How to Replicate NoEinstein's M-M Invalidation (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
of relativity.
But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
NoEinstein's simple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
others to replicate, will require an above average ability to
visualize the M-M apparatus moving at various angles relative to
Earth's velocity vector.
Once emitted from the light source, those rays will race around
their individual, tee shaped, courses to be reflected by two mirrors--
one normal, or perpendicular; the other the 45 degree beamsplitter,
that reflects light at a 90 degree angle--till each light ray finally
arrives at the target. A wave (crest or valley) reaches the target as
a SINGLE timed event from emission to target. The next wave (crest or
valley) completes another timed event, identical to the former, but
has different values depending upon the azimuth to which the apparatus
is oriented, relative to the Earth's velocity vector. Each light ray
is actually a continuous TRAIN of evenly spaced photons of a single
frequency. The TIME required for a single photon in either train to
reach a mirror, or to reach the target, is the same as for any other
photon in that train.
So, to simplify understanding, assume that just TWO side-by-side
photons are simultaneously emitted from the source, each traveling its
own unique, tee shaped course to the target. A schematic diagram of
the Michelson-Morley experiment can be found in most encyclopedias, or
on the WEB. For consistency, assume that the light source is in the -
Y position on the crossed light paths; the 50% silvered, 45 degree
beamsplitter is at the origin of X-X & Y-Y, and reflects LEFT, or
toward -X, at the first reflection; perpendicular Mirror 1 is at +Y,
and is equidistant from the center of the beamsplitter; perpendicular
Mirror 2 is at -X, and is equidistant from the center of the
beamsplitter; and finally, the target surface is perpendicular at +X,
and is equidistant from the center of the 45 degree beamsplitter.
The light rays (or just those two photons) get to travel one of
two light courses. Course 1 is: Source, through the half-silvered
beamsplitter to Mirror 1; then, from Mirror 1 back to the 45 degree
beamsplitter; then, from the 45 degree beamsplitter to the target
(located on the front of the telescope). Course 2 is: Source to the
45 degree beamsplitter; then, from such to Mirror 2; then, from Mirror
2 the light reflects back through the half-silvered beamsplitter to
arrive at the same target on the front of the telescope.
For the results of M-M to be negative, two photons emitted at the
same instant from the source must reflect around their own tee shaped
light courses and arrive at the target in the exact same amount of
TIME regardless of the orientation of the apparatus relative to
Earth's velocity vector. Important note: While the photons are in
transit, the apparatus is constantly moving. The point of original
"aim" of the light is to cross the centerline of the 45 degree
mirror. The purpose of algebra is to calculate WHERE the 45 degree
mirror will be when the photons reflect from such. Algebra is also
needed to calculate how far each photon must travel to reach a given
moving mirror and the moving target. How fast are those moving? Of
course it depends upon the orientation relative to the velocity vector
of the Earth. There are 360 degrees of possible apparatus orientation
to consider. But first consider just the four orthogonal
orientations. Since there are two light courses, that means you must
do eight algebraic calculations of the TIME to the target; and do
eight accrued algebraic calculations of the total distance the light
must travel. Done correctly, the TIME calculations will all be the
same, while the DISTANCE calculations will be longer or shorter than
the measured size of the apparatus.
Consider that each of the four legs of each course is length
unity, or 1. To simplify calculations, assume that the velocity of
light c, also, is unity or 1. And assume that Earth's velocity is .01
(of c), and that the apparatus will move a maximum of .01 in the time
it takes a photon to travel just one leg of the four legs to the
target (as measured when at rest). Re read the above while looking at
a schematic diagram of M-M. Most Important: Remember that the
apparatus is MOVING while the photons are in transit to a particular
mirror, or to the target. Check your algebra for each orientation
before considering the next orientation (90 degrees clockwise or
counterclockwise as you wish). Good luck to everyone!
Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
Other posts of mine may be accessed by clicking my "profile".
__________
Eric Gisse
> Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
> replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
> Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
> velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
> conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
> even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
> direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
> ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
> the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
> Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
> interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
> experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
> miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
I wonder if you understand that there has been more than one
interferometry experiment done since 1887.
> To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
> the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
> in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
> of relativity.
This is fantastically wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not
the basis for relativity - Maxwell's equations and the principle of
relativity are.
> But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
Then you will have to find an alternate explanation for atmospheric
muons - one experiment among many. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was
simply one explanation for why the MMX nulled.
> Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
> post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
A background in _structural design_ ?
Goddamn you are wholly unqualified. Don't let that stop you, though.
> believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
> material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
> WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
> sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
> and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
> motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
> others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
> having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
Apparently all that "structural design" experience never prepared you
for basic relativity. The contraction is equivalent to rotating a
ruler and noticing the ruler looks shorter at an angle.
Your mumbling about Einsteins intuition is wrong because Einstein
never made such assumptions. You are welcome to provide reference to a
published work quoting Einstein saying what you say he says.
> NoEinstein's simple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
> others to replicate, will require an above average ability to
> visualize the M-M apparatus moving at various angles relative to
> Earth's velocity vector.
Your name is enough to immediately question the validity of the
conclusions.
[snip junk]
Especially since you don't even write down your calculations.
>
> Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
You don't respectfully submit anything. You only intend to tear down
modern physics because you can't understand any of it with your
building background.
When will your assault on quantum mechanics begin?
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
Igor
> Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
> replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
> Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
> velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
> conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
> even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
> direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
> ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
> the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
> Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
> interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
> experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
> miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
> To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
> the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
> in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
> of relativity.
Not true at all. Einstein's derivation of the LT was completely
independent of any arguments used by Lorentz or Fitzgerald. Their
arguments were essentially dynamical, assuming an aether, whereas
Einstein's ignored the aether and proceeded from his two assumptions
that the laws of physics and the speed of light were invariant.
That's as different as night and day.
> But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
There is NO physical contraction, as Lorentz and Fitzgerald believed,
if that's what you mean. Proper length is maintained in the proper
frame. Objects that share your same rest frame do not appear to
contract. Only objects in other inertial frames appear to contract.
But then objects also appear to get smaller as you move away from
them, even at everyday speeds. What physics is involved with that?
None at all.
> Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
> post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
> believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
> material contract.
Funny, but SR agrees with you. So don't get all bent out of shape.
>But he had to find an alternative explanation for
> WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
> sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
> and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
> motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
> others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
> having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
SR handles this all quite well without ever making the assumptions
that you're reading into it. So the rest of your post is irrelevent.
none
> Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
> replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
> Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
> velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
> conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
> even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
> direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
> ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
> the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
> Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
> interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
> experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
> miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
> To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.
expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.
Such is because
> the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
> in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
> of relativity.
> But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
> Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
> post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
> believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
> material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
> WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
> sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
> and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
> motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
> others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
> having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
Your assumptions which you claim no one else ever considered were
exactly the assumptions that you claim to have invented. You should
be careful or Androcles and Mr. Henri Wilson will be mad at you
for "stealing" their ideas which they have been trying to sell on
this group for years. Maybe Ken Seto also but no one is sure what
it is he is really saying.
Now we get to the part where we expect you to do the simple calculations
which "proves" your case. You did not do them but they prove you
are wrong or perhaps you cannot do them.
none
does not know proofs. The only question is whether noeinstein
is good for a laugh and a warning to students of what could
happen to them if they do not study. I guess he can be used
as a warning to scare the children.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
news:13o8t2b...@corp.supernews.com...
| NoEinstein wrote:
| > Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
| > replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
| > Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
| > velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
| > conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
| > even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
| > direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
| > ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
| > the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
| > Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
| > interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
| > experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
| > miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
| > To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
| > to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.
| It was not a failure. It did not give the results that they were
| expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.
It certainly was a failure, Michelson was attempting to measure
the speed of light, knowing the speed of Earth through the supposed
aether as he has been commissioned to do by the US Navy.
It was a success for science, though, and Michelson's own belief
in aether was shaken. The greatness of Michelson lies in him biting
the bullet and publishing the result that proved him wrong.
Later, in 1913, Sagnac repeated Michelson's experiment but
got a positive result by constant rotation of the apparatus,
proving that both Einstein and the aetherialists were wrong
and Ritz was right.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Einstein failed mathematics anyway, he was hopeless.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.
"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."
In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.
Troll kooks such as
Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.
You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Paul B. Andersen
> To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
> the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
> in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
> of relativity.
> But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
> Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong.
According to SR, the 'explanation' for the MMX null result is extremely
simple: the speed of light is isotropic, and nothing is contracting.
So the orientation of the interferometer doesn't affect the interference
pattern.
According to SR, matter doesn't contract.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> "none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
> news:13o8t2b...@corp.supernews.com...
> | NoEinstein wrote:
> | > To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> | > to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.
>
>
> | It was not a failure. It did not give the results that they were
> | expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.
>
> It certainly was a failure, Michelson was attempting to measure
> the speed of light, knowing the speed of Earth through the supposed
> aether as he has been commissioned to do by the US Navy.
Michelson measured the speed of light in 1879, but that is not
the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed to measure
the speed of the ether.
http://www.oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:478BBA19...@guesswhatuia.no...
| Androcles wrote:
| > "none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
| > news:13o8t2b...@corp.supernews.com...
| > | NoEinstein wrote:
| > | > To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by
many
| > | > to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.
| >
| >
| > | It was not a failure. It did not give the results that they were
| > | expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.
| >
| > It certainly was a failure, Michelson was attempting to measure
| > the speed of light, knowing the speed of Earth through the supposed
| > aether as he has been commissioned to do by the US Navy.
|
| Michelson measured the speed of light in 1879, but that is not
| the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed to measure
| the speed of the ether.
And again up to his death. The speed of aether is nonsensical, it is the
speed
of Earth through the aether that he thought he knew, being approximately
2 piR per year where R is one AU. The displacement he sought was v/c
(about 1/10,000).
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: By the numbers: (1.) I realize that your 'Einstein's
disease' has blinded you to the mental acumen of anyone whom you can't
see in your mirror. I know about the analysis of interferometers
better than you, or anyone else who has 'hinted' such a knowledge in
their various replies to my posts. I myself have done a lot more than
"one" interferometer experience. Like the "Big Bad Wolf" you are more
"huff and puff" than you are substance. Like my present post
encourages, you should DO THE MATH (algebra) and calculate the TIMES
required for light to circuit M-M. After you do that, your comments
should be tempered.
(2.) As I keep telling you about once a day: Einstein used the so-
called Lorentz Transformation as the "scary part" of both his SR and
GR equations. And such a factor, Beta, was developed by L-F to
explain the nil result of M-M. So, if Einstein used just Maxwell and
his principles of relativity, then, why did Einstein himself
acknowledge "the importance" of that Beta equation, and use it at
every turn? As a failed Einsteiniac, you are clutching for any STRAW
from which you can reconstruct the work of your idol, Einstein. But
as you should have learned by now: I have driven the Last Nails in
Einstein's (and Your) Coffins.
(3.) Eric, as I have explained to you, and everyone, at least a dozens
times: The half lives of atomic particles is increased NOT because of
some 'time travel' principle of Einstein, but due to the simply fact
that muons (or other particles) are banging into the omni-present
polar ETHER at high velocity. When that happens, other either units--
which I call IOTA--clump in front of the moving particles and compress
them. Think of a decaying particle as being a tangle of vibrating
springs. Over time, more and more springs will vibrate loose from the
tangle. But since all matter is composed of IOTA units, those moving
tangles of springs get glued together by the clump of polar ether, and
don't start to decay much until after the muons have hit the detector,
and the velocity that had caused the ether impacts has stopped.
Please try to remember the above explanation, Eric. It's just one of
about seven "predictions" of Einstein that can correctly be attributed
to the effects of varying ether density near massive objects, or to
ether flow variations near same. And my ether findings, don't require
a "space-time" suspension of disbelief. Any middle school student can
understand it. A lot of teachers of "Theoretical Physics" will be
looking for burger-flipping jobs. I have eliminated T. P. as a...
science!
(4.) Eric: Your claim that a compression" of matter due to velocity
isn't a requirement ment for SR and GR is ludicrous. As you so often
do, you choose to clutch at straws to try to hold together Einstein's
scarecrow--which I have blown all to smithereens. The last straw that
you clutch is your claim that "contraction" is just the "illusion" of
a ruler being rotated in one's view, so that it varies in "apparent
length". Well, such a ruler-angle-of-view relationship would
correspond to the SINE of the angle of view. Correct? But the L-F
explanation for M-M requires that the "compression" vary as the COSINE
of the angle relative to the velocity vector. So if your ruler
'analogy' is to replace the compression factor Beta, as it was called,
then the SINE of an angle must be equal to the COSINE of the same
angle. Give it up, Eric. If your brain was pigeon droppings, you'd
have a clean cage!
(5.) I don't know which assumptions you think that I was "mumbling"
about. Einstein himself said: If it is ever shown that light can
exceed velocity 'c', than all of his theories are wrong. Well, I made
the COMMON SENSE assumption that light CAN speed up or slow down
depending on the velocity of the source. Then, I tested that
assumption on the M-M experiment, mathematically--as I am encouraging
you and others to do on this very post! M-M conclusively proves that
assumption. And it does so without having to resort the any "space-
time" tricks or other lame brain shenanigans of Einsteiniacs like
you. "Simple things that are correct trump complicated things that
are in error!" (NoEinstein)
(6.) Eric: There you go, attacking "my name" again. Don't you think
that one as dedicated as I am to getting my conclusive disproofs of
Einstein's theories recognized should choose a computer name that
embodies my phylosophy: NO (more) Einstein! Because of you... I'm
considering changing my computer name to: NoEric. But everyone
already knows that you are a "no"--so I'll just keep the NoEinstein.
(7.) What is "modern" about clinging to the outmoded ideas of a
moronic German, who plagiarized everything that he ever wrote? The
word modern implies NEW ideas, not status quo ideas that have failed
to make the grade. Nonetheless, I wish you much luck as you pound-the-
pavement looking for burgers to flip. -- NoEinstein --
> experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
> miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
(1.) I wonder if you understand that there has been more than one
interferometry experiment done since 1887.
> To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
> to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time. Such is because
> the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
> in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
> of relativity.
(2.) This is fantastically wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment is
not
the basis for relativity - Maxwell's equations and the principle of
relativity are.
> But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
(3.) Then you will have to find an alternate explanation for
atmospheric
muons - one experiment among many. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was
simply one explanation for why the MMX nulled.
> Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
> post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
A background in _structural design_ ?
Goddamn you are wholly unqualified. Don't let that stop you, though.
> believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
> material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
> WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
> sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
> and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
> motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
> others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
> having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
(4.) Apparently all that "structural design" experience never prepared
you
for basic relativity. The contraction is equivalent to rotating a
ruler and noticing the ruler looks shorter at an angle.
(5.) Your mumbling about Einsteins intuition is wrong because
Einstein
never made such assumptions. You are welcome to provide reference to
a
published work quoting Einstein saying what you say he says.
> NoEinstein's simple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
> others to replicate, will require an above average ability to
> visualize the M-M apparatus moving at various angles relative to
> Earth's velocity vector.
(6.) Your name is enough to immediately question the validity of the
conclusions.
[snip junk]
Especially since you don't even write down your calculations.
> Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
(7.) You don't respectfully submit anything. You only intend to tear
down
modern physics because you can't understand any of it with your
building background.
When will your assault on quantum mechanics begin?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Igor: Please read my reply to you on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892e00156d4d92/4334582a68e5bb8d?hl=en&lnk=st&q=NC+Governor+Should+Resign+Over+Science#4334582a68e5bb8d
You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
Androcles: Though we have some differences regarding "the causes" we
both agree that Einstein was a con artist, and Einsteiniacs are his
shills. Thanks for helping to defend the right! -- NoEinstein --
> | > Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
> | >replicateNoEinstein'sinvalidationof the historic 1887 Michelson-
> | > Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
> | > velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
> | > conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
> | > even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
> | > direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
> | > ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
> | > the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
> | > Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
> | > interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
> | > experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
> | > miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
> | > To have been a failure, theM-Mexperiment is considered by many
> | > post,NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
> | > believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
> | > material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
> | > WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
> | > sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
> | > and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
> | > motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
> | > others--yield negative results for theM-Mexperiment, and without
> | > having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
> | Your assumptions which you claim no one else ever considered were
> | exactly the assumptions that you claim to have invented. You should
> | be careful or Androcles and Mr. Henri Wilson will be mad at you
> | for "stealing" their ideas which they have been trying to sell on
> | this group for years. Maybe Ken Seto also but no one is sure what
> | it is he is really saying.
> |
> | >NoEinstein'ssimple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
> | > others toreplicate, will require an above average ability to
> | > visualize theM-Mapparatus moving at various angles relative to
> | > For the results ofM-Mto be negative, two photons emitted at the
> | > same instant from the source must reflect around their own tee shaped
> | > light courses and arrive at the target in the exact same amount of
> | > TIME regardless of the orientation of the apparatus relative to
> | > Earth's velocity vector. Important note: While the photons are in
> | > transit, the apparatus is constantly moving. The point of original
> | > "aim" of the light is to cross the centerline of the 45 degree
> | > mirror. The purpose of algebra is to calculate WHERE the 45 degree
> | > mirror will be when the photons reflect from such. Algebra is also
> | > needed to ...
>
> read more >>
NoEinstein
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> NoEinsteinskrev:
>
> > To have been a failure, theM-Mexperiment is considered by many
Dear Paul: As a new visitor to my posts, thanks for replying. For
the past year I have been answering your same questions, though posed
by others. Reluctantly, I must tell you that I can't customize
replies "from square one" just for you. I simply don't have the
time. But I will reply to you if you will comment, later, after
reading some, or most of my earlier posts. Those should answer the
majority of your questions. Thanks again. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> Androcles wrote:
> > "none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
> >news:13o8t2b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > |NoEinsteinwrote:
> > | > to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.
>
> > | It was not a failure. It did not give the results that they were
> > | expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.
>
> > It certainly was a failure, Michelson was attempting to measure
> > the speed of light, knowing the speed of Earth through the supposed
> > aether as he has been commissioned to do by the US Navy.
>
> Michelson measured the speed of light in 1879, but that is not
> the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed to measure
> the speed of the ether.
>
> http://www.oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
>
> --
> Paul
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
Dear Paul: Maxwell proposed to Michelson that Michelson use his new
interferometer to measure the drag on light caused by the suspected
ether. But Maxwell, and all supposed scientists since, was most
naïve. To wit: If 'ether' is capable of slowing the velocity of light
over the dimensions of the M-M experiment, then, ether would slow the
light from the stars, and from the Sun such that no light could reach
the Earth. No light, no life on Earth... Neither Michelson, Morley,
Lorentz, FitzGerald, Einstein, nor any of his army of Einsteiniacs
were, or are, sufficient mentally endowed to realize that "ether drag"
is a non issue. Ether NURTURES light, and only slows short term light
traveling at a velocity greater than 'c'. Long term light traveling
greater than 'c' will eventually tunnel through the ether. And those
tunnels will allow the passage of super fast light over vast distances
without interruption. Some of what detectors interpret as gamma rays
may be capsules of information compressed for super fast transport
across the galaxy. The "reader" for that information would likely
need to travel at a very high velocity to uncompress the data. --
NoEinstein --
none
Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions are wrong. Reality
is being very hard on you. Study and learn why you are wrong. Math
is not that hard. You have made a freshman physics mistake and
everyone is trying to help you by correcting it. Trying to appeal
to some conspiracy is not going to make reality change to agree
with your desires.
none
> On Jan 9, 5:38 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_c> wrote:
>
> Androcles: Though we have some differences regarding "the causes" we
> both agree that Einstein was a con artist, and Einsteiniacs are his
> shills. Thanks for helping to defend the right! -- NoEinstein --
>
none
you will be emabarased by your mistakes.
none
the average velocity calculation and tries to bluster his way
to get people to agree with him when he is completely wrong.
If he could do the math, he would see that he is wrong and that
the speed of light is isotropic. He cannot or will not do the
math. He prefers to try to bully people into believing him. He
is very frustrated that it is not working.
none
to explain his "theory". In his mind, naive means has actually studied
physics and experiments and realizes that what noeinstein is saying is
not even good enough to be wrong.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
| NoEinstein wrote:
| > On Jan 9, 2:15 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
| >
| > Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892e00156d4d92/4334582a68e5bb8d?hl=en&lnk=st&q=NC+Governor+Should+Resign+Over+Science#4334582a68e5bb8d
| > You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --
| The truth must be painful for you.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
| Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions are wrong.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
| Reality is being very hard on you.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
| Study and learn why you are wrong.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
| Math is not that hard.
No factual content, non sequitur.
| You have made a freshman physics mistake and
| everyone is trying to help you by correcting it.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
| Trying to appeal
| to some conspiracy is not going to make reality change to agree
| with your desires.
Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
You drooled nothing, fuckhead. "none" is a good name for you.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
The truth must be painful for you.
Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions are wrong. Reality
is being very hard on you. Study and learn why you are wrong. Math
is not that hard. You have made a freshman physics mistake and
everyone is trying to help you by correcting it. Trying to appeal
to some authority is not going to make reality change to agree
with your desires, cunt.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
Repeating the same nonsense does not make it true. Study a dictionary and
you will be embarrassed by "emabarased" and your other low IQ fuckups.
Not that a pompous arsehole like you is capable of being embarrassed
and admitting your ignorance.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
One fuckhead believes in aether, the other fuckhead can't do the math.
Neither fuckhead has any chance of understanding physics.
Androcles
"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
Let's see, doug\"@(none does not understand algebra.
The fuckhead cannot do any velocity calculation and tries to bluster its way
to get people to agree with it when the fuckhead is completely wrong.
If the fuckhead could do the math, the fuckhead would see that it is wrong
and that
the speed of light is source dependent. The fuckhead cannot or will not do
the
math. The fuckhead prefers to try to bully people into believing him. The
fuckhead
is very frustrated that it is not working.
Here is the math the fuckhead will not do:
Eric Gisse
> On Jan 9, 2:23 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
> You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --
...and you hide behind a pseudonym.
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2:15 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
> > Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
> > You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --
>
> The truth must be painful for you.
> Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions are wrong. Reality
> is being very hard on you. Study and learn why you are wrong. Math
> is not that hard. You have made a freshman physics mistake and
> everyone is trying to help you by correcting it. Trying to appeal
> to some conspiracy is not going to make reality change to agree
> with your desires.
Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e892...
NoEinstein
Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
NoEinstein
> "none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
>
> news:13or4ar...@corp.supernews.com...| NoEinstein wrote:
>
> | > On Jan 9, 2:15 am, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
> | >
> | > Dear None: Please read my reply to you on
> | > You are a persona non grata. -- NoEinstein --
> | The truth must be painful for you.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | Your assumptions are wrong and your conclusions are wrong.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | Reality is being very hard on you.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | Study and learn why you are wrong.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | Math is not that hard.
>
> No factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | You have made a freshman physics mistake and
> | everyone is trying to help you by correcting it.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> | Trying to appeal
> | to some conspiracy is not going to make reality change to agree
> | with your desires.
>
> Personal, no factual content, non sequitur.
>
> You drooled nothing, fuckhead. "none" is a good name for you.
Androcles: Readers know the shallowness on None's remarks. I like
your assessment that None substitutes character attacks for science.
But we can win without resorting to character attacks, too. There is
enough glory to go around. Be it known: We are kicking Einstein into
the dust (figurative violence accepted)! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Androcles: Isn't it amazing that my present post is inviting folks to
do simple algebra to show that the TIME required for light to circuit
the two courses in M-M is ALWAYS the same? Yet, None accuses me of
not doing the math. In Einstein's day, there was "the excuse" that
calculations to many significant figures were cumbersome. But today,
we have calculators that are so easy to use that writing "simplified"
equations isn't necessary. Write any correct equation and the
calculators can figure things out! But in over a week, not one person
has replied that they have confirmed that the TIME for light to
circuit M-M doesn't change. And the reason for that: M-M has no
CONTROL.
By testing my assumption that light velocity can vary with the
velocity of the Earth-mounted source, one proves that 'c' isn't the
maximum velocity! Einstein himself, who never did math on most of his
"theories", said that proving that 'c' isn't maximum disproves his
theories. So, why is everyone so afraid to do the high school
algebra? Do the algebra; and YOU could have disproved Einstein, too!
The present post would make a wonderful "for extra credit"
exercise for high school algebra students. Those aren't too proud to
do the math! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: Tell me where it is stated that posers can't use computer
names? If I commit any crimes, Google will be more than happy to
provide my full name. And Bell South will be more than happy to give
my complete address. You can't run from the NET, Eric. Your main
problem is that you can't attack my science, so you keep attacking my
name. Considering that the "Einstein" part is... your idol, then you
must really dislike that "No" part. Probably that's because you
yourself would like to be known as: DR. NO! Sorry, Guy; I beat you to
the punch! -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
I attack your name because your science has already been attacked and
defeated. Mostly because you have none. I also attack your name
because you are a hypocrite for hiding behind a pseudonym while
simultaneously insulting none for doing the same.
You never offer computations, literature references, or performed
experiments. Maybe if you had some of those, we would pay more
attention to you. But you don't, and we won't.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: Over the past year, about 10% of my replies to you were
because you actually mentioned a science issue about which others
would benefit from reading my explanations. But lately, you have been
making false personal attacks. My "science" is alive and well, thank
you! You, nor anyone, have objectively proved that my most simple to
understand Einstein disproofs--and from every conceivable direction, I
might add--aren't valid. My elementary kick-butt disproof: That M-M
lacked a CONTROL, has never been addressed by you. If you disagree,
say so, AND explain your reason(s). Unless you can do that, SR and GR
are in the dust.
None has been a pest for about a month. I don't know whether his
name is a pseudonym or not. Nor do I care. I will counter-attack
anyone who leads as an 'expert' who hasn't even read my links to posts
this past year. To be respected, you and that rag-tag army of
Einsteiniacs, should show a little respect. Just showing up with
those holier-than-thou statements that I am wrong, shows a sick (with
'Einstein's disease') mentality. Address the "yes" or "no" M-M
CONTROL issue or shut up, Eric! -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Why should I show respect for someone who hides behind a pseudonym and
doesn't understand even the most basic physics?
You still have no idea what an interferometer is or why it doesn't
need a "control".
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: Till recently, your arguments related to your implied
"understanding" of science vs. mine. Now you are blatantly stating
falsehoods in your "shoot the messenger" attacks. For your
edification: An interferometer COMPARES two light beams for
differences. Such differences would--in a properly designed experiment--
show up as an advance or a retard of the interference fringe bulls eye
(or the light and dark bands, if 'a slit' is used at the light
source). To compare, say, the change in length of an arm of 'an'
interferometer, the light source used as the CONTROL (50% of the
total) must NOT travel on that portion of the interferometer where the
length change is to be measured. The other 50% of the light that does
travel on the arm whereon a length change is to be measured becomes
the TEST light source.
The length change, as in the above example, is measured by micro-
adjusting the length of TEST arm to fit the object being tested.
While that happens one observes the number of shifts (advance or
retard) of the interference fringe pattern. Depending upon the
wavelength of the light source, each shift (light to dark) of the
fringe pattern corresponds to a 1/2 lambda change in the length of the
TEST arm.
Michelson used his 1887 M-M experiment to precisely measure
LENGTHS. His instrument could do that because one arm of one light
course was used SOLELY by the light on that course; i.e, it was not a
leg COMMON to both light courses. Therefore, for LENGTH measurements
M-M was properly designed--with both a TEST course, and a CONTROL
course.
But when Michelson attempted to measure VELOCITY, as might have
been manifested by the 'slowing' of light by that supposed 'ether
drag', he didn't realize: Velocity changes are measured based on the
WHOLE CIRCUIT TIMES from source to target. Since neither light course
was unaffected by the horizontal rotation of his instrument, then, in
such application, M-M had two TEST courses that always take the
identical TIME to circuit the apparatus. And equal TIMES to circuit
means: there were, or will be, ZERO fringe shifts observed.
Eric, if you would take the time to do the simple algebra... as I
keep suggesting, you too can verify the equal times at all azimuths of
the apparatus's rotation. But you are spread so thin (on the groups)
that it is easier just to take pot shots at me and hope I'll get
wounded. Well kid, I'm not only well defended, I'm well armed! So,
why don't you do the math, and do you poo pooing elsewhere. --
NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
No control is needed, stupid. That is the whole point of an
interferometer. Any path length difference will scream as fringe
shifts.
Michelson was a gifted experimentalist. Nothing you know about
interferometer design would be unknown to him.
> The length change, as in the above example, is measured by micro-
> adjusting the length of TEST arm to fit the object being tested.
> While that happens one observes the number of shifts (advance or
> retard) of the interference fringe pattern. Depending upon the
> wavelength of the light source, each shift (light to dark) of the
> fringe pattern corresponds to a 1/2 lambda change in the length of the
> TEST arm.
This may be news to you but not me.
> Michelson used his 1887 M-M experiment to precisely measure
> LENGTHS. His instrument could do that because one arm of one light
> course was used SOLELY by the light on that course; i.e, it was not a
> leg COMMON to both light courses. Therefore, for LENGTH measurements
> M-M was properly designed--with both a TEST course, and a CONTROL
> course.
Yes your INFORMATION is being DISRUPTED by your unending use of
RANDOMLY CAPITALIZING WORDS.
Both paths were test paths, dummy. Remember what they were trying to
do - they were trying to observe the effects of the then-supposed
ether. If the ether they had in mind existed, then the path lengths
would be slightly different as the light slows down and speeds up
along the different paths. There would be an effect even if one arm
were perfectly aligned with the Earth's velocity vector.
> But when Michelson attempted to measure VELOCITY, as might have
> been manifested by the 'slowing' of light by that supposed 'ether
> drag', he didn't realize: Velocity changes are measured based on the
> WHOLE CIRCUIT TIMES from source to target. Since neither light course
> was unaffected by the horizontal rotation of his instrument, then, in
> such application, M-M had two TEST courses that always take the
> identical TIME to circuit the apparatus. And equal TIMES to circuit
> means: there were, or will be, ZERO fringe shifts observed.
Velocity is not being measured - the path length is.
This is rather elementary, why do you write a long post on the subject
while getting a large part of it wrong? You have no experience in
physics, or experimental design. Why don't you find a new hobby?
> Eric, if you would take the time to do the simple algebra... as I
> keep suggesting, you too can verify the equal times at all azimuths of
> the apparatus's rotation. But you are spread so thin (on the groups)
> that it is easier just to take pot shots at me and hope I'll get
> wounded. Well kid, I'm not only well defended, I'm well armed! So,
> why don't you do the math, and do you poo pooing elsewhere. --
> NoEinstein --
If the algebra is so simple, and it proves your point so swiftly, why
do you have to keep asking others to do it for you?
NoEinstein
Eric, you are clearly loosing it. If you can't read, why should
anyone write to you? Get some rest. Maybe you will wake up a better
person. -- NoEinstein --
> do you have to keep asking others to do it for you?- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: Measurements of physical change in the length of one of
the two arms of M-M was something M-M was well suited to measure. And
the rotation of the instrument wasn't part of the test. Nor did it
matter that all of the optics were on a single X-Y plane surface.
However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL LENGTH
CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?
Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
course that doesn't change length act as the control.
If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --
> do you have to keep asking others to do it for you?- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
True but irrelevant since there have been plenty of iterations of the
Michelson-Morley experiment that *have* included rotation of the
instrument.
>
> However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
> interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
> changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
> suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL LENGTH
> CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?
For the same reason I don't think what you have to say is more
truthful or even important because you put it in capital letters?
If the velocity of light was different along the respective arms, the
path lengths the light took would be different and there would be
phase shifts. It really isn't that complicated.
> Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
> photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
> events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
> all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
> observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
> course that doesn't change length act as the control.
It doesn't matter if the length change is a "gradual adjustment" -
something you have no evidence for - or not. A change in length means
there will be phase shifts.
>
> If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
> circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
> the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
> it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
> has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
> before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
> history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --
Actually I think history will completely ignore you. Your inane
whining on USENET is indistinguishable from the inane whining of every
other crank that has had delusions about relativity. You are not
special in any way.
NoEinstein
Eric: Ah! You are seeing truths! In a moving apparatus, the
distances the light must travel are determined by how far the
apparatus moves WHILE the light is in transit to a mirror or the
target. But since the velocity of the light is: ('c' plus or minus
v), and the velocity of the respective mirror or target is exactly the
same, the light in M-M CAN speed up above 'c' or slow down below 'c',
yet the light will always require the same amount of TIME to circuit
the full courses!
M-M proves the above, IF you will just slow down enough to do some
middle school algebra and verify this for yourself. So far, not a
single reader has been willing to even try... Guy, you at least 'tried'
to find the angle of the side of a pyramid. Why don't you try seeing
if you can replicate my invalidation of M-M (for detecting light
velocity). It would be wonderful to have someone with your energy as
an ally, rather than as an antagonist. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
> > photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
> > events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
> > all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
> > observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
> > course that doesn't change length act as the control.
>
> It doesn't matter if the length change is a "gradual adjustment" -
> something you have no evidence for - or not. A change in length means
> there will be phase shifts.
>
>
>
> > If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
> > circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
> > the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
> > it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
> > has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
> > before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
> > history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --
>
> Actually I think history will completely ignore you. Your inane
> whining on USENET is indistinguishable from the inane whining of every
> other crank that has had delusions about relativity. You are not
> special in any way.- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> > > However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
> > > interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
> > > changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
> > > suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL LENGTH
> > > CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?
>
> > For the same reason I don't think what you have to say is more
> > truthful or even important because you put it in capital letters?
>
> > If the velocity of light was different along the respective arms, the
> > path lengths the light took would be different and there would be
> > phase shifts. It really isn't that complicated.
>
> Eric: Ah! You are seeing truths! In a moving apparatus, the
> distances the light must travel are determined by how far the
> apparatus moves WHILE the light is in transit to a mirror or the
> target. But since the velocity of the light is: ('c' plus or minus
> v), and the velocity of the respective mirror or target is exactly the
> same, the light in M-M CAN speed up above 'c' or slow down below 'c',
> yet the light will always require the same amount of TIME to circuit
> the full courses!
Only if the speed of light is constant, otherwise there would be
interference from different path lengths.
This is well known and very obvious. Why have you spent a week
explaining what is already known?
>
> M-M proves the above, IF you will just slow down enough to do some
> middle school algebra and verify this for yourself. So far, not a
> single reader has been willing to even try... Guy, you at least 'tried'
> to find the angle of the side of a pyramid. Why don't you try seeing
> if you can replicate my invalidation of M-M (for detecting light
> velocity). It would be wonderful to have someone with your energy as
> an ally, rather than as an antagonist. -- NoEinstein --
Since you can't explain how my result regarding the angles in the
inscribed pyramid-in-sphere was wrong in any way, I don't think it
aids your cause to bring it up.
I tire of you continually referencing middle school algebra like it
matters one goddamn bit. The analysis for a Michelson interferometer
is quite simple and I have done it, as have countless others over the
past century or so.
But because you believe the analysis proves you right, why don't you
provide the analysis yourself instead of trying to goad me or others
into doing it for you?
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: [by the numbers] (1.) Google doesn't allow using
italics. Since I wished to emphasize that one sentence, my only
option was to capitalize it. (2.) Congratulations; you are trying!
However, you have missed "catching" the most important distinction
between a path length variation in ONE arm caused by the PHYSICAL
micro-adjustment of the location of a mirror, or the target; and: A
light path length change that KEEPS all of the 'designed' apparatus
dimensions.
How could the latter case vary the path length, and still have ZERO
physical change in the designed layout of the optics? VERY SIMPLE!
Because M-M was an Earth-mounted experiment, the changing velocity
component of the Earth [depending on the hour of the day; season of
the year; movement of the Sun about the galactic center; movement of
the Sun in our neighboring star grouping; movement of the Milky Way in
our galaxy's cluster; and... the supposed movement of 'everything' away
from... the Big Bang event point (sic)] ALSO affects the velocity of the
M-M apparatus, itself.
When light is in transit from the source to a mirror, the location of
that mirror, as a 'destination', CHANGES depending on the Earth's
velocity component at that particular instant. Suppose that light
does have only velocity 'c'. If it takes x amount of time to cover
the 'designed' apparatus length (in a single axis), then it will take
x + delta if the apparatus is moving away from the light source; and x
- delta if the apparatus is moving toward the light source. The value
of delta can be calculated using simple algebra. Measure (via
interference) or assume an Earth velocity and use such value to
compute how far the mirror will move while the supposed 'c'-velocity-
light is in transit to it. Once you know how far the mirror or target
has moved, then you can calculate how much additional time is required
to get there--which is your delta.
A unique aspect of the two tee-shaped light courses in M-M is that
they are asymmetrical. And the two axes have portions that are common
for each. For example: the last leg heading toward the target. I
have calculated the total time for each course to circuit the
apparatus from source to target and find that the 'assumption' that
'c' is constant doesn't yield equal times of arrival. Those were the
same 'logic' calculations performed by Michelson and others--that
didn't work for them, either! Because those calculations didn't
explain the failed results of M-M, Lorentz and FitzGerald concocted
their 'contraction' factor Beta: (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2.
Amazingly, not a single person before yours truly, NoEinstein,
actually 'did the math' and plotted the arrival times USING the
Lorentz transformation! When I did, the arrival times are no were
close to being the same! The simple reason: The supposed contraction
factor beta must have a DIFFERENT value for each light course while
traveling over the SAME portion of stone! That's because one light
course can have 'two legs' on a single axis, while the other light
course, simultaneously, has only 'one leg' on that same axis.
Obviously, the velocity component isn't going to affect both light
courses in the same way, so the arrival times vary widely. And if
they HAD varied widely, hundreds of interference changes would have
been observed! But since none were observed, then, light velocity
cannot be "only" 'c', and L-F can't explain the nil results!
The most easy to visualize, and devastating invalidation of Lorentz-
FitzGerald is that it is a 'contraction factor' only. In order for
any physical change in the apparatus--due to velocity alone--to have
'explained' the nil results of M-M, that factor would have to become
am "expansion" factor for the 180 degrees of apparatus rotation in
which the Earth's velocity component is ADDITIVE. And such would
require that all objects experiencing an additive velocity STRETCH in
length to infinity at velocity 'c'! Haahahaha! Quote me on this: "L-
F was just a supposed 'law of nature' batted about over BEERS, and
everyone just said: Yeah, that could explain it." In the last
century, no one before NoEinstein has done the math! If and when
physicists get off of their pompous asses and do-the-math, then their
past idiocy will become the stuff for the history books!
(3.) Yes, I do! The M-M apparatus includes a micro adjustment
screw. When Michelson measured the length of the 'official' meter
stick, he incrementally moved such using a spacer block which he had
previously calculated the length of via interference. By adjusting
his micro screw to move the meter stick an amount equal to the
precision spacer, he could count how many increments of the spacer he
needed. Then, he could use his micro adjustment screw to measure the
amount above the combined multiples of his spacer.
(4.) Absolutely! That is... unless the velocity of the light 'c'
always gets increased or decreased to match the additive or
subtractive Earth velocity component. I tested that most intuitive
assumption [intuitive, because that's what 'sound' does],
mathematically, and found it to be TRUE! When both the light source--
which can be either the light itself, or the re emission or
'reflection'--and the perpendicular mirror or target toward which it is
aimed are moving with identical velocity components, the time for the
light to travel such distance is exactly the same as if the apparatus
isn't moving at all!
The last sentence is my 4th Law of Light. The light speeds up and
slows down, but because the distances the light must travel increase
or decrease EXACTLY proportionately, there will always be zero fringe
changes evident in M-M! So, no L-F factors were or are needed--because
the intuitive hypothesis explains everything! Things would be so
different in science IF there had been a physicist in the last 100
years who knew his ass from a hole in the ground.
(5.) Eric, when you try to reach conclusions based on your own
misunderstanding of spatial, and other issues, it is you who err, not
me. -- NoEinstein --
> > However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
> > interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
> > changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
> > suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL
> > LENGTH CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT
> > VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?
> For the same reason I don't think what you have to say is more
> truthful or even important because you put it in capital letters? (1.)
> If the velocity of light was different along the respective arms, the
> path lengths the light took would be different and there would be
> phase shifts. (2.) It really isn't that complicated.
> > Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
> > photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
> > events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
> > all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
> > observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
> > course that doesn't change length act as the control.
> It doesn't matter if the length change is a "gradual adjustment" -
> something you have no evidence for - or not. (3.) A change in length means
> there will be phase shifts. (4.)
> > If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
> > circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
> > the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
> > it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
> > has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
> > before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
> > history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --
> Actually I think history will completely ignore you. Your inane
> whining on USENET is indistinguishable from the inane whining of every
> other crank that has had delusions about relativity. You are not
> special in any way. (5.)
__________
NoEinstein
> > Eric: Ah! You are seeing truths! In a moving apparatus, the
> > distances the light must travel are determined by how far the
> > apparatus moves WHILE the light is in transit to a mirror or the
> > target. But since the velocity of the light is: ('c' plus or minus
> > v), and the velocity of the respective mirror or target is exactly the
> > same, the light in M-M CAN speed up above 'c' or slow down below 'c',
> > yet the light will always require the same amount of TIME to circuit
> > the full courses!
> Only if the speed of light is constant, otherwise there would be
> interference from different path lengths.
> This is well known and very obvious. Why have you spent a week
> explaining what is already known?
Eric, I've already answered that, and at length in my previous reply
to you.
> > M-M proves the above, IF you will just slow down enough to do some
> > middle school algebra and verify this for yourself. So far, not a
> > single reader has been willing to even try... Guy, you at least 'tried'
> > to find the angle of the side of a pyramid. Why don't you try seeing
> > if you can replicate my invalidation of M-M (for detecting light
> > velocity). It would be wonderful to have someone with your energy as
> > an ally, rather than as an antagonist. -- NoEinstein --
> Since you can't explain how my result regarding the angles in the
> inscribed pyramid-in-sphere was wrong in any way, I don't think it
> aids your cause to bring it up.
To solve spatial problems, one needs to have space visualization
skills! The angle of the side of a pyramid problem which I caught
you on stated: "The four corners touch the equator of a hemisphere;
and the tip of pyramid touches the north pole of the same
hemisphere." That was where you didn't read. The angle of the side
must be such that those five points TOUCH on a hemisphere.
Your most erroneous assumption was: "The angles of the three edges of
a side are 60 degrees." Apparently, you think that a pyramid can't
have but one angle of side slope! Well, if the problem had been
stated that the four sides are each equilateral triangles, then your
side angle "guesstimate" of 45 degrees would have been correct.
However! Though the four corners of your pyramid could hit the
equator of a hemisphere, the tip of such a pyramid would NOT touch the
north pole of the hemisphere.
The only side angle of a pyramid that will touch both the equator AND
the north pole is 54.7 degrees. Therefore, since you missed the
correct answer, you fail to show that you have spatial visualization
ability so necessary if you are become a physicist who can contribute
anything. Learn from your mistakes, or give it up, Eric.
> I tire of you continually referencing middle school algebra like it
> matters one goddamn bit.
It 'matters' only if you can, and will do it. If basic math is... below
your dignity, you are in the ranks of Lorentz and Einstein. Doing
basic math was below their dignity, too.
> The analysis for a Michelson interferometer
> is quite simple and I have done it, as have countless others over the
> past century or so.
As with that pyramid problem, you "doing" a mathematical analysis of
anything is suspect. Your psychological problem: You are a hot-shot,
who shoots from the hip without really thinking anything through. In
some ways you are 'smart', Eric, but you have let that go to your
head. Unless and until you can realize and correct your own
fallibility, you will never be more than a flash-in-the-pan.
> But because you believe the analysis proves you right, why don't you
> provide the analysis yourself instead of trying to goad me or others
> into doing it for you?
If I present my various mathematical disproofs, you, or the other
readers, must either check my math step by step, or do the math for
yourselves and compare your results to mine. I prefer to invite you
and others to do the latter. That is the subject of this very post.
Your claiming to have done so is a lie, because, as with the pyramid
problem you delude yourself concerning your ability to analyze
anything spatial. Loose your hot-shot attitude, Eric, or continue to
be the laughing-stock that you are. -- NoEinstein --