Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #476624 > unrolled thread

6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-09 00:53 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-09 06:06 +0100
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-09 09:02 -0600
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-09 18:19 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-09 19:12 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@j2adosw.nv> - 2018-11-09 19:27 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 12:04 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-09 19:13 -0600
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-10 01:02 -0800
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-13 00:21 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2018-11-24 01:57 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 06:24 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-09 15:04 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 08:41 +0000
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-10 10:02 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 01:33 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-10 04:03 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 08:27 -0600
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 20:03 +0000
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 14:49 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4osw.nv> - 2018-11-11 00:39 +0000
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java4osw.nv> - 2018-11-11 00:40 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-10 21:32 -0600
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Gaston Castaneda <ucpp@java2osw.np> - 2018-11-10 20:01 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 08:45 +0000
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 13:14 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:32 +0000
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-13 12:21 -0600
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 14:57 -0800
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 14:38 +0100
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-10 15:55 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:05 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:08 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-10 14:09 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-11 09:22 +0100
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 12:14 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 11:43 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 13:04 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-12 00:55 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 16:00 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-12 02:08 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-11 14:14 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 23:24 +0000
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 10:09 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 10:25 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 15:12 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 16:12 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-13 16:19 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:45 +0000
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-15 05:05 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 11:35 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 03:51 -0800
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:31 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-11-15 08:56 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 10:00 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 10:17 -0800
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-15 18:57 +0100
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 10:15 -0800
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-15 15:34 +0100
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 06:37 -0800
            Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:46 +0000
              Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-15 18:54 +0100
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 16:02 +0000
                  Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 21:48 +0100
                    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-16 13:00 -0800
                Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 17:07 +0000
                  Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:05 +0100
                    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 21:33 +0000
                      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:41 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-14 18:02 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-15 14:02 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 03:47 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-16 09:27 -0800
      Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:45 +0100
        Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 22:01 +0000
          Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 23:15 +0100
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 11:36 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:37 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:52 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:53 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-17 14:59 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-18 12:15 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-18 12:47 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-19 10:13 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-24 17:04 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-25 11:38 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-26 13:41 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 13:15 -0800
    Re: 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:10 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#476624 — 6) the inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley esp

..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX 
.. of course his theory could be good at same , but the MMX is not significant , because it is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface and ,for that, its resultats are always zero , like the figures are showing in  francisoldog.tumblr.com  ( there the splitter can be in two opposite positions but that only doubles the number of mouving bands )
.. however , the Allan-around-the-world exp resolved the basic question ( see the topic 'W Allan' )..: two beams rotating in opposite directions around our earth , give just the differnce of the earth' speed .. so the light goes at 300 000 km.s in vacuum relatively to the gravitational field .. if the strength of gravity changes , is also the light'speed changing ,like the black holes should make us to suppose ? 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#476625

nero wrote:
> ...Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX

No, he did not.

> the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface

No, it is not.

> [more falsehoods]

Shut up and study.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476639

On 11/8/18 11:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> nero wrote:
>> the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
> 
> No, it is not.

Sure it is! It is a topological distortion of a circular path such that 
it encloses zero area.

Of course their analysis did not consider it to be a Sagnac 
interferometer. Given its slow rotation rate, they used an excellent 
approximation -- during the light transit time (~ 37 ns) the rotation of 
the instrument is incredibly tiny, which can be neglected precisely 
because of the zero enclosed area.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476648

Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/8/18 11:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> nero wrote:
>>> the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
>> No, it is not.
> 
> Sure it is! It is a topological distortion of a circular path such that 
> it encloses zero area.
> 
> Of course their analysis did not consider it to be a Sagnac 
> interferometer. Given its slow rotation rate, they used an excellent 
> approximation -- during the light transit time (~ 37 ns) the rotation of 
> the instrument is incredibly tiny, which can be neglected precisely 
> because of the zero enclosed area.

This is a Sagnac interferometer:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#/media/File:Sagnac_interferometer.svg>

I do not see how by reducing "the surface" to zero I could arrive at the MMX:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:Michelson1881c.png>

If I reduce the width of the ring to zero, I lose the "horizontal" arm
of the MMX; if I reduce the height of the ring to zero, then I lose the
"vertical" arm of the MMX; if I reduce both the width and height, then
I lose both arms.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476655

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> Wrote in message:
> [...]  I do not see how by reducing "the surface" to zero I could arrive at the MMX:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:Michelson1881c.png

>If I reduce the width of the ring to zero, I lose the "horizontal" armof the MMX; if I reduce the height of the ring to zero, then I lose the"vertical" arm of the MMX; if I reduce both the width and height, thenI lose both arms.

I think what Tom has meant is, by other words,
 the enclosed area  within the light path.

If you draw a circle or a rectangle, there is an enclosed area.

If you draw 2 crossing lines, there is none.
-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476661

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/8/18 11:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> nero wrote:
>>>> the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
>>> No, it is not.
>> 
>> Sure it is! It is a topological distortion of a circular path such that
>> it encloses zero area.
>> 
>> Of course their analysis did not consider it to be a Sagnac
>> interferometer. Given its slow rotation rate, they used an excellent
>> approximation -- during the light transit time (~ 37 ns) the rotation
>> of the instrument is incredibly tiny, which can be neglected precisely
>> because of the zero enclosed area.
> 
> This is a Sagnac interferometer:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#/media/
File:Sagnac_interferometer.svg>
> I do not see how by reducing "the surface" to zero I could arrive at the
> MMX:

Surely. But you also don't understand the tensors allocated to the theory, 
without which understanding relativity is not possible. Bye.

*_B U N M P_*

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476666

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 11:19:42 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> This is a Sagnac interferometer:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#/media/File:Sagnac_interferometer.svg>
> 
> I do not see how by reducing "the surface" to zero I could arrive at the MMX:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#/media/File:Michelson1881c.png>
> 
> If I reduce the width of the ring to zero, I lose the "horizontal" arm
> of the MMX; if I reduce the height of the ring to zero, then I lose the
> "vertical" arm of the MMX; if I reduce both the width and height, then
> I lose both arms.

Tom is being the topologist here, unable to tell the difference between a
donut and a coffee cup, but he does have somewhat of a point.

For either interferometer, substitute for mirrors two strands of optical
fiber. You are then free to loop the fibers into a common path configuration
(i.e. Sagnac) or a dual path configuration (i.e. MMX). You can direct the
two fibers along diverse paths to create a Mach-Zehnder, etc.

Following this same line of reasoning,  all (or practically all)
interferometers are topologically deformable into each other.

I don't think ignoring all the essential differences between the different
types of interferometer is a very useful way of thinking about them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476682

On 11/9/18 11:19 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/8/18 11:06 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> nero wrote:
>>>> the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
>>> No, it is not.
>>
>> Sure it is! It is a topological distortion of a circular path such that
>> it encloses zero area.
> 
> I do not see how by reducing "the surface" to zero I could arrive at the MMX:

Start with the bi-directional circle of an idealized Sagnac 
interferometer, with co-located source and detector. Deform the circle 
by squashing it into two out-and-back lines with the source/detector at 
one end. Now separate the two rays' lines and rotate one by 90 degrees 
around the source/detector. Similar distortions of the source and 
detector will yield the Michelson interferometer (with an unused short 
path from detector to source).

That considers just the light paths. To actually implement them one must 
add optical elements like mirrors and a beam splitter (or fibers).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476696

Il giorno venerdì 9 novembre 2018 10:11:05 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> nero wrote:
> > ...Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
> 
> No, he did not.
> 
> > the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> > [more falsehoods]
> 
> Shut up and study.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

.. in  francisoldog.tumblr.com  , after the two photos there a drawing .. in A you have the classical MMX , then in B the classical Sagnac , in C the Sagnac- zero- surface and in D the changements untill Sagnac-zero=MMX

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476952

Il giorno sabato 10 novembre 2018 10:02:41 UTC+1, nero ha scritto:
> Il giorno venerdì 9 novembre 2018 10:11:05 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> > nero wrote:
> > > ...Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
> > 
> > No, he did not.
> > 
> > > the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
> > 
> > No, it is not.
> > 
> > > [more falsehoods]
> > 
> > Shut up and study.
> > 
> > -- 
> > PointedEars
> > 
> > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> 
> .. in  francisoldog.tumblr.com  , after the two photos there a drawing .. in A you have the classical MMX , then in B the classical Sagnac , in C the Sagnac- zero- surface and in D the changements untill Sagnac-zero=MMX                   .. a notation : the MMX certified the impossibility to extablish the movement in that wrong way .. probabely we can find other ways to extablish the spatial motion , essentially from our closer center of gravity(earth) which is not eliminable ..and then from other farer-ones (from the sun , from galaxy center ..) : this ways could work over a device with higth sensibility of the gravity like measuring the energy of acceleration in different directions or measuring the times of the light for doing a single path in opposite directions (Allan showed) ..
.. the starting question of Galileo ( or Einstein) : if i look from a ship'window , an other moving ship , can i say who is moving? ( or : if i look from a train'window , an other moving train , can i say who is moving ?) .. all universe is interconnected by the gravity and there is the hope, the interest and the certainty that we could extablish all kinds of motions ..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#477946

Il giorno martedì 13 novembre 2018 09:21:22 UTC+1, nero ha scritto:
> Il giorno sabato 10 novembre 2018 10:02:41 UTC+1, nero ha scritto:
> > Il giorno venerdì 9 novembre 2018 10:11:05 UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ha scritto:
> > > nero wrote:
> > > > ...Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
> > > 
> > > No, he did not.
> > > 
> > > > the MMX […] is a Sagnac interferometer with zero surface
> > > 
> > > No, it is not.
> > > 
> > > > [more falsehoods]
> > > 
> > > Shut up and study.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > PointedEars
> > > 
> > > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> > 
> > .. in  francisoldog.tumblr.com  , after the two photos there a drawing .. in A you have the classical MMX , then in B the classical Sagnac , in C the Sagnac- zero- surface and in D the changements untill Sagnac-zero=MMX                   .. a notation : the MMX certified the impossibility to extablish the movement in that wrong way .. probabely we can find other ways to extablish the spatial motion , essentially from our closer center of gravity(earth) which is not eliminable ..and then from other farer-ones (from the sun , from galaxy center ..) : this ways could work over a device with higth sensibility of the gravity like measuring the energy of acceleration in different directions or measuring the times of the light for doing a single path in opposite directions (Allan showed) ..
> .. the starting question of Galileo ( or Einstein) : if i look from a ship'window , an other moving ship , can i say who is moving? ( or : if i look from a train'window , an other moving train , can i say who is moving ?) .. all universe is interconnected by the gravity and there is the hope, the interest and the certainty that we could extablish all kinds of motions ..
.. the main theorethical questions ? ...:                                                                                                             if we could decide , when we look from a ship ' window an other mouving ship.... who is mouving ?
                          ..and after : if we mouve near to the light' speed ,   is our time' rate going to stop ? .... the old topic ' The goat of Dingle '  can help ! ?  .. a cross-eyed goat can look togheter two clocks in different directions ! .. and an exterior observer can verify that the goat , probabely, does't change the dimensions and the rate of life .. if we look ahead to a clock , the time seems to stop  .. if we look back to a clock , the time seems to run .. if we look togheter     ?  ..perhaps , we can find always a referement of time ' rate .. and also when the gravity is changing the time 'rate ..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476635

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 3:53:54 AM UTC-5, nero wrote:
> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX 
 No, he did not. He derived it by viewing motion from the perspective
of a light ray. Lorentz derived his theory from MMX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476671

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-8, nero wrote:
> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX 

No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.

He was apparently not aware of the MMX at the time, most likely because
it was an American experiment, hence not well publicised.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476694

On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-8, nero wrote:
>> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
> 
> No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.

The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.  According to Maxwell's
theory, as written by Maxwell, light travels at a speed appropriate
to, and relative to, the "medium" (i.e. the "stuff" the light is
traveling through).  Maxwell's primary example of a medium for
electromagnetic waves was "air".  Note that this gives a very simple,
and complete,  explanation of the "null result" of the MMX eh!


keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476695

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:> On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-8, nero wrote:>> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX> > No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted> to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the> Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a> mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence ofMaxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.  According to Maxwell'stheory, as written by Maxwell, light travels at a speed appropriateto, and relative to, the "medium" (i.e. the "stuff" the light istraveling through).  Maxwell's primary example of a medium forelectromagnetic waves was "air".  Note that this gives a very simple,and complete,  explanation of the "null result" of the MMX eh!keith stein

All versions* of a classical luminiferous aether are  in agreement
  with some experiments, while rejected  by other 
 experiments.

( like stationary aether, dragged aether, partially dragged aether )

Only EM theories involving Lorentz transform agree with all these
 experiments.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476698

On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 09/11/2018 23:04, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 12:53:54 AM UTC-8, nero wrote:
> >> ..Einstein derived his Relativity ' theory also from the MMX
> > 
> > No, he was motivated by Maxwell's equations, more specifically he wanted
> > to supply a physical basis to the transformed E and B fields and to the
> > Lorentz transformation which had been known already but interpreted as a
> > mostly mathematical property of Maxwell's equations.
> 
> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.

It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
transformation. This was known before Einstein.

> According to Maxwell's
> theory, as written by Maxwell, light travels at a speed appropriate
> to, and relative to, the "medium" (i.e. the "stuff" the light is
> traveling through).

Yes, and this was a problem for many reasons. I listed some of them.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476702

The Acceleration Of Gravity 9.8 m/s^2 is the missing fringe shift in the MMX 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476719

On 11/10/18 3:33 AM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
> 
> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
> transformation. This was known before Einstein.

Hmmmm. You are confusing Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY with what are NOW 
called "Maxwell's equations". The latter are a subset of the former, 
using only 8 of his original equations and 16 of his original fields. In 
particular we now omit his fields related to motion relative to the aether.

	(There is considerable flexibility in how one writes these
	 equations, so counts of them can vary.)

Of course Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY has been solidly refuted, as it 
implicitly assumes Galilean relativity; it is NOT Lorentz invariant.

Long after Maxwell's death it was learned that this particular subset, 
plus a few additions such as the EM potential and the Lorentz 
transformation, form a self-consistent theory we now call "Classical 
Electrodynamics" (after the eponymous book by J. D. Jackson). It has 
never been refuted within its domain of classical (non-quantum) physics.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476728

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/10/18 3:33 AM, JanPB wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
>>> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
>> 
>> It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under
>> the Lorentz transformation. This was known before Einstein.
> 
> Hmmmm. You are confusing Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY with what are NOW
> called "Maxwell's equations". The latter are a subset of the former,
> using only 8 of his original equations and 16 of his original fields. In
> particular we now omit his fields related to motion relative to the
> aether.

I beg you to reconsider, a vast part of them are Faraday, not Maxwell. 
Maxwell, like Einstein, incorporated work which was not his own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#476747

On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 6:27:44 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/10/18 3:33 AM, JanPB wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 12:41:20 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> The Lorentz transforms are most definitely NOT a consequence of
> >> Maxwell's Theory, as written by J.C.Maxwell.
> > 
> > It's a property of Maxwell's equations that they are invariant under the Lorentz
> > transformation. This was known before Einstein.
> 
> Hmmmm. You are confusing Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY with what are NOW 
> called "Maxwell's equations". The latter are a subset of the former, 
> using only 8 of his original equations and 16 of his original fields. In 
> particular we now omit his fields related to motion relative to the aether.
> 
> 	(There is considerable flexibility in how one writes these
> 	 equations, so counts of them can vary.)
> 
> Of course Maxwell's ORIGINAL THEORY has been solidly refuted, as it 
> implicitly assumes Galilean relativity; it is NOT Lorentz invariant.

Yes, I keep referring to the state of the affairs in the years just
preceding Einstein's paper, not to Maxwell's original treatise which
was commented upon by Fitzgerald:

"Maxwell's treatise is cumbered with the debris of his brilliant lines
of assault, of his entrenched camps, of his battles. Oliver Heaviside
has cleared these away, has opened up a direct route, has made a broad
road, and has explored a considerable trace of country."
[quoted after John M. Charap's book "Covariant Electrodynamics"]

I should have made it more clear.

Closer to 1905 people knew about the Lorentz invariance of the (by then)
"cleared away" equations. For example Lorentz himself goes through this
in detail in his 1904 paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving
with any velocity less than that of light", included in the standard Dover
collection "The Principle of Relativity". On pages 13-16 he shows this
invariance. The transformation looks a bit odd because it's written as
a superposition of a Galilean transformation (p. 13) followed by
the formulas (4) and (5) on p. 14. He also keeps an extra multiplicative
constant in place (called "l", Lorentz says it's of the second order in
v, hence ignorable. Einstein in his re-derivation of the transform in his
1905 paper actually gives an argument why l = 1 exactly).

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web