GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Tom Roberts on 18 Jun 2007 11:01 sean wrote: > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > assuming > that the experiment does not rotate during observation That's only an elementary application of SR to the experiment. An accurate application of SR can account for the various rotations, and show that they ALL affect the fringe shift my much less than the resolution of the instrument. It's just that elementary textbooks do not clutter up the analysis with unnecessary details. > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > observation`. > But this is a false assumption . Because scientific instruments that > you > cannot deny as being accurate( ring gyros) DO INDEED measure a > rotation during the course of the MM experiment. Except the MMX interferometer is NOT a ring gyro. Indeed, it can be considered to be one, with a zero enclosed area, and so one predicts the MMX interferometer is insensitive to rotation. See above. > And scientifically > this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of > light during any known observation like MMx. You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and the MMX is in this latter set. > Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation > of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment. No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application of SR to the MMX experiment shows that the rotation is not observable BY THAT APPARATUS, and thus the rotation can indeed be neglected without significantly affecting the results. > Seeing as ring gyros contradict this asssumption, I repeat: THAT'S IRRELEVANT, as the MMX considered as a ring gyro has zero enclosed area, and is thus insensitive to rotation. > Ring gyros can measure this rotation. > You only pretend its neglible to back up a theory (SR) that cant > explain both sagnac and MMx No. One applies SR to the MMX measurement and COMPUTES that the rotation is negligible (i.e. its effect is much smaller than the resolution of the instrument). Much of modern experimental physics is involved with the error and resolution analysis of the instruments. Until your learn and understand this, you will remain confused. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 Jun 2007 11:25 Tom Roberts wrote: > sean wrote: > > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > > assuming > > that the experiment does not rotate during observation > > That's only an elementary application of SR to the experiment. An > accurate application of SR can account for the various rotations, and > show that they ALL affect the fringe shift my much less than the > resolution of the instrument. It's just that elementary textbooks do not > clutter up the analysis with unnecessary details. > > > > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > > observation`. > > But this is a false assumption . Because scientific instruments that > > you > > cannot deny as being accurate( ring gyros) DO INDEED measure a > > rotation during the course of the MM experiment. > > Except the MMX interferometer is NOT a ring gyro. Indeed, it can be > considered to be one, with a zero enclosed area, and so one predicts the > MMX interferometer is insensitive to rotation. See above. > > > > > And scientifically > > this has to mean that the rotation of earth does effect the speed of > > light during any known observation like MMx. > > You are excessively naive. Yes the lab is rotating, yes SOME instruments > can discern that rotation (locally), but MOST experiments cannot, and > the MMX is in this latter set. > > > > Yet SR bases its predictions on the assumption that the rotation > > of the earth is NOT measureable during the course of the experiment. > > No. repeating a mistake does not make it right. A competent application > of SR to the MMX experiment..... Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." So Roberts Roberts does the "competent application of SR to the MMX experiment" involve the introduction of the light postulate and the idiocies (time dilation, length contraction etc.) based on it? But you do not like the light postulate do you Roberts Roberts: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/29c32844f0766cea? Tom Roberts: "While the constancy of the speed of light was important in the historical development of SR, I agree it has no logical place as a postulate of SR. Einstein's second postulate can be replaced by any of a number of suitable postulates, of which I like this one best: There is a finite upper bound on the speed of propagation of information." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c? Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 18 Jun 2007 18:59 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182180331.410215.180920(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE > EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR predicts (and is observed) .. it not a good alternative. [snip Pentcho's weird obsession with Tom, who he thinks is called Robert]
From: Pentcho Valev on 19 Jun 2007 02:54 Jeckyl wrote: > "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1182180331.410215.180920(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE > > EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: > > Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what SR > predicts (and is observed). Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking. For instance, when Master Tom Roberts says: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c? Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." he is certainly joking. Master Tom Roberts is not so silly and could not say such things seriously. Do you agree? Pentcho Valev
From: Jeckyl on 19 Jun 2007 09:14
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182236048.899380.246860(a)n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > Jeckyl wrote: >> "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1182180331.410215.180920(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> > Roberts Roberts see how your brother hypnotist competently applies THE >> > EMISSION THEORY to the Michelson-Morley experiment: >> >> Irrelevant .. emmisions theory only manages to explain a subset of what >> SR >> predicts (and is observed). > > Is that what your masters teach you? They may be joking. [snip completely irrelvant rely] |