 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment?
Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson- Morley experiment; only "later writers" did: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Yet Divine Albert seems to be the original liar: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/3f176de9c1bb8 1ab/298c07d03bfd85ca?show_docid=298c07d03bfd85ca& http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/f9d3fe3b6c262 6f8/defdc42e9464510a?show_docid=defdc42e9464510a http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dcb5ccb45525e 0ac/3e8d684e9b8d7306?hl=fr& You never even answered if the the Lorentz group is the correct one without gravitation. And you still do not provide a "simple derivation" to Einstein-1911 that you promise for one week. Have a good night Laurent > Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson- > Morley experiment; only "later writers" did: I find it strange that you think of Einstein as a God. > > Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson- > > Morley experiment; only "later writers" did: > > I find it strange that you think of Einstein as a God. Actually, I find less heartburn in that than the fact that he has no idea what the MM experiment proved or disproved, Quite likely he doesn't even know how the MM experiement was even conducted. Just another net troll with too much time on his hands. Harry C. > Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the > Michelson-Morley experiment; only "later writers" did: > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf > John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as > evidence for the principle of relativity, Einstein was a nitwit. Voigt has already shown the null results of the MMX prove the principle of relativity wrong. See the Voigt transform. In doing so, the absolute frame of reference must exist and thus the Aether. <shrug> > whereas later writers almost > universally use it as support for the light postulate of special > relativity...... Later writers had a sip of Einstein’s fermented diarrhea, and the rest is history. > THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE > WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT > POSTULATE." Yes, that is true, but the emission theory does not agree with electromagnetism. <shrug> > Yet Divine Albert seems to be the original liar: Yes, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug> > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152... > The New York Times, April 19, 1921 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? > Professor Einstein asked." Voigt answered it in 1887. That is 18 years before Einstein’s plagiarized work of 1905 papers. > > THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE > > WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT > > POSTULATE." > > Yes, that is true, but the emission theory does not agree with > electromagnetism. <shrug> The formulation of the disagreement in terms of "emission theory" and electromagnetism", given the insufficient knowledge about the particle/ wave nature of light, can be somewhat misleading. The essential question is "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source?" and, accordingly, the disagreement can and should be restricted to the "yes" given by the emission theory and "no" given by (Maxwell's) electromagnetism. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains this in the best possible way: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC > "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will > prove to be superfluous." We already discussed extensivelly on Michelson, and you gave up : you never even answered if the the Lorentz group is the correct one without gravitation. http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_thread/thread/dc... Why do you begin again here ? Even if Michelson was not a proof of Lorentz, there are many others ... Out of 1000 experimental facts that are Lorentz related, you know only a one (Michelson), which is not even the most important one (a part from an historical perspective). You ignore all the others : * les particules ont un spin (ce qui suggère SL(2,C) comme groupe de symétrie) * l'électromagnétisme de Maxwell est covariant sous Lorentz (et a des succès expérimentaux) * le champ magnétique produit par une charge en mouvement est bien la transformée de Lorentz du champ électrique de la même charge au repos * le succès de QED dans la structure hyperfine de l'hydrogène * Les différentes sections efficaces en physique des particules qui dépendent d'interférences entre des processus contenant des particules virtuelles. * Le défaut de masse dans les processus radioactifs * Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les accélérateurs qu'au repos You said : >Commenter des expériences que je ne connais pas? Pas mal. Je te donne > la victoire. (translation : To comment experiments that I do not know ? okay, you won.) Anything to add ? Laurent > Even if Michelson was not a proof of Lorentz, there are many > others ... Out of 1000 experimental facts that are Lorentz related, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Anything to add ? Let us consider an experiment you refer to: "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les accélérateurs qu'au repos" I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me: Is this experiment essentially identical to the classical cosmic-ray muon experiment demonstrating time dilation? If it is essentially different, describe the difference. In particular, is lifetime at rest measured in essentially the same way in the two experiments? I know something about the classical cosmic-ray muon experiment so the discussion could become interesting. Pentcho valev pvalev@yahoo.com > "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc�l�rateurs qu'au > repos" > > I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and > claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me: At first approximation, yes, this is the same kind of effect that the muon one. But much stronger : when we measure thinks in the particles accelerators, EVERYTHINK is Lorentz-deformed. Not only the half-live, but also the cross-sections, the electromagnetic waves (accelerated charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase with speed) and so on. I did not had a big experimental particle physics course, so I cannot give you tons of equations and links. I'm more a theorist : I know better spin and covariance of Maxwell (http://student.ulb.ac.be/ ~lclaesse/lectures.pdf). I also saw the computation of the hydrogen rays using relativistic corrections. Anyway ... the point is not to give you a course. As I said before, the facts I was refering to are difficult, need math and time to analyse. I can explain them with simplifications in order to be simple. But the level of knowledge that you can get just by reading the forum or reading easy books (like the Einstein one that you always quote) is not enough to draw conclusions about the truth of such or such theory. The point is to make you more humble : we are in 2008, and there are 1000 reasons to believe in Lorentz. You only know something about Michelson ... in the scientific backgroud of 1905. In that situation, how can you pretend to know what is the good choice between Lorentz and Gallilée ? Have a good night Laurent > > "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc l rateurs qu'au > > repos" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase > with speed) and so on. Incredible! Fantastic! And yet, how is lifetime AT REST measured IN ACCELERATORS? Below I am referring you to the method used for cosmic- ray muons and then you will tell me if in accelerators the procedure is essentially the same: http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > Incredible! Fantastic! And yet, how is lifetime AT REST measured IN > ACCELERATORS? Below I am referring you to the method used for cosmic- > ray muons and then you will tell me if in accelerators the procedure > is essentially the same: Chuuuut. Be cool. I just said that I'm not an experimentalist. By consequent, I will not give details about the experimental procedure (*I* do not speak about what I do not know ... even if I know it 1000 times better than you) When we want to test any particle physics theory, we have to predict the result of the experiment by calculation. In the computation, we place ourself in the rest frame of one of the two colliding particles (which is obviously not the laboratory frame), we do the computation, we deduce, for example, the angles of deviations of the particles. Then we use a LORENTZ transformation to know the angles in the laboratory frame (the one which are actually observed) .... and ... miracle ! The theory gives the good result ! But, well before that, when we construct the accelerator, we use supraconductor magnets ... which is relativistic mechanism (as everything concerning spin). Do not try to discuss it with me at a deeper level : I admit to be incompetent, and I propose you to do the same : you have no idea of the relativistic mechanics and how it is crucially used in order to get experimental results. What are you going to do ? For each of the 1000 experimental facts that are Lorentz-dependent, you will discuss, ask me details, quote Einstein-1905, invoke string theory, and then conclude that the Einstein zombies are manipulating the results ? To be short : all the standard model is Lorentz-invariant. Electromagnetism, radioactivity, nuclear forces, stability of atoms, all the rays of all the atoms, stability of nucleus, and more ... This is a wide range of experimental facts (some of them being, in fact, discovered by people who had no idea of relativity i.e. Marie Curie) that includes the even fact that you computer works. What now ? Laurent |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.