromagnetic Phenomena, V.6, No1 (16), 2006
http://www.emph.com.ua/16/pdf/munera.pdf
Tom Roberts
> [Miller's] indicated motion was found to be fixed with relation to
> sideral time.
But with an error bar larger than 360 degrees. He never computed the
errorbar, and so did not know that his "determination" of this direction
was useless.
You have no such excuse -- the errorbars on EACH AND EVERY RUN are
larger than their variation, so NONE of his conclusions have any
statistical significance.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an
> Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment
> Hector A. Munera, Daniel Hernandez-Deckers, German Arenas, Edgar
> Alfonso
> Department of Physics, National University, Bogota, Colombia
> Electromagnetic Phenomena, V.6, No1 (16), 2006
> http://www.emph.com.ua/16/pdf/munera.pdf
When Kennedy and Thorndike performed a similar experiment more than 70
years ago, they realized they would be unable to distinguish between
temperature effects and orientation effects, so they took great pains to
keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001�C. In contrast, M�nera
et al. did not make any attempt to control temperature or humidity
effects (both are quite large in their room). They measured the
temperature with a resolution of just 0.2�C, and attempted to correct
for the large temperature and humidity changes -- a simple estimate
shows that an unmeasurable drift of 0.2�C between the two arms can cause
a fringe shift comparable to their �signal�. Humidity differences can
generate similarly large fringe shifts. Because they insulated each
arm's light path from the room and from each other, it is clear that
such variations did occur between the two arms (variations in the room
itself were much larger). Because of inadequate environmental monitoring
and control, there is no reason to believe this measurement is
inconsistent with SR.
Tom Roberts
RustyJames
what I said was that c is not c in all frames if the dielectric
properties of space fabric was altered or in laymen terms the ohms or
resistance were decreased light is not constant in all frames the
speed increases inversely to the amount of resistance.
Dono.
>
> Not so. This paper describes a number of related experiments:
>
> Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an
> Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment
> Hector A. Munera, Daniel Hernandez-Deckers, German Arenas, Edgar
> Alfonso
> Department of Physics, National University, Bogota, Colombia
> Electromagnetic Phenomena, V.6, No1 (16), 2006http://www.emph.com.ua/16/pdf/munera.pdf
Electromagnetic Phaenomena, eh? Crackpot journal :
Dono.
>
> Not so. This paper describes a number of related experiments:
>
> Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an
> Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment
> Hector A. Munera, Daniel Hernandez-Deckers, German Arenas, Edgar
> Alfonso
> Department of Physics, National University, Bogota, Colombia
> Electromagnetic Phenomena, V.6, No1 (16), 2006http://www.emph.com.ua/16/pdf/munera.pdf
From the same issue, another crackpot one for yoyr collection:
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Only Einstein Dingleberries would think Einstein the nitwit, the
> > plagiarist, and the liar as the greatest scientist in the 20th
> > century. It is totally faith talking. <shrug>
>
> No, he is pretty well universally recognised as one of the greatest
> scientists of all time. You should study physics and learn of the enormous
> contributions he made to many areas.
Well, I have, and Einstein remained a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a
liar. <shrug>
> > However, the MMX does not prove in the
> > validity of the principle of relativity. Voigt’s single postulate is
> > enough to explain the null results of the MMX. <shrug>
>
> MMX doesn't solely prove Einstein's SR. However, as I said before, it is
> directly tested every day in many different ways, don't get too hung up
> about the MMX, its only one of thousands of experiments that are consistent
> with SR. Amateurs such as yourself place disproportionate importance of MMX
> in verifying SR; it is significant mostly for historical reasons. If you
> want far better evidence, just visit any particle accelerator and measure
> the momentom and energy of particles travelling near c.
OK, what are these? Can you as someone who does not even understand
tensor calculus know where to find them?
Googling on ‘michelson morley experiment principle of relativity’, one
of the first to show up is:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/relativity_worldbook.html
Well, Maxwell’s equations must reject the Galilean transform to make
them work. Although this is a glitch in the article, it is however a
minor one. However, here is an excerpt:
“Einstein noted that there was no evidence for the existence of the
ether. He therefore eliminated the ether from consideration. He argued
that Maxwell's equations mean that the speed of light must be the same
in all inertial frames. Therefore, Galileo's principle cannot be
absolutely correct.”
It is rather stupid to conclude that there is no Aether after the
introduction of the Voigt transform which came 18 years before
Einstein’s plagiarized works of 1905 shows that Maxwell’s equations do
indeed work without the principle of relativity. The whole fiasco
resides in Einstein and his fellow Dingleberries not be able to
understand the simple mathematics of either the Voigt or the Lorentz
transform. We shall get into this in the later discussions. <shrug>
> > Again, I have studied Einstein’s works. All I see is nothing but
> > plagiarism. Your idol Einstein was indeed a nitwit, a plagiarist, and
> > a liar. <shrug>
>
> He's not my idol.
Really? In the above paragraph, you have no hesitation to mention
‘Einstein’s SR’. Both LET and SR are merely interpretations to the
Lorentz transform, and who first came up with the Lorentz transform?
Voigt. However, he discarded in favor with something that does not
manifest the twins’ paradox. I don’t expect you to understand the
Lorentz transform. <shrug>
> And if you don't understand what he has written in some
> places, you probably need more background in maths and physics.
<shrug>
> > Hmmm... This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark. <shrug>
>
> So, you say there is an error, but won't say what it is.
Oh, I have said there is more than one error. In the most, I have
addressed them all, but every time I brought just one up, the Einstein
Dingleberries just retreated into the cozy fat castle in the air.
<shrug>
> > I am very certain that you do not understand Einstein’s 1905 paper.
> > <shrug>
>
> Well, perhaps if you posted the bit in the paper you don't understand ... or
> even said which paper you are referring to ... I could help.
I am still very certain that you do not understand Einstein’s 1905
paper. <shrug>
> > That is why no one endorses Einstein’s approach ever. <shrug>
>
> What does "approach" mean in this context?
Read the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s paper. Concentrate on
section 3 and 6. <shrug>
> The analytic methods he used?
What analytic methods? Rememeber that Einstein was nothing but a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar?
> If
> so, they are still in widespread use today, but again if you were to say
> exactly what you mean, perhaps I could point out any errors.
No one derives the Lorentz transform like Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar anymore. <shrug>
> > There are plenty of Einstein Dingleberries who BELIEVE IN SR. Believe
> > me on this one. <srug>
>
> Indeed, as well as almost every physicist on the planet.
Yes, that is very shocking indeed when the self-styled physicists
being the so-called experts are very ignorant in this subject.
<shrug>
> > This is a typical Einstein Dingleberry remark that the scholar does
> > not have enough mathematical skills to see through the nonsense of
> > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
>
> It is a sad fact that you do need a good basis in maths and physics to
> u8nderstand much of Einstein's work. As you have not provided a single
> example of something Einstein said about physics that you don't understand,
> its hard to see what your problem is.
Here is one gross error in which the self-styled physicists hailed
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as the father of
atomic bomb. What a bunch of lies!
In section 10, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
started out with the wrong and incomplete acceleration transformation
and then with the absurd longitudinal and the transverse mass. Who in
the right mind today would dare to model mass as longitudinal and
transverse?
The Lorentz transform is a tale of three points. Mathematically, we
must pay very clear attention to which variable is being transformed
or observed by whom. The points of interests are Point #1 (an
observer0, Point #2 (another observer), and point #3 (the observed).
Notice this is the same case as the Galilean transform. So, assuming
the the speed of Point #2 as observed by Point #1 (same but opposite
in sign with the speed of Point #1 as observed by Point #2) is
thoroughly longitudinal to the x axis. The Lorentz transform can be
written as follows.
** dx_13 = (dx_23 – B_21 dt_23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B_21^2)
** dy_13 = dy_23
** dz_13 = dz_23
** dt_13 = (dt_23 – B_21^2 dx_23 / c) / sqrt(1 – B_21^2)
Where
** B_21 = v_21 / c = - B_12
The velocity transform can very trivially be derived as follows which
due to Einstein’s diligent plagiarism, the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the liar got it correct. Notice despite missing the (1 / sqrt(1 –
B_21^2)) term, the Voigt transform also shares the same velocity
transform with the Lorentz transform.
** Vx_13 = (Vx_23 – B_21 c) / (1 – B_21 Vx_23 / c)
** Vy_13 = Vy_23 sqrt(1 – B_21^2) / (1 – B_21 Vx_23 / c)
** Vz_13 = Vz_23 sqrt(1 – B_21^2) / (1 – B_21 Vx_23 / c)
The acceleration transform becomes a little bit more complicated.
However, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to
simplify it to the following by dropping a few terms. Notice even if
the nitwit had reasons to simplify them down to these equations, the
final result should also reflect the assumption taken, but it did not.
** dVx_13/dt_13 = (1 – B_21^2)^3/2 dVx_23/dt_23
** dVy_13/dt_13 = (1 – B_21^2)^2 dVy_23/dt_23
** dVz_13/dt_13 = (1 – B_21^2)^2 dVz_23/dt_23
Then, the observed work done on Point #2 as observed by Point #1
should be the integration of the Newton’s second Law over a
displacement:
** W_13 = Integral[s1_13, s2_13](m_13 dv_13/dt_13 dx_13)
Or W_13 = Integral[s1_13, s2_13](m_13 v_13 dv_13)
Where
** m_13 = Mass of Point #3 as observed by Point #1
** s1_13 = Beginning coordinate of work done as observed by Point #1
** s2_13 = End coordinate of work done as observed by Point #2
Somehow, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was able to
convince himself that (v_13 = Vx_13) while Vy_13 and Vz_13 don’t
matter. That is the second mistake. The third mistake is to equate
(m_13 = m, the rest mass). The whole problem in acceleration
transform is not as simple as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and
the lair tried to portray them to be in the first place in which
Professor Roberts should have no objects in my statement.
Nevertheless, Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was
able to throw more mathemagical power into the equation above by
replacing dv_13 with dVx_13.
** W_13 = Integral[s1_13, s2_13](m Vx_13 dVx_13)
Einstein then made another mistake by trivially transforming Vx_13 to
Vx_23. So, the above equation becomes the following due to ilk
working of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
** W_13 = Integral[s1_13, s2_13](m (1 – B_21^2)^3/2 Vx_23 dVx_23)
The mistakes of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar did
not end here. He managed to equate (Vx_23 = B_21 c).
** W_13 = Integral[s1_13, s2_13](m c^2 (1 – B_21^2)^3/2 B_21 dB_21)
Carrying out the actual integration, it should not be too difficult to
show.
** W_13 = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – B_21^2)
Or E = m c^2 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)
This result does not reflect a special case of slowly accelerating
particle. In fact, the derivation shows someone grossly ignorant of
any transformations including the Galilean transform not just the
Lorentz transform. The above equation cannot be possibly derived
through simple kinematics or dynamics treatment. It can only be
derived through the calculus of variations after identifying the
correct Lagrangian by minimizing either spacetime or time. The
mathematics is almost 300 years old, do you even understand that? If
you don’t, it is OK. Most self-styled physicists do not understand
that. Amazing?
> I am assuming its much the same reason
> as my 15 year old daughter knows nothing about Einstein's theories; she
> doesn't have the mathematical background to read and understand any of
> Einstein's papers from 1905 or any other period of his life.
You are just as ignorant as your 15-year-old daughter. <shrug>
> > Nonsense. SR is BELIEVED and tested only with biased opinions.
> > <shrug>
>
> No, its tested every day in particle accelerators.
The Lorentz transform manifests the twins’ paradox. It violates the
logic of consistency. So which accelerator shows this violation?
> > I say the equations of the Lorentz transform must be wrong. I did not
> > say I don’t like them. In fact, I actually like them for the
> > beautiful symmetry, but that does not make them valid. <shrug>
> > Liking equations or not has nothing to do with the validity in these
> > equations. You need to get over with this fact. <shrug>
>
> It is whether they work.
They don’t work. <shrug>
> They do.
They only work in matheMAGICAL realms. Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was a matheMAGICIAN, and a dim-wit individual
like you and all Einstein Dingleberries are easily mystified. <shrug>
> You really, really need to learn some more
> maths and physics.
<shrug>
> A good place to start would be a thorough understanding
> of Newtonian physics, including Hamiltonian formulations of dynamics. Then,
> enough calculus to solve Maxwell's equations as PDEs sufficient to form an
> understanding of EM propogation and how the solutions transform in different
> frames of reference. This is pretty much the starting point of Einstein's
> 1905 paper on SR, and without that background of course there will be things
> you don't understand ...
Any scholar of physics would realize the more he learns the more he
does not know. You seem to have known it all after hearing about the
plagiarized works of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. You are just like your 15-year-old daughter. She knows
everything right now, doesn’t she? <shrug>
So, what else can an Einstein Dingleberry teach me here? <shrug>
Want to try out Koobee Wublle’s Q & A regarding relativity?
Q: Who first came up with the principle of relativity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo.
Q: Who first came up with the invariant speed of light thing?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first came up with the Lorentz transform?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Voigt.
Q: Who first discovered relative simultaneity?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Poincare
despite relative simultaneity thing being completely illogical and
thus wrong.
Q: Who first interpreted the Lorentz transform in SR?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Poincare. SR is the interpretation to the Lorentz transform with
relative simultaneity as the property of the Lorentz transform.
Q: Who first came up with the principle of equivalence?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Galileo
again.
Q: Who first came up with the mathematical description of curved
space?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Riemann.
Q: Who first came up with the geodesic equations?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Christoffel.
Q: Who first came up with the Riemann curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Ricci.
Q: Who first came up with the Ricci curvature tensor?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Levi-
Civita.
Q: Who first came up with a set of field equations that satisfy only
the Laplace equations (in vacuum)?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but
Nordstrom.
Q: Who first came up with the set of field equations that satisfy the
Poison equation?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Hilbert.
Q: Who first came up with the photo-electric effect?
A: Not Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar but Planck.
Q: So, what did Einstein do?
A: Nothing, Einstein was merely a nitwit, a plagiarist, a liar.
<shrug>
Q: On the subject of differential geometry, is it not the geometry
invariant regardless whichever observer using whichever coordinate
system describing this geometry?
A: The answer must be yes. Or else, there is no need to continue.
<shrug>
Q: Can a series of coordinates sufficiently describe an invariant
geometry?
A: No, you still need to find out what the metric is. The invariant
geometry can only be described mathematically by the presence of both
the metric and the coordinates. <shrug>
Q: Can the metric alone describe the invariant geometry with knowing
what coordinate system is utilized?
A: No, again for the benefit of the retarded, it takes both the
metric and the coordinate system to describe the geometry. <shrug>
Q: Are there any more questions?
A: Oh, yes. Koobee Wublee raises his hand.
Q: What are solutions to the field equations that are static,
spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat?
A: There was Schwarzschild’s original solution. He knew by selecting
a metric with a determinant of -1, the Ricci curvature tensor can be
drastically reduced. In doing so, he had to transform his coordinate
to another one that results in the metric with a determinant of -1.
After he obtained the solution, to comply with the rules of
mathematics, he must covert his solution back to the original
spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. Although his original
solution has nothing like the Schwarzschild metric and does not
manifest any black holes, nevertheless his solution before the
transformation resembles the Schwarzschild metric in some way.
Q: Then, who actually came up with the Schwarzschild metric?
A: It was none other than the wizard himself --- Hilbert.
Q: So, why do the self-styled physicists insist on the Schwarzschild
metric (which manifest black holes) as the true solution while others
such as Schwarzschild’s original solution as a mere coordinate
transform of the Schwarzschild metric itself?
A: It is mostly the fact of the self-styled physicists do not
understand the mathematics involved despite it being very straight
forward. There was this guy Birkhoff who one day out of the blues
started singing the song the self-styled physicists love to hear.
That is the Birkhoff’s theorem in which it states that all solutions
that are static, spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat must
be the Schwarzschild metric.
Q: What is the support to the Birkhoff’s theorem?
A: There is none. When confronted, the self-styled physicists are
so
embarrassed to show any works related to the phony claim of the
Birkhoff’s theorem. It is not even funny but fraud. <shrug>
Q: Without Birkhoff’s theorem (which is a fraud that is proven false
by examples), what is other basis for the self-styled physicists to
claim all the infinite number of static, spherically symmetric,
asymptotically flat solutions to the field equations as a mere
transformation of the divine Schwarzschild metric?
A: There is none besides more bullying. <shrug>
Q: So, the following is also a solution that does not manifest any
black holes, to the field equations, that is static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. What is the basis that it is a
coordinate transformation of the Schwarzschild metric but not the
other way around?
ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) – (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 – (r + K)^2
dO^2
Where
** K, T = Integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
A: Beats me. It is a religious belief thing. <shrug>
Orwellian education is already here deeply rooted in the minds of the
self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
Jerry
> >the direction of indicated motion, from a direction towards the
> >northern pole of the ecliptic, to a direction towards the
> >southern pole (4h 54m RA -70d 20m DEC). His data was thus indeed
> >quite dreadful.
>
> I don't see your point. The interferometer doesn't distinguish between
> directions that differ by 180 degrees, so deciding between the two
> would seem to be at least partially a matter of guess work.
It was Miller's intention, by taking measurements in contrasting
positions in Earth's orbit, to perform a "triangulation" of the
absolute direction of Earth's motions that was without guesswork.
In contrast, as you point out, Miller's analysis was filled with
guesswork. Take, for instance, the failure of his data to satisfy
the Lorentz criterion that I had mentioned earlier in simplified
form as the fact that the daily swings in estimated motion were
not symmetric about the meridian, but rather were displaced from
the meridian by large amounts. As Thirring pointed out in his
detailed analysis in Zeitschrift fur Physik 35, 723 (1926), not
only the directions, but also the MAGNITUDES of the daily
variations in estimated azimuthal velocities have to follow a
consistent pattern, WHICH THEY FAILED TO MEET.
Miller assumed that he could arbitrarily add a correction factor
to the theoretical curves, forcing the azimuth of drift as a
function of siderial time to match his empirical measurements.
This completely unjustified act of "data destruction" (I will not
dignify this procedure by calling it "data reduction") still left
the MAGNITUDES uncorrected.
Again and again, Miller turned a blind eye towards massive
inconsistencies in his data.
> >None of the wildly varying directions to which he assigned the
> >apex has any relation to any known physically relevant celestial
> >feature or motion: They coincide neither with the CMBR anisotropy,
> >nor with the direction of motion of the solar system towards the
> >Great Attractor, nor with the Sun's motion about the Milky Way
> >galaxy, nor with the direction of the galactic center, etc. etc.
>
> Again I don't see your point. So far as I know there is no theoretical
> reason why the absolute motion of the earth should be related to any
> such feature.
Not even to the CMBR?
> >They are singular, unconfirmed results.
>
> Not so. This paper describes a number of related experiments:
>
> Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an
> Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment
> Hector A. Munera, Daniel Hernandez-Deckers, German Arenas, Edgar
> Alfonso
> Department of Physics, National University, Bogota, Colombia
> Electromagnetic Phenomena, V.6, No1 (16), 2006
> http://www.emph.com.ua/16/pdf/munera.pdf
This paper is so filled with ridiculous assertions that I don't
know where to start. For example, on page 80, he writes, "In
many of the famous repetitions of the [MMX] experiment, like
those by Kennedy and by Illingworth...the experimenter determined
the initial position of the reference fringe and then rotated the
apparatus through 90 degrees. Obviously, nobody knows how many
fringes shifted past the fiducial marker during such a massive
rotation of the apparatus. However, -without hesitation and
without evidence-, all experimenters up to date have -interpreted-
that their reference fringe moved less than one wavelength!"
Jerry
Jerry
> In contrast, as you point out, Miller's analysis was filled with
> guesswork. Take, for instance, the failure of his data to satisfy
> the Lorentz criterion that I had mentioned earlier in simplified
> form as the fact that the daily swings in estimated motion were
> not symmetric about the meridian, but rather were displaced from
> the meridian by large amounts. As Thirring pointed out in his
> detailed analysis in Zeitschrift fur Physik 35, 723 (1926), not
> only the directions, but also the MAGNITUDES of the daily
> variations in estimated azimuthal velocities have to follow a
> consistent pattern, WHICH THEY FAILED TO MEET.
To clarify:
Let us assume that you are located at 35 degrees latitude in the
Northern hemisphere, and the Earth is moving in space towards a
point with declination 55 degrees. In the following, the Plus
represents the Pole Star, and the four Asterisks represents the
apex of Earth's motion through space at four times of the day,
six hours apart.
Let us say that the apex lies straight North on the horizon at
midnight, and we measure 50 km/s of motion towards this point
in space. At 6:00 AM, the apex should show an eastward azimuthal
displacement of 35 degrees, and the measured velocity should be
41 km/s. At noon, the apex should again lie on the meridian, and
the measured velocity should be 17 km/s. At 6:00 PM, the apex
should show its maximum westward azimuthal displacement of 35
degrees, and the measured velocity should be 41 km/s.
The following ascii art illustrates the expected motions. The
path of the apex should follow a circle around the North Pole:
*
* + *
---------------------------*-------------------------
The measured velocities never followed anything resembling the
theoretically expected behavior.
Jerry
Surfer
In his 1933 paper Miller includes the following section:
<Start extract>
Reduced velocity and displaced azimuth are unexplained
The direction of the earth's motion in space has been determined by
assuming that the motion is projected onto the plane of the
interferometer and by observing the _variations_ produced in the
projected component by the rotation of the earth on its axis and by
the revolution around the sun. The velocity of motion has been
obtained by the comparison with the effects presumed to be produced by
the known orbital velocity of the earth. The evaluation of the
observed effect is based on the presumption that it is a second order
effect and that the ether is wholly stagnant and undisturbed by the
motion of the earth through it. There are found to be two facts of
observation that are wholly unexplained on this simple theory....
<End extract>
So Miller put "facts of observation first" and "theory" second.
That is, in the light of the difference, he raised the possibility
that the simple theory might be too simple.
I think that was a sensible approach.
In general, I expect scientists to adjust theory in the light of new
evidence rather than reject evidence because it doesn't agree with
theory.
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> [Miller's] indicated motion was found to be fixed with relation to
>> sideral time.
>
>But with an error bar larger than 360 degrees. He never computed the
>errorbar, and so did not know that his "determination" of this direction
>was useless.
>
I don't think that's true. Miller estimated his errors as follows:
(From page 28 in his 1933 paper)
<<<
Probable error
A study of the numerical results plotted in Fig 26 shows that the
probably error of the observed velocity, which has a magnitude of from
ten to eleven kilometers per second is +/- 0.33 kilometers per
second, while the probable error in the determination of the azimuth
is +/- 2.5 degrees. The probable error in the right ascensions and
declinations of the polar chart, Fig. 28 is +/- 0.5 degrees."
>>>
>
>You have no such excuse -- the errorbars on EACH AND EVERY RUN are
>larger than their variation, so NONE of his conclusions have any
>statistical significance.
>
That also doesn't seem true.
I used signal processing to calculate means and error bars for the run
presented in Figure 8 of his 1933 paper.
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Miller/1933/Analysis_of_Fig8/
The results were:
Marker Mean Std. Error Exceeds Noise (95%CL)
1+9 0.431 0.099 True
2+10 0.606 0.095 True
3+11 0.444 0.108 True
4+12 0.106 0.111 False
5+13 -0.431 0.108 True
6+14 -0.606 0.108 True
7+15 -0.444 0.123 True
8+16 -0.106 0.115 False
Miller obtained values that were very close to the above mean values.
So his algorithm performed remarkably well at extracting signal from
noise--not as good as signal processing but nearly as good.
doug
Surfer wrote:
Well, if this were to be done, it should be done on real evidence,
not the mistakes of Miller. You are trying to redefine science
in an attempt to follow your prejudices. Miller's data showed
nothing useful and you have been floundering here trying to
make something out of nothing from it. You look silly but you
keep trying.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
doug
Surfer wrote:
Except, of course, that his data was useless. You have been unable
to refute any of Tom Robert's data analysis. I know you said you
do not like it or agree with it but that is very different to
a refutation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tom Roberts
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:29:26 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Surfer wrote:
>>> [Miller's] indicated motion was found to be fixed with relation to
>>> sideral time.
>> But with an error bar larger than 360 degrees. He never computed the
>> errorbar, and so did not know that his "determination" of this direction
>> was useless.
>>
Miller was WRONG. He did not include the statistical errors introduced
by his averaging of data points. These are larger than their variation,
which means that no individual run can determine anything, nor can any
combination of runs.
> I used signal processing to calculate means and error bars for the run
> presented in Figure 8 of his 1933 paper.
> The results were:
> Marker Mean Std. Error Exceeds Noise (95%CL)
> 1+9 0.431 0.099 True
> [...]
You either made a very big mistake, or computed the wrong values. You
need to learn to check your work -- your value for "Std. Error" is
completely crazy, and both are wrong:
From Miller's figure 8, here are the 20 data values for markers 1 and 9:
10 7 1 -4 -13 0 8 -2 -11 8 -1 0 9 7 10 0 -4 -10 -12 1
9 2 -2 -6 -17 4 5 -2 -10 4 -2 7 10 11 5 -5 -5 -10 -15 7
The mean of those 40 values is -0.15, and their sigma is 7.71. This is
pure arithmetic. Your sign error on the mean indicates FOR SURE that you
goofed. I just re-did this, and both Excel and Root give those values
(as did my own analysis program several years ago). MILLER got a sum of
-6 (marker1=+4, marker9=-10), which gives the same value for the mean:
-6/40 = -0.15.
Just LOOK at those values -- they cannot possibly have
a sigma of 0.099 -- that is VASTLY too small. This is
so even if you divided by 10 to report in fringes (without
bothering to mention it).
If one ASSUMES these data points are independent, then one can divide
their sigma by sqrt(40) to obtain the standard error on the mean; that
gives 1.22 -- still a factor of 8 larger than the mean itself. But it is
QUITE CLEAR that these data points are NOT independent, and dividing by
sqrt(40) is not justified (see my paper for a discussion -- they are
correlated by the drift of the instrument and by his adjustments, which
are both much larger than any possible "signal").
At the bottom of his figure 8, Miller plotted his result, which has a
peak amplitude of 0.62 (in fringe/10, as are my values), which is half
the value of sigma/sqrt(40) for markers 1&9, and a factor of 12 smaller
than the actual sigma (which is the more correct measure).
It is QUITE CLEAR that the errorbars on the points of his plot exceed
the amplitude of the plot. But you do need to compute them correctly.
The errorbars exceed the amplitude of his "signal" for EVERY ONE of the
70 or so runs of his that I have analyzed. This makes all of his results
completely useless.
Tom Roberts
Spirit of Truth
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/relativity_worldbook.html
....................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
Come now, there are SEVERAL incorrect statements in that document.
And that is NASA??????!
Spirit of Truth
Musatov
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> .....................................................................................................
>
> Come now, there are SEVERAL incorrect statements in that document.
> And that is NASA??????!
>
> Spirit of Truth
Entangled States:
The Michelson-Morley Experiment and the ...The Michelson-Morley
Experiment and the Experience of Gay and Lesbian Christians. ... has
nothing to fear from the Truth no matter how surprising or unexpected
it might be. ..... but is not itself the Word of God, meaning Jesus
Christ. ...
Entangled States:
The Michelson-Morley Experiment and the ...The Michelson-Morley
Experiment and the Experience of Gay and Lesbian Christians. ... find
themselves transformed by their encounters with the Risen
Christ. ..... Failing to do this does violence to the truth, as well
as to GLBT persons. ..... The Holy Spirit cant speak against what
Jesus taught otherwise it isnt ...
Science and the Light of ChristMar 22, 2006 ... Jesus Christ has
always been associated with light. ... that he might be in all and
through all things, the light of truth; .... Then in 1887 the famous
Michelson-Morley experiment failed to measure any speed at all ...
No Science Apart From Christ
Jan 18, 1999 ... That follows because to the Christian, Christ is
truth. When Jesus stood before ... The Michelson-Morley experiments
with light are a good example of this. ... Jesus taught us that we can
do nothing apart from him. ...
Meridian Magazine :: Science and Religion :: Science and
Religion ...For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth
is light, ... Here we see the somehow Jesus Christ is "in all and
through all things" and that he .... Then in 1887 the famous Michelson-
Morley experiment failed to measure any ...
Jesus Christ and Civilization, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
(Sep. 22 ...According to the Gospel of John, the Jesus Christ born
slightly more than 2000 ... is "the great experiment," upon which the
claims of science to authority depend ...... and the Truth about
Michelson-Morley-Miller," 21st Century Science ...
10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus - Listverse
Jesus proclaimed the truth and the way to everlastuing life. ......
have tried to argue based on Michelson-Morley experiment's result
involving fringes that ...
Your Doctrinal Questions and ABCOG's Answers... Laws of Motion are not
"true" (the Michelson-Morley light experiment disproved them), ... We
are ever aware that our current version of truth is always in the ...
Why not try an experiment? Think of something good that you would like
to .... Baptism is agreement to the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus
Christ. ...
US economy might crash in September 2008! « George A. Marcelo's
WeblogNow the truth. The collapse will be postponed but it WILL happen
soon but not .... such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, but the
others are not, ... The global economic crash is just one of the signs
that Jesus Christ is coming soon. ...
georgeamarcelo.wordpress.com/.../us-economy-might-crash-in-
september-2008/
I am born Sep. 23
Musatov
>
> - Show quoted text -
tin
Spirit of Truth
A: Oh, yes. Koobee Wublee raises his hand.
Q: What are solutions to the field equations that are static,
spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat?
A: There was Schwarzschild�s original solution. He knew by selecting
a metric with a determinant of -1, the Ricci curvature tensor can be
drastically reduced. In doing so, he had to transform his coordinate
to another one that results in the metric with a determinant of -1.
After he obtained the solution, to comply with the rules of
mathematics, he must covert his solution back to the original
spherically symmetric polar coordinate system. Although his original
solution has nothing like the Schwarzschild metric and does not
manifest any black holes, nevertheless his solution before the
transformation resembles the Schwarzschild metric in some way.
Q: Then, who actually came up with the Schwarzschild metric?
A: It was none other than the wizard himself --- Hilbert.
Q: So, the following is also a solution that does not manifest any
black holes, to the field equations, that is static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. What is the basis that it is a
coordinate transformation of the Schwarzschild metric but not the
other way around?
ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) � (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 � (r + K)^2
dO^2
Where
** K, T = Integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
A: Beats me. It is a religious belief thing. <shrug>
..................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
????
And, Hilbert?
Spirit of Truth
MeAmI.org
On Jun 27, 7:32 pm, "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ....................................................................................................
>
> ????
>
> And, Hilbert?
>
> Spirit of Truth
All letters carry values in binary. A machine does not know the
difference between a number and a letter, but Physics does. Do you
understand?
ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 (r + K)^2
dO^2
Results 1 - 10 for ds^2 = c^2 T dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) (1 + 2 K / r)
dr^2 (r + K)^2 Christ. (0.21 seconds)
Phys. Rev. D 21, 2103 (1980): Ftaclas and Cohen - Generalized ...From
Eq. (2.11) T1r may be found as i1 =Uf 1/2( U lf 3/2kdr-dt) =Ulf
2dR, ... For k=1, Eq. (2.15) and (2.16) are easily inte- grated giving
r and t in terms of R ... gen- eral line element ds2 =- fdt2 +f -'dr 2
+r2dQ2, (2.14) where f =f(k. .... I ( M .Lq 1/2 M 1/2 U =h --2 _ 2 r
ri r ,CHRIST FTACLAS AND JEFFREY M. ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.21.2103?ref=Guzels.TV
by C Ftaclas - 1980 - Cited by 1 - Related articles - All 4 versions
Can red shifts turn blue?
ds 2 =A 2 dt 2 +B 2 dr 2 +r 2 dO 2 +r 2 sin20 d 2. (1) where A 2 =B -2
= 1 ... the mass of the star; r, the distance from its center; and c,
the light speed. If ... + (kiki) 1/2 = k in orthonormal frames.
Radiation emitted from material .... We thank Professor B. Koharitz,
Dr. Christ Ftaclas, and Dr. Paul Wiita for ...
www.springerlink.com/index/X0L2Q12U72720745.pdf
by JM Cohen - 1983 - Related articles
Phys. Rev. 71, 49 (1947): Eliezer - The Hydrogen Atom in a ...Hence dy/
dr--k > 0 as r-4 co, and therefore d2y/dr 2-+ -k. ... -+- - =--- xr-3
ds2 ds3 ds ds2 ds2 ds2 2 ds d2y d3y dy'd2t d2x2 d2y2\ 3 dt a -(2k+1) -
+- =---yr-3 ... J ~~~~~~~~T3/2 2 5f/2 2T 71/2 Hence the equation of
the curve is given ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.71.49
by CJ Eliezer - 1947
Thermodynamics of two dimensional black holes - Elsevier
We however notice some important differences between k = 1 and k 0
1 ... (31) These possess the solution Jz ds2= (Vr2M+ 4r2 ) dt2 Jz i +
I A2r2 M+ 4r2 C dr2, ... Then we find ds2 = ( p) dt2 + d P2, (38)
where 1 (M2 A2J2) sinh2(2Ap) 2 M+ .... [13] R. Jackiw, in: Quantum
Theory of Gravity, ed. S. Chris tensen (Adam ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/037026939500374T
by A Kumar - 1995 - Cited by 30 - Related articles
Phys. Rev. D 56, R6071 (1997): Higuchi et al. - Do static sources ...
12 2 , 8 k 2 e 2a k 2 k , 9 and where k k 2 k 2 . ... ds 2 f r dt 2 fr
1 Ki /a k /a e a . dr 2 r 2 d 2 sin2 d 2 , By the usual method of ...
15 l0 1 , z2 1 which can be obtained by squaring the formula Pl t Ql z
1 zt This source and ... Substituting this in Eq. 16 , we have R lm q
f r0 M 2 1/2 a l xh l 1 ~ x x 1, ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.56.R6071
by A Higuchi - 1997 - Cited by 12 - Related articles
Physics Letters B : Monopole-fermion dynamics and the
Rubakov ...Furthermore, when we choose K =(16rrG)1 2, A,u describes
the gauge potential in ... Here, the term R V 8r2 has arisen from the
term T As has been pointed out ... (ds)2 = (dt)2 + V(dy + xA o dO)2 0
1 Q3 0 0 Cr 0 a2 + V1 [(dr)2 +r2(dO)2 ... Pt r ar' 83 Volume 13813,
number 1,2,3 PHYSICS LETTERS 12 April 1984 and that ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/037026938491877X
by ZF Ezawa - 1984 - Cited by 19 - Related articles
Phys. Rev. D 66, 024006 (2002): Doran and Lasenby -
Perturbation ...II. THE DIRAC EQUATION ds 2 dx dx 2 2GM r r 2GM 2 dt r
1/2 x i dx i dt 7 where i 1, . ... This coordinate has dt d¯ t 2GM r
1/2 dr. r 2GM 4 In terms of this new coordinate ... 024006-3 CHRIS
DORAN AND ANTHONY LASENBY PHYSICAL REVIEW D 66, ... 2 36 the k pi Now
k 2 m 2 E 2 k2 m 2 p2 k2 , 31 /2 1 2v 2 3v 2 sin2 /2 . ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.024006
by C Doran - 2002 - Cited by 8 - Related articles
Spaces generated by smooth blocks
R 2 9(x, t/R).B(t) dt. Let r go{x, t) = |. ID,jf(x + ty)[ ds(y), ...
(2). (M2 f)(x) <<_ C., sup gj(x, t/R) l. B(t) l dr, i,j=l. R>0 9 0 cos
(t ... 9ij(x, t/R)lB(t)l dt <_ C,,,e 11. Oil(x, t/R)t "-1/2--1 dt. 1
f;. = C,,.e 11. R (n-1)/2-a ... llJ,ugllp < C.,e()llgllp, where P is a
polynomial of degree k > n/2. ...
www.springerlink.com/index/RV428R3480551136.pdf
by S Lu - 1992 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Phys. Rev. D 66, 104007 (2002): Flanagan - Quantum inequalities in ...
2.13 1 48 1 R, 2 2.14 a a a a 2a where a ab u ab a 2k a a a 2.15 d ...
In Minkowski spacetime, choose coordinates (t,x) such that the metric
is ds 2 dt 2 dx 2 ... and to be the components of the vector v a on
the basis (k a ,l a ): va dr 2 . ... ab v a v b 1 24 1 4 T ab k a k b
2^ T ab l a l b 2 ^ T ab k (a l b) . ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.104007
by ÉÉ Flanagan - 2002 - Cited by 21 - Related articles
Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis :
The ...Ann. I. H. Poincar AN 25 (2008) 847 864 853 Delta1v k (r 0 ) =
t n/2 k .... n 1 Q(s)u n+4 n 4 (s)ds = r 1 integraldisplay 0 Q(rt)u n
+4 n 4 (rt)t n 1 dt, .... Since (t)= | (t)| integraldisplay 0 u 2 n 4
(r)dr the claim follows. a50 We ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0294144907000558
by HC Grunau - 2008 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
MeAmI.org
>
> - Show quoted text -
+MMM
Jerry
> In general, I expect scientists to adjust theory in the light of new
> evidence rather than reject evidence because it doesn't agree with
> theory.
That is a good sentiment that Miller should have followed, and
that you should also follow.
Unfortunately for Miller and for you, evidence needs actually to
AGREE with the predictions of a theory before that theory can be
said to be supported. The specific hypothesis that Miller was
examining, was that Earth possesses an absolute motion through an
aether, and that this putative absolute motion can be detected
through measurements of anisotropy in the two-way speed of light.
The aether-drag hypothesis makes highly specific predictions. The
simplest form of the hypothesis had already been definitively
ruled out by Michelson and Morley's earlier experiments. Whatever
the magnitude of the putative drag, it was far less than had been
expected. Miller was working to find evidence for a modified
aether-drag hypothesis.
If a periodic signal detected by an MMX apparatus is to be
ascribed as having a celestial origin, it must, among other
requirements, satisfy the "Lorentz criterion". Over the course
of a sidereal day, the azimuthal direction of the signal should
oscillate symmetrically about the north-south line of the
meridian, and the velocity computed as having been measured by
the MMX apparatus should vary as the cosine of the angle between
the horizontal plane of the apparatus and putative celestial
source.
As Thirring and Laue independently pointed out, the periodic
signals detected by Miller utterly failed the Lorentz criterion,
and thus could not be ascribed as having a celestial origin.
These arguments were well-known in Miller's time, and were the
major reason why practically no one in the scientific community
took his results seriously.
You wrote, "in general, I expect scientists to adjust theory in
the light of new evidence rather than reject evidence because it
doesn't agree with theory."
Miller rejected his own evidence against the aether-drag theory,
preferring instead to doctor it up to force-fit the data to meet
his preconceived expectations.
Jerry
Bruce Richmond
Hi Tom,
Miller made two kinds of corrections in his experiment. If the
fringes drifted to far from the starting point he hung weights on the
arms of the instrument to bring it back near the starting position.
The turns made while adjusting were not recorded. When they were
satisfied with the adjustment they resumed recording data at marker
1.
The second kind of correction was to adjust each data point for the
drift up to that point, assuming the drift was linear.
The whole idea behind Miller's method of annalysis was that after
removing the drift the readings for a marker would be a grouped around
the mean for that marker in a normal distribution. The data you
provided above was the raw data including the mechanical adjustments
but before correcting for drift. Since the drift was always in the
downward direction the correction for it would result in a higher
value, which is what Surfer got.
As for sigma, please explain your usage of independent and how it
relates to /40? According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependant_variable
the useage is different in mathematics and statistics.
Both of you constructed what you assumed would be a plot of the data
had no mechanical corrections been made.
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Miller/1933/Analysis_of_Fig8/
I don't think that assumption is a good one. For the whole of the
first 5 turns the trend was downward. After the weights were hung
that trend reversed and then resumed. The same thing happen after the
other adjustments as well. It is obvious these adjustments messed up
any resemblence there might have been to a true linear drift.
Not so sure it was a good idea to assume that the data for the two
half turns was the same either. The numbers say they are not,
reguardless of what the theory says. It may have given a better
looking sinwave but it increased the error.
Looking at just the first four turns it is obvious there is a definite
pattern to the data. If you correct for the linear drift it leaves
you a nice sinwave. But there are too few data points.
I have agreed all along that Miller was not detecting an ether drift.
I suspected that he might be detecting the earth's rotation. But
after looking into it some more I realize that wasn't the case. At
this point I think what we are seeing in this particular set of data
is a response to a significant change in temperture. The sinwave is
due to the temp gradient of the air, while the downward trend is due
to distortion of the arms, which are slower to respond.
While I agree the signal is not what Miller thought it was, or what I
had thought it was, there is a signal there. If I am reading
correctly it was still there in your fig.8 of your paper. Not sure
why it was gone when you got done, but it doesn't make the pattern in
the data go away.
Bruce Richmond
Jerry
> I have agreed all along that Miller was not detecting an ether drift.
> I suspected that he might be detecting the earth's rotation. But
> after looking into it some more I realize that wasn't the case. At
> this point I think what we are seeing in this particular set of data
> is a response to a significant change in temperture. The sinwave is
> due to the temp gradient of the air, while the downward trend is due
> to distortion of the arms, which are slower to respond.
>
> While I agree the signal is not what Miller thought it was, or what I
> had thought it was, there is a signal there. If I am reading
> correctly it was still there in your fig.8 of your paper. Not sure
> why it was gone when you got done, but it doesn't make the pattern in
> the data go away.
A systematic variation in the air temperature over 50% of the
apparatus of approximately 0.001 degrees Celsius can completely
account for the detected pattern in the data presented.
Last year, I had made a computation showing that a systematic
0.01 degree variation over half an arm would result in an 0.28
wavelength difference in light paths, and it is simple to repeat
the computation for different assumed temperature gradients.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/74a74dbc0fd0db70
Although Miller covered the light paths with a glass enclosure
and sometimes (but not always!!!) covered the glass with a layer
of corrugated cardboard for additional insulation, simple
order-of-magnitude arguments show that it can take mere -seconds-
for a 0.001 degree Celsius gradient to establish itself within
the interferometer arms. So a periodic variation in temperature
on a time scale of 50 seconds (the rate at which Miller typically
rotated his apparatus) is extremely easy to imagine.
Jerry
Peter Webb
don't understand in Einstein's papers.
However, I can't really help you, and nor can anybody else I suspect,
because you don't explicitly provide the parts of Einstein's papers you
don't understand, and what predictions of SR you don't understand.
Reading and understanding Einstein's paper of 1905 which outlined SR is not
that difficult if you know enough maths to understand Maxwell's equations
and how to transform differential equations into different co-ordinate
systems. Unless you have that pre-requisite knowledge, you really aren't
going to understand Einstein's 1905 paper on SR.
However, there are lots of popular accounts - suitable for those with lesser
mathematical backgrounds - that do not refer to or use Maxwell's equations.
Perhaps you could read a popular introduction to SR, designed for the lay
audience, before you try and read the original papers.
Einstein himself wrote a good popular account for the general audience;
start with that, and if there is anything you don't understand I would be
very happy to help explain anything you don't understand.
Koobee Wublee
paper of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. That was
exactly what I provided and explained thoroughly how so. I am not the
only one to have noticed so. You will notice several scholars have
done so in the past. You apparently have lacked any simple
mathematical skills to understand the simplest subject of physics in
the past 100 years. <shrug>
So, just because the peers of your 15-year-old daughter tell her so
many fairy tales, she now thinks she knows everything. Does that
sound familiar? Just because these self-styled physicists trumpeted
their lies and mistakes, you possess no aptitude in cross-checking
these lies and mistakes. You are even so lazy to do any search on
Voigt and the Voigt transform because you think what the self-styled
physicists tell you must be the truth. Now, you feel like you know
everything.
Well, unlike you, I do not succumb to peer pressures. Luckily, I also
possess aptitude in understand and analyzing these subjects. Unlike
you, the more I understand the more I realize how shallow my knowledge
is. Also, the more I know the more I can point out the lies and
mistakes of these self-styled physicists. <shrug>
Worshipping Einstein as a God by these self-styled physicists is
totally absurd. In reality, Einstein was nothing but a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. Why would anyone worship a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar such as Einstein? Why would anyone accuse me
of being jealous a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar such as Einstein?
<shrug>
Spirit of Truth
"Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ea66b865-89f1-4fb1...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 10:34 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 9:19 pm, "Dono." wrote:
>>
>> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woldemar_Voigt
>>
>> > Nitwit, old fart, Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment. It
>> > only passes MMX and KTX but it fails Ives.
>>
>> Does SR pass the longitudinal Doppler experiment?
>>
>
>
> Why are you changing the subject? "Voigt theory FAILS Ives". That's
> it.
>
>> According to Ives, the Doppler shift is observed to be redshifted.
>>
>> Derived from time dilation point of view, it seems to agree with
>> Ives. However, derived from energy point of view, it has the exact
>> opposite conclusion.
>
>
> You don't understand the Ives experiment, you little plagiarist :-)
> Repeat "Voigt theory is falsified by the Ives experiment".
> Lather,rinse,repeat.
Well, Donno, you repeat after me...SR and LET is falsified
by lack of simultaneiety/blockhead universe.
Lather,rinse,repeat.
Spirit of Truth
Peter Webb
of Einstein's 1905 paper on SR that you don't understand.
I know this stuff is tough, but simply saying you don't understand it
without saying the exact part of the paper you don't understand doesn't give
us enough information to help you.
Have you considered my suggestion of reading an introduction to SR written
for the general reader, perhaps even the one Einstein himself wrote, before
tackling the original paper?
Above all, don't get frustrated. Most people know little or nothing about
SR, and unless you design particle acclerators, or you are a professional
astronomer, or design GPS system, or are a particle physicist - which is
about 0.01% of the population - you don't really need to know anything about
it. If SR is frustrating you, try to learn something different.
Spirit of Truth
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a471b4b$0$32004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Peter, look:
Look at these preposterous situations created by the idea
of lack of simultaneiety:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_...
There is somethiing rotten in the state of SR.
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Spirit of Truth" <juneh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:1tF1m.5778$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Peter, look:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
Musatov
"Spirit of Truth",
In Einstein's 1905 paper he derives two expressions which show mass
depends on velocity. This is Einstein's second greatest error in this
paper. He does not differentiate his x equation in order to find his
relative. Is this our standard of greatness?
Einstein's April paper had a more applied character than did his other
1905 papers.
Because of this, the theory laid out in Einstein's 1905 Error on
Transverse Mass.
In the 1906 paper Einstein does not explicitly state how he is
defining the term "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" *3: This
equation was incorrectly given in Einstein's original paper and the
1923, an error, despite a change in symbols, from the original 1905
paper.
Einstein's 1905 papers Text - Physics Forums Library Archived thread
of Einstein's 1905 papers from the physics forums community does not
seem to support Relativity, Einstein thought it in error, but
Pointcare said, he sent his 1905 paper to them and it was dismissed as
"incomprehensible".
Einstein 1905: The Standard of Greatness Journal article by Suman
Seth; Einstein's paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, for
example, is described as <...> Error. Working<...> Choose one of the
options for printing: <...>http://www.questiaschool.com/read/
5028584397%3Ftitle%3DEinstein%25201905%253A%2520The%2520Standard%2520of
%2520Greatness
sci.physics: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 the 1905.
>>> paper. >> >> That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he
was lost <...> error is on either side, and the party in error MUST
acknowledge <...>
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.physics/2005-01/3483.pdf
Frederic Deliot: Einstein's original paper in 1905.
"In fact, it was not very difficult to <...> Error type: Your comment
has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not. <...>
http://qd.typepad.com/11/2005/01/einsteins_origi.html
It raises the question: Did Einstein Misunderstand Aberration?
Truth: There are mistakes in the 1905 relativity paper, including a
serious conceptual error regarding the bending of starlight
("aberration"),
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath160/kmath160.htm
--
Martin Musatov
Dono.
> You are even so lazy to do any search on
> Voigt and the Voigt transform because you think what the self-styled
> physicists tell you must be the truth.
Nitwit, old fart
The Voigt transform is falsified by the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Peter Webb
>
> Look at these preposterous situations created by the idea
> of lack of simultaneiety:
>
Preposterous to you.
Obviously Special Relativity is correct, the evidence is overwhelming, its
routinely used in engineering and if it was wrong lots of things wouldn't
work (in some cases spectacularly).
Just accept it as amazing.
Sam Wormley
>
> Peter, look:
>
> Look at these preposterous situations created by the idea
> of lack of simultaneiety:
>
> http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node77.html
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_...
>
> There is somethiing rotten in the state of SR.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
>
It is common for those not tutored in special relative to
think something might be wrong. SR is not intuitive to our
Newtonian senses.
The fact is that there has NEVER been an observation that
contradicts a prediction of special relativity. The theory
enjoys copious experimental confirmation spanning a century.
Special and general relativity are incorporated in designs
of instruments and technology, some in our daily lives.
See: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#relativity
Surfer
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Before calculating the means and standard errors, I first used signal
processing to filter out noise.
This web page shows the algorithm used.
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Miller/1933/Analysis_of_Fig8/
The means for the filtered data then differ somewhat from the means of
the unfiltered data, but the standard errors of the means are very
much reduced.
>
> Just LOOK at those values -- they cannot possibly have
> a sigma of 0.099 -- that is VASTLY too small. This is
> so even if you divided by 10 to report in fringes (without
> bothering to mention it).
>
That would be true if the means and standard errors had been directly
derived from the unfiltered raw data.
However, signal processing allows one to do much better than that.
Spirit of Truth
I guess you don't understand block universe. It literally means
you are a mannikin voicing nonconsequential inanities.
And you agree with it?
:)
Spirit of Truth
Spirit of Truth
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:zhK1m.164539$DP1.7130@attbi_s22...
Sam, it is not a thing to do with human intuition.