"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2v3qngF2gnuh6U2@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:X%_id.39448$Bk6.20231@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:2v0r9qF2fmdu9U1@uni-berlin.de...
: > :
: > : "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
: > : news:0Uzid.354633$MQ5.69921@attbi_s52...
: > : > Henri Wilson wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > ...but don't forget to use c+v and NOT 'c'.
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : > Relativity is an internally self-consistent geometry. It
: > : contains no
: > : > paradoxes, it cannot be disproven from within. Relativity
has
: > : never
: > : > been contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
: > : >
: > : > Velocity
: > : > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
: > : >
: > : > How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
: > : >
: > :
: >
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.
: > : html
: > : >
: > :
: >
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
: > : >
: > : > What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
: > : >
: > :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
: > : >
: > :
: > : Two garden hoses and a bag of marbles will synchronize any two
: > points in
: > : the universe, regardless of their motion. So I can't fathom why
we
: > can't
: > : just send Dr. Who back to the dressing room and put a little
polish
: > on
: > : Maxwell's equations.
: > : It must have something to do with homo-sapiens insatiable
appitite
: > for:
: > : More money,
: > : more power,
: > : more sex
: > : and more time. LOL
: > : ------
: > : Sue...
: >
: > Curiously, Michelson and Morley is mentioned by Baez as one
: > experimental basis for SR.
: >
: > "As regards its experimental proof, we must first of all note
that
: > the lengthenings and shortenings in question are extraordinarily
: > small. We have v^2/c^2 = 1.0E-8, and thus, if epsilon = 0, the
: > shortenings of the one diameter of the Earth would amount to 6.5
: > cm." - Michelson's Interference Experiment, HA Lorentz, 1895.
: >
: > The above explanation was offered by Lorentz when Michelson's
: > interferometer failed to detect any motion of the Earth through
the
: > supposed aether.
: >
: > This length contraction is supported by Einstein in his paper, "On
the
: > Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies",
: > Reference :
: > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > often referred to today as "Special Relativity".
: > The equations he offers are referred to as the Lorentz
: > Transformations,
: >
: > xi = (x-vt) / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
: > tau = (t - vx/c^2) / (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
: >
: > which are founded on the hypothesis "light is always propagated in
: > empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
: > state of motion of the emitting body".
: >
: > A number of people have suggested a theoretical proof of
Einstein's
: > work, and among them is the 'light-clock'. Brown (Pmb or Gauge) is
one
: > such. The light-clock can quite easily be constructed today using
: > existing
: > electronics.
: > We arrange for a LED (light emitting diode) to illuminate a
mirror
: > some distance away, the light then being reflected to a light
: > sensitive device such as a transistor designed for the purpose. If
we
: > then arrange for a 'flip-flop' electronic device to change state
and
: > turn the LED off when the light arrives at the photo-sensitive
: > resistor or transistor, then back on again when no more light
falls on
: > the device, we have an oscillator. By dividing the oscillations we
: > have a clock, one that is essentially no different to an atomic
: > clock, or your
: > wristwatch counting the oscillations of a quartz crystal, save
that
: > the oscillator is of a different type. Such a light clock can be
: > calibrated by making minute adjustments to the length of the light
: > path, as Michelson did.
: >
: > Two such light clocks, one placed with an orientation N/S and the
: > other E/W, should both undergo the same time dilation, being in
: > extremely close proximity to each other.
: > However, due to the E/W orientation of one of them, its length
will be
: > marginally shorter than the N/S clock.
: > We can then calibrate one clock against the other until both are
: > "ticking" synchronously. By then rotating them on a block of
granite
: > floating on a pool of mercury, the original N/S clock will then
: > exchanges places with the original E/W clock and become the
shorter of
: > the two.
: >
: > Do the two independent clocks then remain in synch?
:
: Sadly, there are some workers in California that don't share you
optimism that the construction is quite that easy.
: http://bigben.stanford.edu/SUMO/stanford_university.htm


No engineers there :-)

:
: The resolution that an interferometer provides would be pretty hard
to match with optoelectronics.
: Surley FOG manufacturers have considered similar schemes to
eliminate the tricky compensations that the interferometers demand.

How about the tricky compensations GPS clocks demand?

:
: >
: > If your answer is yes, explain how the speed of light differed
between
: > them, for it must have travelled a shortened length in the same
time.
: > If your answer is no, explain why Michelson didn't get any
: > interference fringes.
: >
: > Roberts has pronounced that the speed of light is 'locally'
invariant.
: > I'd like to know just how 'locally' he means, because I fail to
: > understand how I can get two clocks more 'locally' than beside
each
: > other.
: >
: > As anyone can see, MMX *DISPROVES* special relativity, because MMX
is
: > actually two light-clocks set at right angles. Only the counters
are
: > missing.
: >
: > I submit the only possible answer is that the speed of light is
source
: > dependent, there is no length contraction and no time dilation,
both
: > clocks
: > remain synchronized.
:
: Sheesh! Einstein did the same thing. When he ran out of alternative
notions, he deemed his conclusion the only possibility.
:
: From another POV:
: Assuming the MMX path has an acceptable extinction distance for the
included matter, it disproves the existance of an
: electrodynamic ether.
: SR, in fixing a relationship between space and time (Minkowski), is
an ether theory.
: Again... I think you're denying the extent of Coulomb coupling and
the influence it can have on an EM path.

I'm just using the standard argument, I'm not introducing anything
new.
The claim is that MMX supports SR. It doesn't. If any parameters are
missing, then they should be missing in the original analysis also

: Kind regards,
: Sue...
:
: > Androcles.
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
: