| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2005 12:36:02 AM |
| Object: |
How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
experiment null result.
To all supporters of the Aether. How can you still
support an Aether concept when the Michelson-Morely
experiment showed negative result. This is why whenever
Uncle Al sees "Aether". He immediately gives you
site to the MMX experiment.
In the MMX experiment. It basically says that if there
is Aether in the universe. As the sun and earth move
around the milky way. We are moving against the Aether.
So in the MMX setup. They measured the light from two
positions horizontally and expected the light beam to
move faster in the the direction to the movement of the
planet around the sun and the light beam as slower
in the direction opposite it. But the result is null
or the same. This means the Aether doesn't cause the
light to travel.
Ok. What's the counter-arguments against it? How
many are there. Can one enumerate them? Let's see
if Uncle Al can debunk all the counter-arguments. If
he is successful. Let's drop this Aether thing if it
doesn't tally with reality.
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 10:03:49 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106289362.825926.232720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
experiment null result.
To all supporters of the Aether. How can you still
support an Aether concept when the Michelson-Morely
experiment showed negative result. This is why whenever
Uncle Al sees "Aether". He immediately gives you
site to the MMX experiment.
In the MMX experiment. It basically says that if there
is Aether in the universe. As the sun and earth move
around the milky way. We are moving against the Aether.
So in the MMX setup. They measured the light from two
positions horizontally and expected the light beam to
move faster in the the direction to the movement of the
planet around the sun and the light beam as slower
in the direction opposite it. But the result is null
or the same. This means the Aether doesn't cause the
light to travel.
The design of the MMX is not capable of detecting the absolute motion of the
apparatus in the ether. Why? Because M&M failed to ask the following
relevant question when interpreting the null result of the MMX. The
question: What is the direction of motion of the apparatus wrt the defined
horizontal light rays that will give the null result for all the
orientations of the horizontal arms? The answer to this question: The
vertical direction wrt the defined horizontal light rays.
The only way the MMX can detect the absolute motion is that the apparatus
must be aligned with the plane of the light rays in the same vertical
direction of absolute motion. With such an alignment of the apparatus
different orientations of the arms will produce different light path lengths
for each arm and thus a non-null result (fringe shift).
The proposed experiment in the following link (page 3) will confirm that on
earth the direction of absolute motion is vertical wrt the defined
horizontal light rays.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Ken Seto
Ok. What's the counter-arguments against it? How
many are there. Can one enumerate them? Let's see
if Uncle Al can debunk all the counter-arguments. If
he is successful. Let's drop this Aether thing if it
doesn't tally with reality.
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 01:58:53 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106289362.825926.232720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
|
| There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
| different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
| experiment null result.
|
| To all supporters of the Aether. How can you still
| support an Aether concept when the Michelson-Morely
| experiment showed negative result. This is why whenever
| Uncle Al sees "Aether". He immediately gives you
| site to the MMX experiment.
Because Unka Al, like you, want to stick to an old archaic definition of
ether. Both of you need to read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet". Cure your ignorance.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 07:41:09 AM |
|
|
FrediFizzx wrote:
Because Unka Al, like you, want to stick to an old archaic definition of
ether. Both of you need to read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet". Cure your ignorance.
From the time before Aristotle through Descartes, Maxwell and
Michelson, aether was conceived of as a -subtance- that fills all of
space. Aether is -stuff-, not a mathematical abstraction. There is only
one problem. This -substance- has never been observed. It has only been
postulated. Further more if aether is a substance than it is exempt from
Newton's third law, else it would slow the planets down in their motion
through space. Aether creates more problems than it solves whichis why
physics has dispensed with aether. It is a looser concept, as a -subtance-.
If you want to postulate aether as a mathematical construct, then by all
means do so. We already do this with fields so there is no harm in
poposing a hypothetical entity as part of a prediction scheme. Most of
physics is based on hypothetical entities (atoms, sub atomic particles
etc.) and hypothetical causes. No harm ensues, in the consequences of
these hypotheticals is constantly tested by experiment.
Keep in mind that physical theories are artifacts for cranking out
testable quantitative predictions. These theories are based on and made
of abstractions and idealizations. It does no harm to believe that sub
atomic particles exist as long as the consequences of this belief are
tested empirically.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 11:44:20 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:35cf3oF4k2ueoU1@individual.net...
FrediFizzx wrote:
Because Unka Al, like you, want to stick to an old archaic definition of
ether. Both of you need to read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium
Droplet". Cure your ignorance.
From the time before Aristotle through Descartes, Maxwell and
Michelson, aether was conceived of as a -subtance- that fills all of
space. Aether is -stuff-, not a mathematical abstraction. There is only
one problem. This -substance- has never been observed.
But there is bigger problem! As Newton stressed, a Descartes aether is in
contradiction with his theory as it fills the space *between* bodies and
thus hinders them. To avoid confusion with that, he attributed to what he
called "absolute space" an inferred non-material substance of his own -
leading to confusion between his physical "space" and (mathematical) space.
It has only been
postulated. Further more if aether is a substance than it is exempt from
Newton's third law, else it would slow the planets down in their motion
through space. Aether creates more problems than it solves which is why
physics has dispensed with aether. It is a looser concept, as
a -subtance-.
If you want to postulate aether as a mathematical construct, then by all
means do so. We already do this with fields so there is no harm in
poposing a hypothetical entity as part of a prediction scheme. Most of
physics is based on hypothetical entities (atoms, sub atomic particles
etc.) and hypothetical causes. No harm ensues, in the consequences of
these hypotheticals is constantly tested by experiment.
Well said - although I know of some experts in the relativity group whose
neck hairs may rise if they read that because of their belief in space-time
as something "real".
Keep in mind that physical theories are artifacts for cranking out
testable quantitative predictions. These theories are based on and made
of abstractions and idealizations. It does no harm to believe that sub
atomic particles exist as long as the consequences of this belief are
tested empirically.
If a wrong theory can do harm or not is open for discussion. In any case, as
long as a theory makes correct predictions and is reasonably handy to use,
it can be useful for physics. Even space-time. ;-)
Thanks,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
22 Jan 2005 09:05:07 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:41f13e56$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[snip]
But there is bigger problem! As Newton stressed, a Descartes aether
is in
contradiction with his theory as it fills the space *between* bodies
and
thus hinders them.
Physics does not admit to the existence of a priori knowledge, and in
Descartes' andNewton's time there was no experimental knowledge
available to empower either of them to speculate meaningfully on such
matters.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
23 Jan 2005 06:21:57 AM |
|
|
[Harry:]
But there is bigger problem! As Newton stressed, a Descartes aether
is in
contradiction with his theory as it fills the space *between* bodies
and thus hinders them.
[Franz:]
Physics does not admit to the existence of a priori knowledge, and in
Descartes' and Newton's time there was no experimental knowledge
available to empower either of them to speculate meaningfully on such
matters.
What you call "a priori knowledge" happens to be what Newton wrote
himself. Just read the Principia.
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
23 Jan 2005 07:19:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
[Franz:]
Physics does not admit to the existence of a priori knowledge, and in
Descartes' and Newton's time there was no experimental knowledge
available to empower either of them to speculate meaningfully on such
matters.
There is an a priori requirement that any physics theory be internally
consistent. The metaphysical assumption behind this is that
contradictions cannot exist in fact.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
23 Jan 2005 12:41:54 PM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:35hmjpF4no03eU3@individual.net...
harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch wrote:
[Franz:]
Physics does not admit to the existence of a priori knowledge, and
in
Descartes' and Newton's time there was no experimental knowledge
available to empower either of them to speculate meaningfully on
such
matters.
There is an a priori requirement that any physics theory be
internally
consistent. The metaphysical assumption behind this is that
contradictions cannot exist in fact.
Of course.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
22 Jan 2005 01:55:24 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:35cf3oF4k2ueoU1@individual.net...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| >
| > Because Unka Al, like you, want to stick to an old archaic definition of
| > ether. Both of you need to read Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium
| > Droplet". Cure your ignorance.
|
| From the time before Aristotle through Descartes, Maxwell and
| Michelson, aether was conceived of as a -subtance- that fills all of
| space. Aether is -stuff-, not a mathematical abstraction. There is only
| one problem. This -substance- has never been observed. It has only been
| postulated. Further more if aether is a substance than it is exempt from
| Newton's third law, else it would slow the planets down in their motion
| through space. Aether creates more problems than it solves whichis why
| physics has dispensed with aether. It is a looser concept, as
a -subtance-.
[snip]
Did you read Volovik's book yet? Seems not; cure your ignorance.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "greywolf42" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 01:44:19 PM |
|
|
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106289362.825926.232720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
experiment null result.
To all supporters of the Aether. How can you still
support an Aether concept when the Michelson-Morely
experiment showed negative result.
1) It wasn't a "negative" or "null" result. No matter how often this is
repeated. (IIRC, the claim was first made by Max Born, in 1920. It has
simply been parroted, since then.)
2) Michelson did not use an aether theory for identifying his "expected"
results. He uses an absolute space.
3) Lorentz derived the explanation in 1904. All you need is matter made up
of EM fields. (Which is what we believe today.)
This is why whenever
Uncle Al sees "Aether". He immediately gives you
site to the MMX experiment.
That's because Uncle Al simply vomits back what he was told in school.
In the MMX experiment. It basically says that if there
is Aether in the universe. As the sun and earth move
around the milky way. We are moving against the Aether.
So in the MMX setup. They measured the light from two
positions horizontally and expected the light beam to
move faster in the the direction to the movement of the
planet around the sun and the light beam as slower
in the direction opposite it. But the result is null
or the same. This means the Aether doesn't cause the
light to travel.
A false conclusion, because you missed the (hidden) assumptions:
1) Wave intereference is always a good substitute for measuring the speed of
a wave.
2) Matter is not affected at all, by it's motion through the aether.
Ok. What's the counter-arguments against it?
Some are given above.
How many are there.
Try thinking of a few.
Can one enumerate them? Let's see
if Uncle Al can debunk all the counter-arguments. If
he is successful. Let's drop this Aether thing if it
doesn't tally with reality.
Uncle Al has seen them before. He simply ignores them.
Try google.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
26 Jan 2005 08:38:18 AM |
|
|
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:nYcId.1309$rc4.685@fe07.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
3) Lorentz derived the explanation in 1904. All you need is matter
made up
of EM fields. (Which is what we believe today.)
Speak for yourself.
[snip the crap]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Creighton Hogg" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
26 Jan 2005 08:56:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:nYcId.1309$rc4.685@fe07.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
3) Lorentz derived the explanation in 1904. All you need is matter
made up
of EM fields. (Which is what we believe today.)
Speak for yourself.
I would pipe in with a few remarks about particle physics, but Mingst has
in the past swept away most of the results leading to QCD as experimental
error.
I love the post in which he attacks the original experiments leading to
the discovery of the quarks, while ignoring the rather large body of data
coming out of the much more recent HERA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "greywolf42" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
28 Jan 2005 04:21:02 PM |
|
|
Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0501260845210.25491-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:nYcId.1309$rc4.685@fe07.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
3) Lorentz derived the explanation in 1904. All you need is matter
made up of EM fields. (Which is what we believe today.)
Speak for yourself.
I would pipe in with a few remarks about particle physics, but Mingst has
in the past swept away most of the results leading to QCD as experimental
error.
LOL! Not in the least. I've not addressed the support for QCD at all.
I love the post in which he attacks the original experiments leading to
the discovery of the quarks,
LOL! What a pathetic lie. The experiment was fine. I only complained that
the theoretical incorporation of those experimental results came after the
experiment. The experimental results simply weren't "predicted" by the
theory, as claimed by modern myth.
while ignoring the rather large body of data
coming out of the much more recent HERA.
The results of later experiments were irrelevant to the issue of whether
Bjorken "predicted" the results.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
26 Jan 2005 10:46:38 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0501260845210.25491-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu>,
Creighton Hogg <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Franz Heymann wrote:
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:nYcId.1309$rc4.685@fe07.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
3) Lorentz derived the explanation in 1904. All you need is matter
made up
of EM fields. (Which is what we believe today.)
Speak for yourself.
I would pipe in with a few remarks about particle physics, but Mingst has
in the past swept away most of the results leading to QCD as experimental
error.
I love the post in which he attacks the original experiments leading to
the discovery of the quarks, while ignoring the rather large body of data
coming out of the much more recent HERA.
Cherry picking.
--
"Coincidences, in general, are great stumbling blocks in the way of that
class of thinkers who have been educated to know nothing of the theory of
probabilities." -- Edgar Allen Poe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SRdude" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 10:03:11 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote (in part):
Let's drop this Aether thing if it doesn't tally
with reality.
[Cadwgan replies]
Although there is no aether (because light needs no
medium), the MMx was not really about the aether, but
was about how light moves through space, and the MMx
null result did nothing to change this.
That is, light moved the same way before the MMx as
it does afterward, i.e., light moves at a steady and
known speed c in 'empty' space.
Although Einstein had no physical cause for the MMx
null result, Lorentz did, and it was the physical
contraction of the hor. rod as it moved through space.
And the physical explanation of the null result of
the timed version of the MMx (the KTx) is physical
(or intrinsic or actual or real) clock slowing.
However, neither of these physical roadblocks can
prevent us from using absolutely synchronous clocks
to detect our motion through space since such clocks
would be able to correctly measure the relative speed
of a passing light ray, which of course must vary with
frame velocity.
I am speaking here of three different and independent
light speed experiments, either of which could have
had a positive result regardless of null resuts for
the other two. (This is why the KTx had to be performed
even though the MMx had had a null result.)
Of course, as I said above, the one-way case must have
a postive result because each frame does in fact move
differently from all others.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 03:58:09 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
experiment null result.
To all supporters of the Aether. How can you still
support an Aether concept when the Michelson-Morely
experiment showed negative result. This is why whenever
Uncle Al sees "Aether". He immediately gives you
site to the MMX experiment.
In the MMX experiment. It basically says that if there
is Aether in the universe. As the sun and earth move
around the milky way. We are moving against the Aether.
So in the MMX setup. They measured the light from two
positions horizontally and expected the light beam to
move faster in the the direction to the movement of the
planet around the sun and the light beam as slower
in the direction opposite it. But the result is null
or the same. This means the Aether doesn't cause the
light to travel.
Ok. What's the counter-arguments against it? How
many are there. Can one enumerate them? Let's see
if Uncle Al can debunk all the counter-arguments. If
he is successful. Let's drop this Aether thing if it
doesn't tally with reality.
You might read up on "Lorentzian Ether Theory" (LET),
which is mathematically equivalent to SR. You might also
try reading up on the reasons why people nevertheless
prefer SR.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 07:58:35 AM |
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509863/qid=1106315403/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-1746771-9447312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I borrowed this book from a friend called "Parallel Worlds" by Michio
Kaku
published just last Dec 28,2004. He talked about Branes, Strings, etc.
It looks cool. Inside there seems to be a mechanism to produce the
stuff I'm looking for. He doesn't talk about the Aether though. Can't
someone debunk the Aether concept convincingly and once and for
all so it won't disturb us again.
Light beam may know how to travel because it is in their intrinsic
nature. Our present reality may be within the light cone. But what
if we can manipulate outside the light cone and reverse bottom of it.
Then we can manipulate reality. This means the Aether can be
discarded and something more elegant can be used to describe
reality.
In fact, I think this light cone makes more sense than Aether
concept. What do you think
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 03:57:36 PM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106315915.460652.169200@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509863/qid=1106315403/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-1746771-9447312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I borrowed this book from a friend called "Parallel Worlds" by
Michio
Kaku
Never mind what Michio Kaku called your friend. What do *you* call
him?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 10:04:44 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Can't someone debunk the Aether concept convincingly and once and for
all so it won't disturb us again.
Here you go--This is an excellent article
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 01:11:30 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Landle wrote:
Can't someone debunk the Aether concept convincingly and once and for
all so it won't disturb us again.
Here you go--This is an excellent article
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Why don't you just copy relevant parts
of that so we don't have to become
a member and pay money?
Or explain it in so many words?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
22 Jan 2005 09:05:08 AM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:41f1529d$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Landle wrote:
Can't someone debunk the Aether concept convincingly and once and
for
all so it won't disturb us again.
Here you go--This is an excellent article
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Why don't you just copy relevant parts
of that so we don't have to become
a member and pay money?
Or explain it in so many words?
Do you want to learn physics or do you want to continue wallowing in
your own ignorance?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 10:20:13 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509863/qid=1106315403/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-1746771-9447312?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Yet another pop science book. Your point?
As I already pointed out elsewhere, if you know physical
theories only from pop science descriptions, you have no
basis for attacking them and claiming flaws in them.
I borrowed this book from a friend called "Parallel Worlds" by Michio
Kaku
published just last Dec 28,2004. He talked about Branes, Strings, etc.
It looks cool. Inside there seems to be a mechanism to produce the
stuff I'm looking for.
And that is?
He doesn't talk about the Aether though. Can't
someone debunk the Aether concept convincingly and once and for
all so it won't disturb us again.
As I said (you know, in the paragraph you snipped):
try reading up on LET, and why SR is preferred.
Light beam may know how to travel because it is in their intrinsic
nature.
Or because of the geometry of spacetime.
Our present reality may be within the light cone.
This sentence does not make much sense.
But what if we can manipulate outside the light cone
I.e. what if superluminal effects are possible?
Well, then you will have some huge troubles with cause
and effect, for starters.
and reverse bottom of it.
And what is this supposed to mean?
Then we can manipulate reality.
Err, we can already due that with sub-luminal and luminal
mechanisms. Super-luminal stuff is not needed for "manipulating
reality".
This means the Aether can be
discarded and something more elegant can be used to describe
reality.
And how on earth does this follow?
In fact, I think this light cone makes more sense than Aether
concept. What do you think
I think that you don't understand what "light cone" actually
means.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 11:19:51 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
There seems to be many definitions of Aether as well as
different interpretations for the Michelson-Morely
experiment null result.
[snip crap]
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
Ineducable idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "SRdude" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
21 Jan 2005 02:51:24 PM |
|
|
----------->"no aether" = "silly red herring"<-----------
Light has always traveled at a steady speed through space,
and ever since Maxwell, this speed has been known to be c.
What more do we need to detect our motion through space?
Answer: Correctly related tick-tocks aka absolute synch.
Wonder who's going to be ineducable now?
What Einstein needs is simple proof (if only on paper) that
light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks can
be experimentally measured. His silly "second postulate"
claims that it can, and that the result is invariance, but if
there is no experiment, then there can be no postulate or any
scientific theory based it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
22 Jan 2005 09:05:10 AM |
|
|
"SRdude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106340684.142454.23850@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
----------->"no aether" = "silly red herring"<-----------
Light has always traveled at a steady speed through space,
and ever since Maxwell, this speed has been known to be c.
What more do we need to detect our motion through space?
Answer: Correctly related tick-tocks aka absolute synch.
Wonder who's going to be ineducable now?
What Einstein needs is simple proof (if only on paper) that
light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks can
be experimentally measured.
Alvager et al. I have given the reference plenty of times. You can
do your own legwork
His silly "second postulate"
claims that it can,
It has been
It is frequently done in any of the high energy labs where photon
flight times are measured routinely.
and that the result is invariance, but if
there is no experiment, then there can be no postulate or any
scientific theory based it.
Familiarise yourself with the physics of the past two generatikons
before uttering such crap in future.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "SRdude" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
23 Jan 2005 03:18:19 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
Alvager et al. I have given the reference
plenty of times. You can do your own legwork
The fact that you tried to ref this away is proof
enough that you have no answer because it would
take no refs - but merely a couple of sentences -
for you to show the simple experiment on paper, if
there is such an experiment - but there isn't.
I was talking about using two clocks in the same
room to time a one-way light ray. Either show how
this can be done experimentally (if only on paper),
or admit that no one-way, two-same-frame-clock
one-way light speed experiment exists.
Here, I will even help you:
origin clock distant clock
[0]------------------------------[?]
~~~~> light ray starts
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
24 Jan 2005 03:36:06 AM |
|
|
"SRdude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106515099.167733.65890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
Alvager et al. I have given the reference
plenty of times. You can do your own legwork
The fact that you tried to ref this away is proof
enough that you have no answer because it would
take no refs - but merely a couple of sentences -
for you to show the simple experiment on paper, if
there is such an experiment - but there isn't.
I was talking about using two clocks in the same
room to time a one-way light ray. Either show how
this can be done experimentally (if only on paper),
or admit that no one-way, two-same-frame-clock
one-way light speed experiment exists.
Brian, they won't do this experiment because the value is not
299,792,458m/second.
The experiment can be performed by slow clock transport of two touching and
synchronized clocks in the opposite directions. SR says such a pair of
clocks will remain synchronized
Ken Seto
Here, I will even help you:
origin clock distant clock
[0]------------------------------[?]
~~~~> light ray starts
.
|
|
|
| User: "SRdude" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
24 Jan 2005 08:29:45 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
The experiment can be performed by slow clock transport ...
SR says such a pair of clocks will remain synchronized.
But SR uses "synchronized" (in quotes), which really
means asynchronous, as we all know by the simple fact
that SR admits to lacking absolute or true synch.
--
Besides, the key case for SR is the use of two clocks
in the ********same******** frame, and this is *not* the
case for clock transport.
--
In other words, SR was based on the second "postulate,"
which claims that [1] there is such an "experiment," and
[2] its result must be or will be or should be invariance.
--
Why must everyone insist on changing the subject?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
24 Jan 2005 09:31:21 AM |
|
|
"SRdude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106576985.139846.297460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
The experiment can be performed by slow clock transport ...
SR says such a pair of clocks will remain synchronized.
But SR uses "synchronized" (in quotes), which really
means asynchronous, as we all know by the simple fact
that SR admits to lacking absolute or true synch.
Yes the E-synch clocks are asychronous. So what is your point?
--
Besides, the key case for SR is the use of two clocks
in the ********same******** frame, and this is *not* the
case for clock transport.
Yes it is. SR admits that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions with the same velocity will remain synchronized and
remain in the same frame. Why do you think that the SRians refused to use
such two clocks to measure light speed?
--
In other words, SR was based on the second "postulate,"
which claims that [1] there is such an "experiment," and
[2] its result must be or will be or should be invariance.
SR only claims that the TWLS and the OWLS are isotropic. With that
assumption it follows that TWLS=OWLS=c because TWLS is measured to be c..
However OWLS measured with two same frame and synchronized clocks does not
have the value c. So the SRians refuse to do such an experiment and the
bogus reason given for the refusal is that there is no way to absolutely
synchronize two spatially separated clocks. That's why Einstein invented the
e-synch clocks (clocks with off set time wrt to each other) to force OWLS
equal to c.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "SRdude" |
|
| Title: Re: How can MMX null result support Aether?? |
24 Jan 2005 10:17:06 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"SRdude" <cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106576985.139846.297460@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Besides, the key case for SR is the use of two clocks
in the ********same******** frame, and this is *not* the
case for clock transport.
Yes it is. SR admits that two touching and synchronized clocks
moving in the opposite directions with the same velocity will
remain synchronized and remain in the same frame. Why do you
think that the SRians refused to use such two clocks to measure
light speed?
Your above is very confused. Hopefully, this is not a reflection
of your mind at work. Anyway, standard clock transport involves
moving only one clock, not both. Also, SR does not refuse to use
slow clock transport because (thanks to intrinsic clock slowing)
it gives practically the same result as SR.
SR only claims that the TWLS and the OWLS are isotropic.
Not exactly. Einstein also believes that OWLS is invariantly c.
(I.e., he thinks that all frames get c for OWLS.)
However OWLS measured with two same frame and synchronized clocks
does not have the value c. So the SRians refuse to do such an
experiment and the bogus reason given for the refusal is that there
is no way to absolutely synchronize two spatially separated clocks.
Yes, it is certainly true that (absolutely) synch'd clocks will not
yield c (except in one frame). However, the real reason SR does not
do such an experiment is that, as I have said, there is no one-way
experiment. That is, there is no unique, single-law experiment.
There are, however, many (an infinite number of) different one-way
experiments *once* man has given the synchronization procedure,
but none of these results can be fully a law of nature due to man's
input.
That's why Einstein invented the e-synch clocks (clocks with off
set time wrt to each other) to force OWLS equal to c.
Actually, he forced c in order to get rid of an alleged apparently
irreconcilable conflict between the simple law of the constancy of
light's speed through space and the PR. (But this is a bogus reason.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
