info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
REWARDING IGNORANCE IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD
93 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Nov 9, 2015, 7:57:51 AM11/9/15
to
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
"Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity
Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. This belief is the result of century-long brainwashing. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion_final.pdf
"These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
"Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity
Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. This belief is the result of century-long brainwashing. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion_final.pdf
"These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
Open Collector
Nov 9, 2015, 3:27:08 PM11/9/15
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-
They still are making big money out of Einstein.
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-
mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a
> video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are
> you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert
> Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural
> Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
Outraged to see these capitalist winning competitions abusing his theory.
> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a
> video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are
> you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert
> Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural
> Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
They still are making big money out of Einstein.
JanPB
Nov 9, 2015, 6:23:59 PM11/9/15
to
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:57:51 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> [same exact thing for the last 20 years(!)]
How many of you think Pentcho is a person? :-)
--
Jan
> [same exact thing for the last 20 years(!)]
How many of you think Pentcho is a person? :-)
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Nov 10, 2015, 5:00:25 AM11/10/15
to
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/breathrough-prize-2016-winning-teen-explains-einstein-special-theory-of-relativity/
"Future scientists like Ohio teen Ryan Chester, a senior at North Royalton High School, who earned $400,000 in scholarships and awards at this year's Breakthroughs for his video called "Some Cool Ways to Understand the Special Theory of Relativity and What It Means About Time."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
"Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity"
The explanation of time dilation (4:18) is the silliest one produced by Einsteinians so far. So $400,000 was not enough - more should have been given to Bingo the Einsteiniano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno
"Future scientists like Ohio teen Ryan Chester, a senior at North Royalton High School, who earned $400,000 in scholarships and awards at this year's Breakthroughs for his video called "Some Cool Ways to Understand the Special Theory of Relativity and What It Means About Time."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
"Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno
Gary Harnagel
Nov 10, 2015, 7:47:10 AM11/10/15
to
read-only file and selects only negative information from it :-)
Thomas Heger
Nov 12, 2015, 1:20:25 AM11/12/15
to
Am 09.11.2015 13:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
> Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity
>
> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. This belief is the result of century-long brainwashing. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
>
I personally like the video. It is very well made and very instructive.
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
> Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the Special Theory of Relativity
>
> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. This belief is the result of century-long brainwashing. In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
>
But he repeated the same mistake, that Michelson made: conduct the
interferometer experiment horizontal.
This is nonsense, since gravity acts vertical and it is much more
interesting to know, whether (or not) the speed of light is constant in
vertical direction. But - in fact - it isn't:
"Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
TH
Pentcho Valev
Nov 12, 2015, 4:06:16 AM11/12/15
to
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-teen-won-400k-for-his-video-explaining-special-relativity
The second postulate, which involves the speed of light and time dilation, is a little harder to pull off, but Chester settled for a nice and concise whiteboard explanation along with some rough CGI spaceships to explain why faster-moving objects seem to age slower from a slower observer's point-of-view:
http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/27616/1447196136321725.png
Yes, science is getting more and more idiotic. Actually, it has been dead for a long time:
http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. (...) Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue", tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
Pentcho Valev
The second postulate, which involves the speed of light and time dilation, is a little harder to pull off, but Chester settled for a nice and concise whiteboard explanation along with some rough CGI spaceships to explain why faster-moving objects seem to age slower from a slower observer's point-of-view:
http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/27616/1447196136321725.png
Yes, science is getting more and more idiotic. Actually, it has been dead for a long time:
http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266
Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."
http://www7.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave. (...) Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue", tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
Pentcho Valev
Paul B. Andersen
Nov 12, 2015, 6:59:29 AM11/12/15
to
On 12.11.2015 07:20, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.11.2015 13:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
>>
>> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a
>> video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are
>> you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert
>> Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural
>> Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
>> Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the
>> Special Theory of Relativity
>>
>> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
>> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
>> the speed of light.
No physicists think so, they know that the MMX confirmed that
> Am 09.11.2015 13:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/08/breakthrough-junior-prize-mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan/75325460/
>>
>> "Attention, students. Interested in science and know how to shoot a
>> video? Care to make $400,000? Not sleeping at your desks anymore, are
>> you? Meet Ryan Chester, 18, whose quirky video explaining Albert
>> Einstein's mind-bending Special Theory of Relativity won the inaugural
>> Breakthrough Junior Challenge Sunday."
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o
>> Breakthrough Junior Challenge: Some Cool Ways of Looking at the
>> Special Theory of Relativity
>>
>> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
>> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
>> the speed of light.
the speed of light was isotropic in all inertial frames,
but it didn't say anything about the invariance of the speed of light.
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf
The KTX was the first experiment demonstrating
the invariance of the speed of light.
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
mlwo...@wp.pl
Nov 12, 2015, 7:55:15 AM11/12/15
to
W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 12:59:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:
> >> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
> >> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
> >> the speed of light.
>
> No physicists think so,
A lie, as expected from a relativistic moron. Most
> >> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
> >> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
> >> the speed of light.
>
> No physicists think so,
physicists think so - yeah, they're such morons.
> they know that the MMX confirmed that
> the speed of light was isotropic in all inertial frames,
absurd.
All it confirmed is - lack of fringe shift. The
rest is only imagination of a relativistic moron.
Pentcho Valev
Nov 12, 2015, 11:46:58 AM11/12/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 1:59:29 PM UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Am 09.11.2015 13:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> >> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
> >> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
> >> the speed of light.
> No physicists think so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-mrj1qrCFk
> > Am 09.11.2015 13:57, schrieb Pentcho Valev:
> >> Like ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians, young Ryan Chester believes
> >> that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the constancy of
> >> the speed of light.
> No physicists think so
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/232184286/neil-degrasse-tyson-death-by-black-hole-and-other-ies-v5-0-pdf
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."
http://www.elisabrune.com/pdf/Jumeaux.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "La vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est la même pour tous les observateurs, quel que soit leur état de mouvement - il s'agit d'un principe dont Einstein est parti pour construire sa théorie, et d'un fait observé dans les célèbres expériences de Michelson et Morley."
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts
Nov 13, 2015, 12:45:42 AM11/13/15
to
On 11/12/15 11/12/15 12:20 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [...]
Michelson was not measuring anything related to gravity. It is also a
recognition that no known material is rigid enough to not stretch by more than a
wavelength as it is rotated in a vertical plane.
Brillet and Hall performed a related experiment with VASTLY
better resolution. They attributed the residual variation
in their apparatus to the rotation axis being a few microradians
off of vertical, causing orientation-dependent strains in their
apparatus.
One can, of course, compute what GR predicts for rotating in a vertical plane,
assuming perfect rigidity. GR does predict a non-null result, but the fringe
shift is FAR too small to be observable.
> But
> - in fact - it isn't:
> "Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version "
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
He is measuring deformations in the interferometer, not any variation in the
speed of light.
Tom Roberts
> [...]
> But he repeated the same mistake, that Michelson made: conduct the
> interferometer experiment horizontal.
> This is nonsense, since gravity acts vertical and it is much more interesting to
> know, whether (or not) the speed of light is constant in vertical direction.
This is not a "mistake", it was a deliberate design decision. In particular,
> interferometer experiment horizontal.
> This is nonsense, since gravity acts vertical and it is much more interesting to
> know, whether (or not) the speed of light is constant in vertical direction.
Michelson was not measuring anything related to gravity. It is also a
recognition that no known material is rigid enough to not stretch by more than a
wavelength as it is rotated in a vertical plane.
Brillet and Hall performed a related experiment with VASTLY
better resolution. They attributed the residual variation
in their apparatus to the rotation axis being a few microradians
off of vertical, causing orientation-dependent strains in their
apparatus.
One can, of course, compute what GR predicts for rotating in a vertical plane,
assuming perfect rigidity. GR does predict a non-null result, but the fringe
shift is FAR too small to be observable.
> But
> - in fact - it isn't:
> "Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version "
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
speed of light.
Tom Roberts
0 new messages