| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sergey Karavashkin" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2005 04:44:23 PM |
| Object: |
To Androcles about MMX |
Post 49
From:Androcles (dummy@dummy.net)
Subject:Re: Michelson-Morley experiment
Newsgroup:sci.physics
Date:2004-12-31 05:27:14 PST
Hi Androcles,
Your post in this renewed thread is most sound, so I would like to add
for your and for Mark Nazzal's attention some details to clear the
issue.
First of all, as far as I can understand, someone took from
naphthalene this fruitless thread and called Mark not without some aim
but after my co-author and me opened a new thread,
"Clocks synchronisation"
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&inlang=ru&threadm=1fbcs0t11m8al592d3qi4jf1t9d9ofgh6t%404ax.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd
which refers colleagues to a part of our discussion on other forum
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/absolute/che/che1/che1.html
on our paper " Notes on physical absolute "
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#absolute
and after we wrote in our advertisement,
"Knowing that the issues of clocks synchronisation, as well as
Michelson - Morley and Miller experiments, were multiply and
unsuccessfully (in absence of cardinal solution) discussed here, we
decided to publish for you this part of our discussion, hoping, our
arguments will be interesting for you colleagues".
;-) You may want to compare dates to make sure. We opened our thread
on 18 December, and someone renewed this thread on 31 December. I
would mention, this was not best choose, not to say - far from best,
as this thread did not and does not give deep arguments, only
superfluous slogans and flow of mutual accusations and swearing. It
did not add constructibility and changed nothing; we see the same
exercise in scandal. ;-)
In reality, MMX is not so simple and unambiguous as someone would like
to represent it. And far from all experiments corroborate SR
predictions (or rather, nothing corroborates SR!), as Franz Heymann
self-confidently tries to state in his post of 2004-12-31 07:16:05
PST:
<< *All* physicists know that *all* properly conducted experiments, of
which there are hundreds of thousands, which have been performed in
the century since Einstein propounded the SR theory, which have any
connection with SR, have agreed with predictions produced by SR
theory >>
A trivial relativistic trick - to throw ungrounded slogans accusing
others in own limitedness. Quite long time Franz says nothing to the
point and confines himself only to shallow slogans. What affected him?
- Their team - Franz Heymann, Bilge, Stephen Speicher, EL Hemetis, and
some other people behind the scenes - failed to break open the scheme
when we advertised our discovery on longitudinal EM wave
radiation/reception. They were well paid, but failed and have
quarrelled, as usually. ;-) Franz never was kind, but after this all
physics flied away from his brain, only slogans remained. Now we
should pity him ... ;-)
To begin to the point, the lists of links and other references
provided by Sam Wormley and other colleagues are too far from being
complete, and the main, they give one-sided view on the subject. Not
Sam is guilty, simply relativists used to hide inconvenient materials
and evidences. To comprehend what occurred at the edge of 19th and
20th centuries, we have to learn at least several sources. One of them
is
The effect of the earth's rotation on velocity of light, Part II, A.
A. Michelson, Henry G. Gale, assisted by Fred Pearson
The astronomical J. Vol. LXI, #5, p. 140 - 145
This is Michelson's report on the experiment on large stationary
interferometer whose position varied with Earth rotation. This paper
gives results. The general conclusion is:
<< Given the difficulties of observation, we have to state, the
observed and calculated shifts agree in error limits >> [mentioned
paper]
But the most important for understanding is
Conference on Michelson - Morley experiment. Held at Mount Wilson
Observatory, Pasadena, California, February 4 and 5, 1927
The astronomical J., December 1928, vol. LXVIII #5, p. 341 - 402
There in Pasadena were present the scientists participated practically
in all variants of MMX conducted then. We can see from this discussion
that the idea of reciprocally perpendicular beams imposed by today
relativists was introduced by Lorentz and was erroneous. He admitted
it frankly. In reality, the beams in the interferometer are not
perpendicular, and the non-perpendicularity is quite considerable.
Further, in ALL experiments there were present TWO effects: a
half-turn and full-turn effects, i.e. when the beams shift was
periodic during, accordingly, a half of turn either a full turn of
interferometer. The half-turn experiment had a significant masking
effect: when the device turned, the beams under the receiver's
microscope not only did not change their phase difference but shifted
as to each other, so that the shift was considerably compensated. The
full-turn effect was free of this defect but considerably depending on
the beams convergence angle in alignment. The less was convergence
angle the more effect. Pasadena participants rejected this effect,
because it disabled to determine reliably the value of aethereal wind
velocity and direction. Calculations of these effects noting inclined
mirrors have been made already then. It were Righy and Hicks who made
these calculations independently of each other. We in our laboratory
also made a model computer simulation and can corroborate, these
effects take place. It retains only the question, why these results
are still hidden and all calculations are made for an utilitarian
scheme of reciprocally perpendicular beams calculated by Lorentz. Just
Lorentz and relativists are guilty. Just he, though admitted
inaccuracy of his calculation, did not improve them, he retained
results favourable for relativists, despite the scientific truth. Here
is the confirmation by Lorents in the course of that seminar:
<< Speaking now as the adherent of Relativity, I have to state, such
effect does not exist. Actually, the turn of device as the whole,
including the light source, gives no shift in the view of Relativity.
No effect has to be, when the Earth and the device are at rest. By
Einstein, the same absence of effect has to be observed for moving
Earth. The effect of full period is thus contradictive to the
Relativity and is very important. If then Miller revealed systematic
effects whose existence we cannot ignore, it is important also to know
the cause of the full effect period. >>
Though he promised, he has not corrected his calculation, and they
simply 'forgot' about the full period effect. That is how it really
was.
Thus, when Mark refrains after relativists their slogan
<< This experiment was meant to prove the existence of ether (and it
failed, of course). >> ,
he, just as many others, simply shows himself unaware. We can excuse
him, but they rest . . .
We have cited something of the mentioned seminar in our above referred
web page. These citations will corroborate you what I'm saying after
you read the whole Pasadena discussion.
One more source of greatest importance which relativists 'forgot' to
mention are works by very Miller. In particular,
Dayton K. Miller, The Either - Drift Experiment and the Determination
of Absolute Motion of the Earth, Rev. of Modern Physics, 1933, #3, p
203 - 242
This paper gives complete analysis of both Miller's and Michelson's
experiments. It shows Michelson's negative result to be a consequence
of incorrect processing of results which averaged the effect. Standard
statistic method to select the average value in observations showed
that the half-turn effect was present in Michelson's experiments. The
parallel and independent calculation of published data of Michelson's
experiment carried out by Russian academician Vavilov showed similar
result. Only the yielded results were ten times less than those
calculated - and this is fine, noting the masking effect which
Michelson did not take into account (he had to pass to broad fringes,
while he worked on those narrow, and something other . . . ).
Now let us touch other experiments which Franz says corroborating SR.
When I saw that in connection with our thread someone renewed this
old, I was surprised that they chose the thread that gave no result.
But there was another one that came to some result. It was discussion
by Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> , Stephen Speicher
<sjs@speicher.com> , and me, just two years ago:
" Dayton Miller's Experiment. Was Indeed Flawed "
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&selm=40bb2cea.0211291522.7420845a%40posting.google.com&rnum=36
But don't expect that Tom or Stephen come here to contribute. They
seemingly still did not loss their interest to Russian girls to which
they reduced the discussion, since I have proven them and they had to
agree, Fizeau experiment does not corroborate SR but contradicts this
conception.
In the first page of discussion we published on our site (the link in
the beginning of this post) you can read an independent analysis of
one more experiment checking SR - on frequency beating of two masers.
It also does not corroborate that theory. We can analyse all their
experiments and show the same. Thus, they have not experiments. They
have only scandal and wish to call all others cranks and asses.
Nothing more. ;-)
Now let us pass to your items
<< 1) The velocity of light is source dependent (a star in space)
2) The velocity of light is medium dependent (like sound in air)
3) The velocity of light is observer dependent (Einstein) >>
You are right in determining possible variants. Let us consider them
sequentially.
Should the light velocity depend on the speed of source, we would see
not simply twinkle of stars, as you are writing. Henri Wilson on the
thread
" Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. "
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&threadm=3ECCD805.432D70FC%40nbnet.nb.ca&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd
showed his calculation of this variant
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
and yielded for far stars that we have to see 'twins' quite far one
from another. If we also admit galaxies accelerating, which also
follows from Relativity, then at the boundary of universe we would see
even clones. ;-)
Your second variant follows straight from the classical wave physics,
it was studied by supporters of aether. It premises that space is not
empty. On this conception Maxwell had created his theory of
electromagnetism and it perfectly works, though is yet incomplete.
With corroborated aether wind which relativists simply *do not want*
to see, Maxwell theory becomes basic and more fruitful conception. But
with it we have to forget photons and time transformation. If we
approach to the study of physical phenomena without bias, we have
simply to deny Einstein's 'gedankens'. In the above referred our
discussion with Alexander Chepik we gave the technique to synchronise
clocks which fully excludes the time transformation between inertial
frames moving as to each other. This proves that transformation which
relativists have elevated to the range of universal law to be only the
corollary of incorrectly conducted (or not conducted at all)
experiment. And nothing more.
From this, it directly follows that your third (Einsteinian) item is
far-fetched. What is the essence? This is not relativists' genial
guess that at speeds close to that of light, the geometric size of
body changes. It was said before them, and quite substantially, in
developing the schemes to study aethereal wind. And this
transformation of substance caused by transformation of atom fields of
particular moving bodies does not affect the whole space whose spatial
and temporal measures remain constant. Light, after it was emitted by
a moving body and until it is received by the receiver of moving
observer, propagates in space, not in the reference frame. This is
what Maxwell emphasised when substantiated the aether existence. And
this is also corroborated by Sagnac's experiment - he yielded the
fringes shift with the light motion along a close circle through the
reflection from rotating mirrors. Should light were dragged by the
frame (your first variant) or should it change its characteristics in
relation with the frame (your third variant), the fringe shift would
be absent. Just independence of beam motion in the intervals between
the moments of reflection from mirrors leads to its shift - it means,
to the fringes shift. While in Fizeau experiment the light is really
dragged by moving liquid, and on this account the fringes shift. But
with it the light moves INSIDE the body, interacting with this body,
and just due to this interaction the drag is partial, not full. So we
should approach to the lengths comparison not in the view of measures
comparison but in the view of possibility to pass the measures of
length and time from one inertial frame to another. If we can pass,
the metric transformation is out of the question. If we cannot, the
metric is transformed with the substance.
By the way, the length measure is varied with temperature, but it does
not occur to us to introduce the transformation of length measure
dependently on the temperature of the body, or to introduce the
postulate of light speed constancy independently of the body
temperature. Though such mathematical system of transformation can be
created and will be similar to Lorentz' system. We in this case
separate physical processes in substance and metric of space in which
we measure. The only, we have to care to choose stable conditions at
which we would be able, with the help of special experimental
techniques, to compare the etalons with our everyday scientific
instruments.
Another simple example. Ptolemy had calculated the planets motion,
basing on geocentric pattern of the world; all planets moved in his
model along complicated curves. Was this pattern real to that extent
to which the gnosiological conclusions were made of it? No, and
Copernicus showed it. Particular Ptolemy's model remained particular -
just because in the nature cognition we are interesting not only in
what we have measured but how things go without our affection, without
our participation. And if the Earth orbited around Sun, in the view of
physics the result is this, not what we see as epicycloids on the
celestial sphere.
So the question of clocks synchronisation and etalons verification
raised by relativists has to be replaced by another question: is it
possible to pass the etalon from one moving frame to another without
distortion? As to time intervals, I have shown you it. The same I can
show for spatial measure. And we can develop few such techniques. One
of them almost replicates the relativistic technique described, for
example, in the book "Time and the space traveller" by L. Marder
[chapter 2, item 7, page 64 of Russian edition; I'm citing in reverse
translation from Russian]:
<< The question is always asked: "Is Lorentz' reduction _real_?" The
doubt usually arises because the length of moving bodies is determined
arbitrarily to that extent to which the taken definition of
simultaneity (for example, Einsteinian which we use) is arbitrary.
However, we can definitely answer, this phenomenon is real, as one and
the same procedure of length measurement will give different results
in accordance with classical (Newtonian) theory and Relativity. This
is clear from the following example. Let two similar parallel rods AB
and A'B' move with the speed V in reciprocally opposite directions, so
that they fly by each other. . . When A passed A', the located here
observer S notes their position. In the same way the place where B and
B' met with the observer at S is noted. Then at leisure we can measure
in the frame S the distance between these two points. Relativity
predicts that the result of measurement will be equal to the value
given by classical theory multiplied by sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) >>
We will approach to this experiment, seeking, whether we can pass
non-transformed etalons from one frame to another; so we will some
refine the relativistic scheme. Let the etalon in moving frame to be
equipped with two lasers placed at the edges of etalon; their beams
are perpendicular to the motion of frame and parallel to each other.
We will also some refine the stationary observer: he will have a quite
long barrel whose rotation axis is along the motion of the moving
frame. The surface of barrel will be coated with the photo-sensitive
layer. As you already understood, we will measure as follows. When the
measure and barrel coincide, laser beams will draw two spirals on the
photo-sensitive layer of barrel; through the distance between these
spirals we can determine the size of moving measure from the view of
stationary frame. As we can see from this description, light beams
need equal time to pass the distance from the measure to the barrel;
both beams pass the same distance; the speed of shift of these beams
is the same; indication on the photo-sensitive layer is simultaneous
and independent. So we cannot speak of any length reduction. Well, if
we are able to pass the measure from a frame to other frame without
transformation, we can speak of physical processes in the substance
moving with the speed close to that of light, not of variable measure
of space, and the more, not of constant speed of light in all frames.
Additionally, as our studies show, the measure of substance
transformation with the speed will be different for different
substances. Thus, Lorentz transformation does not fit even so narrow
purpose.
So we see relativistic 'gedankens' to be some artificial
constructions; using some imperfect techniques, relativists attempt to
construct on them gnosiological generalisation. Nothing more. While in
reality, the measure of time and space remain constant and do not
depend on the speed of frames.
I hope, you and colleagues have a subject to think. ;-)
Happy New year,
Sergey
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: To Androcles about MMX |
09 Jan 2005 02:37:29 PM |
|
|
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0501081444.3bf612af@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Happy New year,
Sergey
You too, but I have to inform you that I do not have sufficent time to
read
all of your post. Please state in as few words as possible what your
position
is. In depth examination can follow once I understand where you are
coming from.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: To Androcles about MMX |
10 Jan 2005 01:46:21 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:dCgEd.47671$C8.27690@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0501081444.3bf612af@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Happy New year,
Sergey
You too, but I have to inform you that I do not have sufficent time
to
read
all of your post. Please state in as few words as possible what your
position
is. In depth examination can follow once I understand where you are
coming from
In what depth? You cannot even follow the arguments pertaining to a
mosquito flying hither and you.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: To Androcles about MMX |
10 Jan 2005 05:07:06 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:crtbsc$sf6$7@titan.btinternet.com...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:dCgEd.47671$C8.27690@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0501081444.3bf612af@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Happy New year,
Sergey
You too, but I have to inform you that I do not have sufficent
time
to
read
all of your post. Please state in as few words as possible what
your
position
is. In depth examination can follow once I understand where you
are
coming from
In what depth? You cannot even follow the arguments pertaining to a
mosquito flying hither and you.
Yon
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: To Androcles about MMX |
09 Jan 2005 03:32:08 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:dCgEd.47671$C8.27690@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0501081444.3bf612af@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Happy New year,
Sergey
You too, but I have to inform you that I do not have sufficent time to
read
all of your post. Please state in as few words as possible what your
position
is. In depth examination can follow once I understand where you are
coming from.
Androcles.
Sergey comes from a land where there are functions with a
curl(grad) that severely differs from zero:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
With this in mind he might have a look at the orientation of
your MMX mirrors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
This might get interesting.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: To Androcles about MMX |
10 Jan 2005 01:46:21 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:sphEd.26182$8o.1837174@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
news:dCgEd.47671$C8.27690@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0501081444.3bf612af@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Happy New year,
Sergey
You too, but I have to inform you that I do not have sufficent
time to
read
all of your post. Please state in as few words as possible what
your
position
is. In depth examination can follow once I understand where you
are
coming from.
Androcles.
Sergey comes from a land where there are functions with a
curl(grad) that severely differs from zero:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
With this in mind he might have a look at the orientation of
your MMX mirrors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
This might get interesting.
I look forward to it and might consider throwing them a bun now and
again, just to encourage the action.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
