 |
 | 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 / December 2008Logical Flaw in the Interpretation of MMX Null Result
A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, an appropriate experiment needs to be carefully designed and conducted. Such an experiment is often designed to produce a measurable physical output in the event of a true or valid hypothesis. If however, such an experiment yields a null result, it is invariably interpreted as implying a false or invalid hypothesis. Logically, such an implication of a null result is often misplaced and wrong. Let us examine why. In the design of an appropriate experiment for evaluation of certain hypothesis, a number of assumptions are often required to be made. Some of these assumptions are explicit which are considered valid as a matter of fact. However, some of the assumptions are implicit which are either not considered at all or their validity taken for granted as axiomatic. Positive outcome of the experiment is based on the strict condition that all of these assumptions must be valid in the physical environment under which the experiment is being conducted. Let us assume that four assumptions A1, A2, A3 and A4 are involved in an experiment designed to evaluate a particular hypothesis H1. The outcome of the experiment may be expressed as a logical statement as, If A1 True & A2 True & A3 True & A4 True & H1 True, Then the experiment yields a Positive result. On the other hand, If A1 False Or A2 False Or A3 False Or A4 False Or H1 False, Then the experiment yields a Null result. Now we can easily appreciate that a Positive result of the experiment will definitely confirm the Truth or Validity of the hypothesis H1 under evaluation. But it is more important to appreciate that a null result of the experiment can never definitely confirm the invalidity of the hypothesis under evaluation, simply because the null result could also be produced by any of the assumptions not being true. Hence if an experiment designed to evaluate a particular hypothesis yields null result, we must discard the experiment as a failure but logically cannot confirm the invalidity of the hypothesis. Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. The hypothesis intended to be evaluated by MMX may be stated as, H1 : The speed of light is constant 'c' only in the 'aether fixed' absolute reference frame and will appear to be different for different observers in relative uniform motion. Accordingly it should be possible to measure the velocity 'v' of an observer or his local reference frame w.r.t. the aether fixed reference frame by measuring the speed of light in the observer's local frame. The MMX was primarily designed to measure the velocity 'v' of the observer's local frame (laboratory frame) with respect to the aether fixed absolute reference frame by accurate measurement of minute differences in the light paths of two perpendicular light beams. The minute difference in the two perpendicular light paths was further transformed to the difference in total phase of the light waves traversing the two perpendicular light paths. This difference in total phase was finally measured as a shift in the fringe pattern in the receiver interferometer when the MMX setup is rotated through a right angle. The explicit and implicit assumptions made in the design of MMX for testing the hypothesis H1 can be stated as, A1 : Speed of light in vacuum is not influenced by the state of motion of the emitter. A2 : Monochromatic light beam is fundamentally treated as a continuous wave phenomenon. The detailed emission process and interaction characteristics of individual photons do not influence the phase shift in different light paths of the MMX. A3 : Frequency and wavelength of light is not influenced by the state of motion of the emitter. A4 : Frequency of light does not change after reflection from mirrors in motion. Hence, frequency and wavelength of light in different light paths is not influenced by the state of motion of the MMX setup. The null result of MMX logically implies that, Either A1 False Or A2 False Or A3 False Or A4 False Or H1 False. Hence a null result of MMX can only be treated as a failed experiment without any implied inference regarding the success or failure of the main hypothesis under test. Same conclusion applies to all other MMX type experiments, designed to test Hypothesis H1, where the final outcome of the experiment is a null result. Therefore, we must consider the MMX to be a flawed experiment, the erroneous interpretation of which mislead the physics community on to a wrong track. To further elaborate this point, let us consider another hypothesis H2, which is similar to H1, and evaluate it through MMX type precision experiment. For this, let us assume a Pioneer type spacecraft P moving in the outer regions of our solar system. Let us further assume that the velocity v of this spacecraft, as measured in the Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) is constant and that the measure of time (UTC) is absolute (not relative) in this reference frame. As such let us frame the hypothesis H2 for evaluation through MMX type experiment as, H2 : The speed of light is constant 'c' only in the BCRF and will appear to be different for different observers in relative uniform motion. Accordingly it should be possible to measure the velocity 'v' of an observer or his local reference frame w.r.t. the BCRF by measuring the speed of light in the observer's local frame. Light is known to propagate 'naturally' in the vacuum, or free space or the physical space and there is no need to assume the existence of any 'aether' type hypothetical medium. Therefore, let us set up an MMX type precision experiment in the spacecraft P to measure its velocity v in the BCRF. All of the above mentioned assumptions A1 to A4 are also applicable for this MMX type experiment conducted within the moving spacecraft P. When this experiment is actually conducted , it yields a null result. Logically, how should this null result be interpreted? Definitely not by declaring the non-existence of BCRF or the non-existence of the physical space!! I invite the learned readers for detailed discussion of this issue. GSS > snip new imbecilities by Gurcharn Sandhu< Gurcharn Sandhu, You are still presententing your misunderstandings as facts. You just switched from previous idiocies to new ones. You are the same old idiot, Gurcharn GSS wrote on Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:13:25 -0800: > A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, an > appropriate experiment needs to be carefully designed and conducted. > In the design of an appropriate experiment for evaluation of certain > hypothesis, a number of assumptions are often required to be made. Some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all of these assumptions must be valid in the physical environment under > which the experiment is being conducted. This is a rather good part. Rest is not and was snipped.  Signaturehttp://www.canonicalscience.org/ >A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Therefore, we must consider the MMX to be a flawed experiment, You are full of sh.t. MMX was designed to measured the speed of light using the hypothesis that the Earth was moving through the aether. It failed because there is no aether. Either you are false or you are false. Dear GSS: ... > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. > The hypothesis intended to be evaluated by MMX [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reference frame by measuring the speed of light > in the observer's local frame. The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for "absolute" and no assumed handle on "absolute". A dragged aether, a Lorentz aether, and no aether all will yield an MMX null result. David A. Smith Dear GSS: ... > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. > The hypothesis intended to be evaluated by MMX [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reference frame by measuring the speed of light > in the observer's local frame. The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for "absolute" and no assumed handle on "absolute". A dragged aether, a Lorentz aether, and no aether all will yield an MMX null result. David A. Smith Sagnac doesn't have a null result, Smiffy. That rules out drugged cat, dragged other, dripped Lorentz and drooped Einstein, leaving only c+v and c-v. > The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter > propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for > "absolute" and no assumed handle on "absolute". No, it does not do that -- most of what you write are your personal conclusions, not facts from the experiment. Yes, many people make those same conclusions, but that does not make them facts, or "truth". What the MMX does show is that for their rotating apparatus on the surface of the earth, no fringe shifts are observed, to an accuracy of about 0.04 fringe. Similar, more recent experiments improve that result considerably. Those interested in doing science are invited to take their favorite theory and COMPUTE from it what fringe displacements the MMX should see, and compare to their result. This has been done for many theories: SR predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED Lorentz ether theory predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED A rigid aether theory predicts about 1.5 fringe shift -- REFUTED Emission/ballistic theories predict no shift -- CONFIRMED An earth-dragged aether theory predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED ... Of course this is just one experiment, and a valid theory must agree with the results of ALL experiments within its domain of applicability. For that, only SR and LET in the above list do so. > A dragged aether, a Lorentz aether, and no aether all will yield an > MMX null result. There are many other possibilities as well. For this one experiment. Tom Roberts Dear Tom Roberts: >> The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether >> through which matter propagates significantly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are your personal conclusions, not facts from the > experiment. Which is exactly what you proceed to do also, after telling me "no". > Yes, many people make those same conclusions, > but that does not make them facts, or "truth". [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > An earth-dragged aether theory predicts no shift -- > CONFIRMED Some of these calculations are available on the internet, and I have no doubt that Tom Roberts can perform said analyses and show the calculations. > ... > > Of course this is just one experiment, and a valid > theory must agree with the results of ALL experiments > within its domain of applicability. For that, only SR > and LET in the above list do so. Which is beyond the scope of this thread. >> A dragged aether, a Lorentz aether, and no aether >> all will yield an MMX null result. > > There are many other possibilities as well. For this > one experiment. David A. Smith > Dear Tom Roberts: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which is exactly what you proceed to do also, after telling me "no". Bravo! Go get the ignorant bigot, Smiffy. He's been running his nonsense for too many years. Smack him in the face. > Dear Tom Roberts: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > have no doubt that Tom Roberts can perform said analyses and show > the calculations. I am beginning to wonder if you can come up with real arguments. Uwe Hayek. SignatureAls ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd. -- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige. ... > > Some of these calculations are available on the > > internet, and I have no doubt that Tom Roberts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am beginning to wonder if you can come up with > real arguments. I am not at all worried about what your personal judgement of "real" might be. Knowing it will neither pay my bills, make me a better person, nor make me happier with my lot in life. David A. Smith >> The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter >> propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for >> "absolute" and no assumed handle on "absolute". > > No, it does not do that Yes, it does do that, shithead. > Those interested in doing science are invited to take their favorite > theory and COMPUTE from it what fringe displacements the MMX should see, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > There are many other possibilities as well. For this one experiment. Each experiment is a filter through which the priors of the universe of all possible theories are passed, resulting in modified posterior probabilities. It's hard to fathom the universe of possible theories, though at least it is limited by reproducing known limiting forms. That's what my armchair tells me. :-) > > The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter > > propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Tom Roberts Bravo Honest Roberts! Now pay special attention to the expression "WITHOUT RECOURSE TO CONTRACTING LENGTHS" in the explanation of Banesh Hoffmann, Divine Albert's apostle: 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." Do you know what "WITHOUT RECOURSE TO CONTRACTING LENGTHS" means, Honest Roberts? It means: Without destroying human rationality by introducing absurdities according to which a long train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn, a bug can be both dead and alive etc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search= http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com >> The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter >> propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A rigid aether theory predicts about 1.5 fringe shift -- REFUTED > Emission/ballistic theories predict no shift -- CONFIRMED Actually, I think that if the experiment is performed anywhere but on the equator, a very small fringe displacement might be expected due to a centrifugal acceleration component of the cross beam. I haven't calculated the magnitude. > An earth-dragged aether theory predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED > ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." >> The MMX shows *only* that there is no aether through which matter >> propagates significantly differently than light. No necessity for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > SR predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED > Lorentz ether theory predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED It is a small point of semantics but it is hard to see how a theory can *predict* the result of an experiment which pre-dates the theory. SR and LET were formulated to take account of the result of the MMX. Had Maxwell never existed it is perfectly possible that someone would have come up with the MMX in order to arbitrate between the two dominant theories of light i.e. the wave in aether theory and the light particle theory - the result was in favour of the light particle/emission type theory which did indeed 'predict' the null result. Physics preferred to find a 'fix' for Maxwell's wave in aether theory to explain why, when interpreted in terms of that theory, the MMX shows that apparently and observer has zero speed w.r.t the aether. Lorentz's theory explained it as an illusion brought about by distortion of measurement. Einstein never did explain it but his second postulate describes exactly what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience and uses the same distortions of Lorentz as mathematically described by the Lorentz transforms. While Maxwell's wave in aether theory was modified by Einstein (SR) so as to be consistent with the MMX it was at a high price, namely it required that mass space and time had to be redefined. Einstein identified no physical process which could distort mass space and time the distortion is simply assumed as the maths demand it. As Dingle said Maths became the master of physics instead of its proper role as its servant. The particle/emission type theory predicts the result of the MMX without any distortion of mass time or space but that option was simply ignored. SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable despite the fact that it had been shown that the waves of Maxwell's theory don't exist and no one now believes in the aether which is fundamental to the interpretation of the MMX the Einstein/Lorentz way, is fundamental to the assumption that the speed of the source could not affect the speed of light because it is controlled by the aether and is fundamental to Maxwell's theory in that it is a field theory - a field being the mapping of altered states in the aether. It is truly remarkable that with such a provenance physics ended up with the right theory on which to build a century of physics :^) SignatureJohn Kennaugh >> Those interested in doing science are invited to take their favorite >> theory and COMPUTE from it what fringe displacements the MMX should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is a small point of semantics but it is hard to see how a theory can > *predict* the result of an experiment which pre-dates the theory. That's just your personal ignorance of how words are used in modern science. When one applies a theory to the conditions of a particular measurement, the theory is said to predict the results of the measurement, because the results of the measurement are not used in obtaining the values the theory predicts should be seen. The theory has no dependence on history, so the computation could have been performed before the experiment; the actual historical order of theory and experiment are considered irrelevant. > SR and > LET were formulated to take account of the result of the MMX. Hmmm. They were formulated to account for a number of different experiments, of which the MMX was one. Their agreement with the kinematics of myriad particle experiments was certainly not input to their formulation; indeed a great majority of the many different experiments on my FAQ page were not known in 1905. > [... further speculations based on distorted history and physical ignorance] Tom Roberts >>> Those interested in doing science are invited to take their favorite >>> theory and COMPUTE from it what fringe displacements the MMX should [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That's just your personal ignorance of how words are used in modern science. I am aware of the liberties physics takes with language as in the phrase: "The BB theory predicts inflation, and the existence of dark energy and dark matter" which actually translates as: "The BB theory didn't work but we managed to patch it up by postulating inflation, dark energy, and dark matter when there was no actual evidence to suggest such things exist" :o) The fact that I am aware of the liberties taken does not mean I have to accept the bastardisation of the English language when it is totally unnecessary. >When one applies a theory to the conditions of a particular >measurement, the theory is said to predict the results of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> [... further speculations based on distorted history and physical > ignorance] Still in denial then? It is very easy to say it is distorted history but you ducked my question as to what else the second postulate was based on. The obvious basis, which was generally accepted at the time [1], was that the MMX had shown that an observer always has zero speed w.r.t. the aether. The second postulate simply describes what an observer station w.r.t the aether would experience. What is conclusive is the fact that while he goes to some length to justify his first postulate he adds the second without comment and doesn't even bother to define it in an unambiguous manner. It his later re-statement which does that. This shows that he assumed his readership would be 'in tune' with what he wrote and he did not have to spell it out. Where is your problem: 1/ The MMX was intended to measure the speed of an observer (on earth) relative to the aether. 2/ The result was that no motion w.r.t the aether was detected. 3/ The second postulate describes what an observer with no motion w.r.t the aether would experience. 4/ Einstein still supported the concept of aether 15 years later. Which of the above do you believe is incorrect? I appreciate that as a relativist you would prefer to believe that Einstein was a genius with an insight denied mere mortals and that his 2nd postulate condensed from the light shining out of his arse - but it didn't. It simply describes the general view that the MMX had shown every observer to be stationary w.r.t the aether. [1]"(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted." Sir Edmund Whittaker 'The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity" 1953 SignatureJohn Kennaugh On Dec 1, 5:04 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Those interested in doing science are invited to take their favorite > >>> theory and COMPUTE from it what fringe displacements the MMX should [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - An earth-dragged aether theory predicts no shift -- CONFIRMED Frame dragging was confirmmed Precession of a gyroscope. In the field of a body with angular momentum , a gyroscope at a distance r precesses with an angular velocity given by (G=c=1) where denotes the coefficient of frame dragging (1 in GR, in the PPN framework). For a gyroscope in a polar Earth orbit at 600 km altitude, the rate is 43 milliarcseconds (mas) per year. and I think it would be logical to assume it would be slightly less at the poles the Precision Spheres for Gravity Probe B Experiment (GP-B) proved your earth-dragged aether theory [snip] > The MMX was primarily designed to measure the velocity 'v' of the > observer's local frame (laboratory frame) with respect to the aether [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > receiver interferometer when the MMX setup is rotated through a right > angle. [snip crap] The Michelson-Morley experiment ran in 1887, sensitive to 10^(-8) relative. A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) relative employed two simultaneous interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia at 31°53'S 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest relative to both of them. http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 read it, stooopid. Null result. LIGO in Washington State and Louisiana (separated by 3,000 km) plus VIRGO, GEO 600, TAMA 300, MiniGRAIL; HFGW detectors at Birmingham University, England, INFN Genoa, Italy, Chongqing University, China... show no aether effects. > Hence a null result of MMX can only be treated as a failed experiment > without any implied inference regarding the success or failure of the > main hypothesis under test. [snip rest of crap] idiot > I invite the learned readers for detailed discussion of this issue. Screw your a.s into a chair and read the refereed literature. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > The Michelson-Morley experiment ran in 1887, sensitive to 10^(-8) > relative. A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) relative employed two > simultaneous interferometers over a year's observation: Optical in > Berlin, Germany at 52°31'N 13°20'E and microwave in Perth, Australia > at 31°53'S 115°53E. An aether background could never be at rest > relative to both of them. You actually meant the measurers cannot be both at rest with the stationary background of the Aether at any time. > http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031 > read it, stooopid. Null result. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > University, England, INFN Genoa, Italy, Chongqing University, China... > show no aether effects. The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michell’s model of light as classical particles with a mass. The psycho Andro is a great champion of that. Unfortunately, that does not explain electromagnetism. Keeping electromagnetism, so far, the only other suggestion is as what Voigt had proposed. That is an observed constant speed of light regardless how fast the observer is moving relative to anything. The mathematical proof is in the Voigt transform. However, also suggesting that the principle of relativity must be satisfied, the result is Lorentz transform which manifests the absurdity of the twin’s paradox. Voigt must have crossed out the possibility of the Lorentz transform in 1887. So, the MMX only proves the constancy in the speed of light. It does not prove the validity in the principle of relativity. Thus, the question of the existence of the Aether is still valid. > The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. > Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michell’s > model of light as classical particles with a mass. The psycho Andro > is a great champion of that. Unfortunately, that does not explain > electromagnetism. It is explicable by quantum electrodynamics. Velocity relative to the source has many other problems, the classical example being double stars. Double stars could never be seen if velocity were relative to the source. > Keeping electromagnetism, so far, the only other suggestion is as what > Voigt had proposed. That is an observed constant speed of light [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > absurdity of the twin’s paradox. Voigt must have crossed out the > possibility of the Lorentz transform in 1887. There is NO paradox one twin goes to a speed stops and then accelerates to a speed and stops. It is that twin that has aged less. > So, the MMX only proves the constancy in the speed of light. It does > not prove the validity in the principle of relativity. Thus, the > question of the existence of the Aether is still valid. But there is a lot of other information too. Every single force in the universe *including gravity) is affected in the same way. I seem to recall that we have had similar conversations in the past. Is part of your reason the fact that Obama has now been elected and could well look into CIA funding for things like antigravity? After WW2 the CIA completely swallowed Deusche Physik hook line and sinker, and never consulted anyone reputable. - Ian Parker >> The Michelson-Morley experiment ran in 1887, sensitive to 10^(-8) >> relative. A 2007 study sensitive to 10^(-16) relative employed two [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >not prove the validity in the principle of relativity. Thus, the >question of the existence of the Aether is still valid. The MMX proves the constancy of the speed of light throughout the apparatus frame. That is the only frame involved. The source light moves at c wrt every component of the interferometer no matter how it is orientated. This idea is taken straight out of the BaTh book. Like all light experiments the MMX fully supports the ballistic theory. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." > >The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. > >Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michell’s [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > frame. That is the only frame involved. The source light moves at c wrt every > component of the interferometer no matter how it is orientated. The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observer’s observation. In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means the actual speed of light waves relative to the absolute rest in the background of the medium which is the Aether. > This idea is taken straight out of the BaTh book. Like all light experiments > the MMX fully supports the ballistic theory. You are very correct. The MMX supports BaTh. However, the MMX also supports the Voigt and the Lorentz transforms and many others. The manifestation of the twin’s paradox should invalidate the Lorentz transform, and electromagnetism should invalidate BaTh. <shrug> > ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." Yes, however, the indoctrination of the crap with Einstein as the messiah is actually the least destructive of the lies in our educational system including history and sociology. <shrug> On Nov 22, 1:52 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > >The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. > >Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michell’s [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > every > component of the interferometer no matter how it is orientated. The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observer’s observation. In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means the actual speed of light waves relative to the absolute rest in the background of the medium which is the Aether. > This idea is taken straight out of the BaTh book. Like all light > experiments > the MMX fully supports the ballistic theory. You are very correct. The MMX supports BaTh. However, the MMX also supports the Voigt and the Lorentz transforms and many others. =============================================== You are very wrong. Sagnac supports Emission Fact. However, Sagnac also supports no other crank theories, you drooling moron. > >The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observer’s > >observation. In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are very wrong. Sagnac supports Emission Fact. Sagnac lack of effect does not support BaTh. In fact, Sagnac lack of effect does not suggest anything at all. > However, Sagnac > also supports no other crank theories, you drooling moron. Try again, moron. You are getting more schizophrenic. <shrug> On Nov 22, 8:27 pm, "Androcles" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" wrote: > >The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observer’s > >observation. In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are very wrong. Sagnac supports Emission Fact. Sagnac lack of effect does not support BaTh. In fact, Sagnac lack of effect does not suggest anything at all. ========================================= Fortunately ring laser gyroscopes do have an effect, even if Kinky Wobbly the bigot has a lack of effect. <shrug> Anyway, I said Emission Fact. BaTh is Wilson's crank theory about h-aether, unifuckation, Wilson's Wobbly Worbits and any other nonsense the dork wants to add. > >Sagnac lack of effect does not support BaTh. In fact, Sagnac lack of > >effect does not suggest anything at all. > > Fortunately ring laser gyroscopes do have an effect, even if > Kinky Wobbly the bigot has a lack of effect. <shrug> What is the effect again? > Anyway, I said Emission Fact. BaTh is Wilson's crank theory > about h-aether, unifuckation, Wilson's Wobbly Worbits and any > other nonsense the dork wants to add. So, you want to argue about how the 200-year-old conjecture in the ballistic nature of light is called. Well, you just have to straighten that out with your buddy Dr. Henri Wilson. I don’t discuss nor give a damn about nomenclatures. <shrug> On Nov 22, 10:02 pm, "Androcles" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" wrote: > >Sagnac lack of effect does not support BaTh. In fact, Sagnac lack of > >effect does not suggest anything at all. > > Fortunately ring laser gyroscopes do have an effect, even if > Kinky Wobbly the bigot has a lack of effect. <shrug> What is the effect again? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Same as it was when Sagnac first performed his experiment in 1913. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1033453/ring-laser-gyroscope > Anyway, I said Emission Fact. BaTh is Wilson's crank theory > about h-aether, unifuckation, Wilson's Wobbly Worbits and any > other nonsense the dork wants to add. So, you want to argue about how the 200-year-old conjecture in the ballistic nature of light is called. ============================================= Newton's corpuscles go back further than 200 years. Well, you just have to straighten that out with your buddy Dr. Henri Wilson. ============================================ I tried, he's a dumb bigot like you and Roberts. I don’t discuss nor give a damn about nomenclatures. <shrug> ============================================== Nor do I, but Wilson's crank theories are almost as bad as yours and Roberts'. He is at least partly right but can't do the geometry. The Sagnac effect, the relativity effect and the Shapiro effect are all one phenomenon, the Coriolis effect, so unless your crank aether turns with this carousel then it doesn't exist. <shrug> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > On Nov 22, 10:02 pm, "Androcles" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > with this carousel then it doesn't exist. <shrug> > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov The position of the interference fringes is dependent on the angular velocity of the setup. so A Sagnac interferometer measures its own angular velocity with respect to the local inertial frame; hence just as a gyroscope it can provide the reference for an inertial guidance system. But angular velocity changes depending on the experiment so the application of the experiment may change the outcome of the experiment. >> >The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. >> >Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michells [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observers >observation. Wrong. The constancy in the speed of light in post-SR era means observer brainwashing. The constancy in the speed of light has never been demonstrated as fact. In reality, variable star curves, which are the only known test of light speed from moving sources, indicate that light travels at c wrt its source and at an infinite number of speeds wrt the infinite number of observers. >In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means >the actual speed of light waves relative to the absolute rest in the >background of the medium which is the Aether. There is no single absolute aether. Where would it begin and end? There are however regions of space that behave like 'weak local aethers' in that they affect the speed of light traveling through. This does not imply that the LTs have any credibility. >> This idea is taken straight out of the BaTh book. Like all light experiments >> the MMX fully supports the ballistic theory. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The manifestation of the twins paradox should invalidate the Lorentz >transform, and electromagnetism should invalidate BaTh. <shrug> Why should it? >> ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." > >Yes, however, the indoctrination of the crap with Einstein as the >messiah is actually the least destructive of the lies in our >educational system including history and sociology. <shrug> I see you have caught the dreaded 'shrugs'. I didn't know they were contageous. You must have caught this incapacitating mental disease from Roberts. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." >>>>The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. >>>>Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michell’s [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > from moving sources, indicate that light travels at c wrt its source and at an > infinite number of speeds wrt the infinite number of observers. Henri, your lying about the experimental results does not change what has been measured. The constancy of the speed of light has been established. Bath has been shown to be wrong for a century. >>In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means >>the actual speed of light waves relative to the absolute rest in the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." > snip trolling Doug, relativity cannot live without your troll tactics... The relativist church expresses their gratitude >> snip trolling > >Doug, relativity cannot live without your troll tactics... > >The relativist church expresses their gratitude The EPG's sole aim is to waste the time of those who know Einsten was a hoaxer. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." >>>>>The null results of the MMX do not suggest an absence of the Aether. >>>>>Actually, the null results can easily be explained through Michells [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >has been measured. The constancy of the speed of light has been >established. Bath has been shown to be wrong for a century. Name one OWLS experiment from a moving source.....please don't mention those exploding pions again...that experiment is surely a joke.... >>>In pre-SR era, the constancy in the speed of light means >>>the actual speed of light waves relative to the absolute rest in the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." > A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > GSS By and large your general criticism is correct. But three comments: - An experiment is usually designed to test a particular theory A, and the most the experiment can do is demonstrate that theory A is wrong by showing a contrary result. If the result goes the other way, then the best that can be hoped for is that A draws some support, though not demonstrated correct. The test is of the theory A and all of the entrained assumptions that go with A, so you're right, if A is disproven by experiment, then this could mean that *any* of the entrained assumptions of A are incorrect. But the theory A includes all of those entrained assumptions, so that if any of them are excluded, then so is A. - Disproving a hypothesis A in no way proves another hypothesis B, as it is possible that there are several other hypotheses C, D, E that are compatible with the experimental result. - If you have additional variables or assumptions that don't have anything to do with the theory A, or if there are multiple alternative hypotheses B, C, D, E, then this is why complementary experiments are done to test the same physics principle but with different ancillary assumptions. For example, a null result with conditions A1, A2, A3 and H1 does indicate that any of those could have been wrong, but if you also have a null result with conditions A1, ~A2, A3, and H1, then you have narrowed down the possibilities. Likewise, A2 might be asserted by a completely different experiment, so that suggesting that ~A2 applies is already inconsistent with experiment. Bottom line is that NO SINGLE EXPERIMENT is *ever* used as confirmation of a theory. It is only the collected body of evidence from many experiments that increases the confidence of a theory to a high level. This is the problem with targeting relativity by proposing alternative explanations of the null result in the MMX. The fact is, relativity would stand just fine if the MMX had *never* happened. PD > ..... > > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. The hypothesis [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > By and large your general criticism is correct. But three comments: I appreciate your considered response. > - An experiment is usually designed to test a particular theory A, and > the most the experiment can do is demonstrate that theory A is wrong [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all of those entrained assumptions, so that if any of them are > excluded, then so is A. I generally agree with you. But two points: - 'A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.' - In the specific case under discussion, entrained assumptions are part of the experiment designed to test the hypothesis and are not part of the hypothesis. > - Disproving a hypothesis A in no way proves another hypothesis B, as > it is possible that there are several other hypotheses C, D, E that > are compatible with the experimental result. No, the point I am trying to convey is that whereas a positive outcome of an experimental test (designed for testing hypothesis A) will definitely prove the validity of hypothesis A, but the null result cannot be interpreted as definitely disproving hypothesis A. Similarly, any other hypothesis B, C or D can only be proved true through a positive outcome of appropriate experiment designed to test the same. A null result should logically be interpreted as a failed experiment without reflecting in any way on the hypothesis under test. > - If you have additional variables or assumptions that don't have > anything to do with the theory A, or if there are multiple alternative [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > by a completely different experiment, so that suggesting that ~A2 > applies is already inconsistent with experiment. You are right. > Bottom line is that NO SINGLE EXPERIMENT is *ever* used as > confirmation of a theory. It is only the collected body of evidence [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > PD So we agree that in view of the null result of MMX, we must discard it as a failed experiment without reflecting in any way on the hypothesis under test. Let us further hope that relativity would stand just as fine even without MMX. But what will happen if all the experimental tests with null resutls are similarly discarded? Finally may I request you to give your considered opinion on the following part of my original post. ..... > > Therefore, we must consider the MMX to be a flawed experiment, the > > erroneous interpretation of which mislead the physics community on to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > declaring the non-existence of BCRF or the non-existence of the > > physical space!! Do you agree that an MMX type experiment designed to test hypothesis H2 and conducted inside a Pioneer type spacecraft moving with velocity v in BCRF will also give a null result. If so why? GSS > So we agree that in view of the null result of MMX, we must discard it > as a failed experiment without reflecting in any way on the hypothesis > under test. No, imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu MMX disproved the possibility of detecting "absolute" motion wrt a "preferential" frame. > But what will happen if all the experimental > tests with null resutls are similarly discarded? They aren't , old fart. > > > Therefore, we must consider the MMX to be a flawed experiment, the > > > erroneous interpretation of which mislead the physics community on to > > > a wrong track. The opinion is that you are a stubborn imbecile, confined to posting to this nutter forum. > > > Therefore, let us set up an MMX type precision experiment in the > > > spacecraft P to measure its velocity v in the BCRF. This is not possible, persistent imbecile. > Do you agree that an MMX type experiment designed to test hypothesis > H2 and conducted inside a Pioneer type spacecraft moving with velocity > v in BCRF will also give a null result. If so why? > > GSS Because it contradicts the PoR, you cretin: "No experiment of any nature (electrmagnetic,mechanic,etc) can be constructed such as to detect the state of UNIFORM motion from WITHIN a closed system". You are an a.s , GSS. > > ..... > > > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. The hypothesis [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > > GSS Can we say that if there is an aether, it is not exactly the aether we were testing for? What about an aether through which not only everything travels, but out of which everything is made? A grid which is 'lit up' by energy at that point and simply reflects energy configurations at that point and at that instant? The idea of 'frame-dragging' implies an aether which is separate and distinct from matter and light which must then be furthermore constructed out of something else entirely (teensy-weensy particles so small as to be point-like, but distinct, I tell you, DISTINCT dammit! In spite of having no measurements, top, front, or side.- Wow, whose great idea was that?) \ John > > > ..... > > > > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. The hypothesis [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > type experiments, designed to test Hypothesis H1, where the final > > > > outcome of the experiment is a null result. ....... > Can we say that if there is an aether, it is not exactly > the aether we were testing for? If there is an aether, it implies a fixed background reference frame with respect to which the speed of light is a universal constant 'c'. In the MMX type experiments we are not exactly testing for an aether but we are testing for such a fixed background reference frame in which the speed of light is constant 'c'. Such a fixed background reference frame could be associated with MBR type fixed background or it could be associated with physical space in which the permittivity eps_0 and permeability mu_0 control the magnitude of 'c'. However, such a fixed reference frame, which we may call Universal Reference Frame, can only be distinguished from all other inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, if the speed of light is found to be different for different observers in relative uniform motion. In that case, it should be possible to measure the velocity 'v' of an observer or his local reference frame w.r.t. the Universal Reference Frame by measuring the speed of light in the observer's local frame. This is precisely the main hypothesis which was intended to be tested by MMX. However, most people usually regard it as the 'aether hypothesis'. The null result of MMX was interpreted as a confirmation of the invalidity of this hypothesis. Thereafter the hypothesis itself was abandoned through second postulate of relativity. The crux of my original post is to show that in view of various explicit and implicit assumptions associated with the MMX test, it is logically wrong to confirm the invalidity of this hypothesis based on the null result of MMX. That is because the invalidity of any of the associated assumptions could also produce the null result in MMX. This position does not change even if the MMX or any of its sophisticated variant is repeated thousands of times to produce the same null result. Logically what is required to be done under the circumstances is to discard the MMX type experiments as 'failed' and to redesign a fresh test with reduced number of associated assumptions to test the said hypothesis. Further we don't need to use aether to define a Universal Reference Frame. http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf > What about an aether through which not only > everything travels, but out of which everything > is made? A grid which is 'lit up' by energy > at that point and simply reflects > energy configurations at that point and at > that instant? Yes, that is the physical space with measurable properties of permittivity eps_0 and permeability mu_0. All forms of matter and fields can be viewed as space-time distortions or dynamic deformations in the physical space continuum. http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html GSS > If there is an aether, it implies a fixed background reference frame > with respect to which the speed of light is a universal constant 'c'. Right. But there isn't any aether so the "if" doesn't apply. > In the MMX type experiments we are not exactly testing for an aether > but we are testing for such a fixed background reference frame in > which the speed of light is constant 'c'. Wrong. MMX was designed to measure the speed of light. > Such a fixed background > reference frame could be associated with MBR type fixed background or > it could be associated with physical space in which the permittivity > eps_0 and permeability mu_0 control the magnitude of 'c'. They don't exist. > However, > such a fixed reference frame, which we may call Universal Reference > Frame, can only be distinguished from all other inertial reference > frames in relative uniform motion, if the speed of light is found to > be different for different observers in relative uniform motion. Which is easily done from blue and red shift. In > that case, it should be possible to measure the velocity 'v' of an > observer or his local reference frame w.r.t. the Universal Reference > Frame by measuring the speed of light in the observer's local frame. Yeah... here we are zipping along around the Sun measuring blue and red shift from which we find v. > This is precisely the main hypothesis which was intended to be tested > by MMX. No it wasn't, v was known and Michelson wanted the value of c. However, most people usually regard it as the 'aether > hypothesis'. The null result of MMX was interpreted as a confirmation > of the invalidity of this hypothesis. Thereafter the hypothesis itself > was abandoned through second postulate of relativity. No, it was abandoned. Einstein's idiot crap has nothing to do with it. > The crux of my original post is to show that in view of various > explicit and implicit assumptions associated with the MMX test, it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > variant is repeated thousands of times to produce the same null > result. Sagnac does NOT produce a null result, so that's your stupid argument kicked in the can. > Logically what is required Try using it. > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf Gurcharn Sandhu Stop trying to push your idiotic "book". No one gives a sh.t about your crackpot ideas. Dear Dono: ... > Stop trying to push your idiotic "book". No one > gives a sh.t about your crackpot ideas. If the pages were soft enough, one could use it for emergency toilet paper? David A. Smith On Nov 22, 11:35 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Dono: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > David A. Smith Absolutely ! > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stop trying to push your idiotic "book". No one gives a sh.t about > your crackpot ideas. Why are you getting scared of a "book" which is not even published as yet? In any case that book is not meant for you because it is far far beyond your demonstrated understanding capabilities. Whenever my book titled "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields" gets published (expected early next year) I will definitely push for the publicity of that book and also discuss the points raised by the readers in discussion forums. I am also aware that most people who are already indoctrinated in the Relativity will not like such a book. The book is therefore intended for use by students, research scholars and intellectuals with an open mind to explore the fundamental reality of Nature. "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the highest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy I know you can never understand or accept even the simplest and most obvious truth. But can you please, 'for heaven's sake' stop being an ugly nuisance on these news groups? GSS > > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf > > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why are you getting scared of a "book" which is not even published as > yet? I am not "scared". I despise your pushing sh.t as science. > In any case that book is not meant for you because it is far far > beyond your demonstrated understanding capabilities. I agree, I know much more relativity than you ever will, old fart. > Whenever my book titled "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields" gets > published (expected early next year) You mean self-published, right? There are many more cranks like you who pay to have their sh.t "published". Problem is, no one will read your "book" > I will definitely push for the > publicity of that book You already are pushing. Problem is, your "book" is a pile of cow dung. >...and also discuss the points raised by the > readers in discussion forums. You are doing this as well. Problem is, you don't know relativity. The "book" and your posts show it. > I am also aware that most people who are already indoctrinated in the > Relativity will not like such a book. Yes, we piss on it :-) > The book is therefore intended > for use by students, research scholars and intellectuals with an open > mind to explore the fundamental reality of Nature. Stop deluding yourself, no one will buy your sh.t. > I know you can never understand or accept even the simplest and most > obvious truth. But can you please, 'for heaven's sake' stop being an > ugly nuisance on these news groups? > > GSS GSS you are more like an a.s :-) > > > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf > > > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am not "scared". I despise your pushing sh.t as science. He IS scared... > > In any case that book is not meant for you because it is far far > > beyond your demonstrated understanding capabilities. > > I agree, I know much more relativity than you ever will, old fart. He does NOT. > > Whenever my book titled "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields" gets > > published (expected early next year) > > You mean self-published, right? There are many more cranks like you > who pay to have their sh.t "published". Problem is, no one will read > your "book" Not the dingleberries. Religious fanatics only read their own propaganda. > > I will definitely push for the > > publicity of that book > > You already are pushing. Problem is, your "book" is a pile of cow > dung. Is that where Dono is sitting now? > >...and also discuss the points raised by the > > readers in discussion forums. > > You are doing this as well. Problem is, you don't know relativity. The > "book" and your posts show it. Only those who BELIEVE relativity KNOW relativity, thus spake the relativity priest. > > I am also aware that most people who are already indoctrinated in the > > Relativity will not like such a book. > > Yes, we piss on it :-) You mean you trickle on it... > > The book is therefore intended > > for use by students, research scholars and intellectuals with an open > > mind to explore the fundamental reality of Nature. > > Stop deluding yourself, no one will buy your sh.t. No one buys your sh.t either. > > I know you can never understand or accept even the simplest and most > > obvious truth. But can you please, 'for heaven's sake' stop being an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GSS you are more like an a.s :-) Dono more like Dodo (the dumb bird) > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf > >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stop trying to push your idiotic "book". No one gives a sh.t about > your crackpot ideas. Aether fixed reference frame Like the way you describe that but I agree that the aether is never truly fixed or void of mass less particles or particles with kinetic mass or waves so the true speed of light is dependant on the medium in witch it travels stability and that’s not the case for all of space so I believe the speed changes slightly with respect to the conditions and properties like dialectic constant, resistance and other properties of the aether, do you agree people. >> >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter4.pdf >> >http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/book_chapter5.pdf [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >and properties like dialectic constant, resistance and other >properties of the aether, do you agree people. Ah! at last somebody else has woken up. Light experiences very small speed changes as it travels through regions of space that possess different physical properties. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ......."Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse." [...] >> - Disproving a hypothesis A in no way proves another hypothesis B, as >> it is possible that there are several other hypotheses C, D, E that >> are compatible with the experimental result. Indeed. > No, the point I am trying to convey is that whereas a positive outcome > of an experimental test (designed for testing hypothesis A) will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the same. A null result should logically be interpreted as a failed > experiment without reflecting in any way on the hypothesis under test. Sorry to say, but I can hardly imagine a statement on this topic that is more wrong than that. As PD so patiently and tactfully explained (to a deaf man's ears!): - MMX tested hypothesis A, which predicted a positive result. The predicted result did not occur ("null") despite the fact that the experiment was sufficiently well performed to a sufficent degree of precison so that the experimental disagreement with prediction was beyond doubt. The logical conclusion, based on the assumption that the test results were reliable, was that hypothesis A was wrong or "disproved". The results have been confirmed by numerous follow-up experiments. - As should have been clear from PD's explanation above, one positive result can NOT "prove" a hypothesis A if it at also could "prove" an incompatible hypotheses B. For example, MMX was compatible with SRT AND with ballistic emission theory; it did NOT prove BOTH. I hope it's clear now - I didn't intend to read or reply this, but it was just too much! Cheers, Harald > A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an implication of a null result is often misplaced and wrong. Let us > examine why. It simply is not possible to test or refute a single hypothesis. One must test an entire theory. The various hypotheses that go into a given theory are not separable, and one must use them all to form the theory, then use the theory to predict the outcome of experimental tests, then compare. (There can, of course, be many theories that share one particular hypothesis but differ in others.) This is how science works. Blathering on an and about "positive result" and "null result" is just silly. What matters is how the results of the experiment compare to the predictions of the theory. Of course a single experiment can be used to test many theories. And of course a good theory will be tested by many experiments (for example, see my FAQ page on the hundreds of tests of SR). > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. Your "logic" is faulty, so there's no point in doing that. It's much better to do science than whatever it is you are trying to do. > the point I am trying to convey is that whereas a positive outcome > of an experimental test (designed for testing hypothesis A) will > definitely prove the validity of hypothesis A, but the null result > cannot be interpreted as definitely disproving hypothesis A. This is more nonsense. One must compare the experimental results to the predictions of the theory. You cannot "test" individual hypotheses, you can only test THEORIES. All your attempts to separate out a single hypothesis actually include a number of other hypotheses to enable you to compare them to the experiment -- you are actually testing a bunch of ill-defined ad-hoc THEORIES you concocted on the spot (without realizing what else you are assuming), not the "single hypotheses" you claim. > any other hypothesis B, C or D can only be proved true > through a positive outcome of appropriate experiment designed to test > the same. A null result should logically be interpreted as a failed > experiment without reflecting in any way on the hypothesis under test. Still more nonsense. If the theory predicts zero fringe shift, and the experiment observes zero fringe shift, this is a SUCCESS FOR THE THEORY, not a "failed experiment". Such experiments can MOST DEFINITELY refute other theories which predict nonzero values when zero is observed. Of course one must apply an error analysis; and for null results an experiment more properly gives an upper limit, not just "zero". It simply is not possible to "prove" anything in science; science is neither math nor logic. Scientific theories are not "true" or "false", and can never be "proved"; they can be valid or invalid, or have a limited domain of applicability; they can definitely be refuted. But never "proved true". You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. Tom Roberts On Nov 21, 7:13 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > > A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > This is how science works. Postscientism works in this way, Honest Roberts. Philosophers of science dealing with axiomatic (deductive) systems have devised what may be called the hat-of-the-magician model of science. Einstein: "Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so called axioms." The problem is that "building up logically" is taken to constitute the interior of the hat of a magician where you put ties which are then turned to rabbits. Then Popper only worries when a wolf rather than a rabbit jumps out of the hat, Feyerabend vindicates the existence of the hat in a world where "anything goes" etc. The magician is free to rearrange the interior of the hat so that always rabbits and never wolfs jump out of it. Fortunately, this type of "science" is dying. Unfortunately, true science is not likely to be restored. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com > A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit > requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > null result, we must discard the experiment as a failure but logically > cannot confirm the invalidity of the hypothesis. It is astonishing to note that the learned readers have neither refuted nor agreed with the logic of my argument regarding the *interpretation* of test results of any hypothesis with associated set of assumptions. Some readers have construed the essence of of my argument to imply a direct attack on Relativity (hornet's nest). They have responded with characteristic 'blah..blah'. Some other readers have construed my arguments to imply an attempt at reviving the monster (in their view) of aether. They have also responded with characteristic 'blah, blah'. Whereas I firmly believe that most readers have understood the logic of my argument, yet they appear to be unwilling to accept it. "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the highest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy Let us consider the background of scientific thought as prevailing at the close of 19th century when none of the relativity theories were propounded yet. Let me also make it clear that the term 'aether wind' used at that time merely implied a 'relative speed' between the 'aether fixed reference frame' and the observer's local reference frame. I therefore, once again request the learned readers to offer their opinion on the specific points raised in the original post. > Let us now apply this logic to the null result of MMX. The hypothesis > intended to be evaluated by MMX may be stated as, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reference frame w.r.t. the aether fixed reference frame by measuring > the speed of light in the observer's local frame. However, at that time it was not practically feasible to measure the change in one way speed of light in relation to the motion of the observer. Therefore, in the Michelson-Morley experiment a novel technique was innovated to detect this change. As per this innovative design of MMX the light propagation times in two perpendicular light paths ware expected to be functions of v/c where v is the speed of the observer (or his local reference frame) and c is the speed of light in the aether fixed reference frame. Specifically (for v<<c), the difference in light propagation times along two perpendicular light paths, was calculated to be, dt = (D/c).(v^2/c^2) ....... (1) where D is the distance from the beam splitter to each of the reflecting mirrors. > The MMX was primarily designed to measure the velocity 'v' of the > observer's local frame (laboratory frame) with respect to the aether [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > receiver interferometer when the MMX setup is rotated through a right > angle. If the frequency of monochromatic light used in MMX is f, then the difference in phase shift in the light beams, traversing the two perpendicular light paths, is obtained from (1) as, d.phi = 2pi.f.(D/c).(v^2/c^2) ....... (2) > The explicit and implicit assumptions made in the design of MMX for > testing the hypothesis H1 can be stated as, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > type experiments, designed to test Hypothesis H1, where the final > outcome of the experiment is a null result. I don't think any learned reader will disagree with such a simple logical argument. > Therefore, we must consider the MMX to be a flawed experiment, the > erroneous interpretation of which mislead the physics community on to > a wrong track. Here it is possible that many learned readers may disagree with my opinion and may like to assert that physics community has not been mislead on to a wrong track. If so we can discuss this point. >To further elaborate this point, let us consider > another hypothesis H2, which is similar to H1, and evaluate it through [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > physical space and there is no need to assume the existence of any > 'aether' type hypothetical medium. Here I think it must be very very difficult for most readers to compare the BCRF with an aether fixed reference frame where the speed of light is assumed to be constant 'c'. If an MMX type experiment is conducted either in an aether fixed reference frame or in BCRF, the difference in phase shift between two light beams reaching the receiver after traversing two perpendicular light paths, will be the same as given by equation (2). > Therefore, let us set up an MMX type precision experiment in the > spacecraft P to measure its velocity v in the BCRF. All of the above [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I invite the learned readers for detailed discussion of this issue. I wonder if there is any learned reader willing to discuss this issue in detail. I am not asking for a discussion of either the validity of relativity theories or the existence of the 'dreaded' aether. I am just asking for the discussion of the *interpretation* of an MMX type experiment conducted first in an aether fixed reference frame and then in a spacecraft moving in BCRF. How should we *interpret* the null result of an MMX type experiment conducted in a Pioneer type spacecraft known to be moving with speed v in BCRF??? GSS > snip regurgitated imbecilities< Gurcharn Sandhu, Go trolling elsewhere, old fart. >> A scientific hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit >> requires evaluation. For proper scientific evaluation of hypothesis, >I don't think any learned reader will disagree with such a simple >logical argument. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >opinion and may like to assert that physics community has not been >mislead on to a wrong track. If so we can discuss this point. >GSS The MMX was more futile than flawed... Aether theories were still fashionable at the tiime and the experiment would have worked well if an absolute aether actually existed. The emission theory of Walter Ritz was also wrongly cast aside on false evidence. The explanation of the null result is trivial. Since all components are MAR, light from the source moves around the whole apparatus at c no matter what the orientation. The travel times for the two paths are always identical. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ..... |
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.