Re: MMX and Zeno


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear riedt1:
>
> <riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1115260480.086176.321060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> ...
> >> > I believe Zeno thought about the
> >> > problem of objects moving in the same
> >> > direction with differing speeds.
> >>
> >> No need to "think"... *know*
> >> URL:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
> >> <QUOTE>
> >> The Achilles: The slower will never be overtaken
> >> by the quicker, for that which is pursuing must
> >> first reach the point from which that which is
> >> fleeing started, so that the slower must always
> >> be some distance ahead.
> >> <END QUOTE>
> >> Note how, though it talks about differing speeds,
> >> it doesn't describe the fact that interference is
> >> seen.
> ...
> >> Not likely. No one at that time expected c to
> >> be finite, to the best of my knowledge. Which
> >> would leave c+v = c-v = c, as you well know.
> >
> > Zeno did know that any faster speed will
> > overtake any slower speed despite your quote
> > above.
>
> Infinite, plus or minus a smidgen is still infinite. Nothing
> overtakes anything else for Zeno, or your "common sense".
>
> > My example of c and v applies to light and
> > the velocity of the earth which of course
> > were not known to him but if we use a
> > (speed of arrow) and t (speed of target)
> > instead, the same relationships (a+t and
> > a-t) applies. It is no different from the logic
> > of c+v and c-v. Addition and subtraction
> > of velocities is universal and has the same
> > logic in respect of light and all moving objects.
>
> I disagree. Experimentally, it is quite clear that either c+v =
> c = c-v where light is involved, or our instrumentation is
> distorted by Lorentz' aether to achieve these exact results.
> Your assertion of "universality" of addition of velocity is
> unsubstantiated. If I am moving wrt to you, I don't get the same
> value for v of a third moving body that you do.
>
> It isn't about what "Peter is sure of". It is about what has
> been experimentally verified.
>
> David A. Smith

David, it appears that you accept Zeno's postulate in his paradox that
the quicker cannot catch the slower. However if you conduct a million
experiments, the arrow will always hit or overtake a target moving at a
slower speed, subject of course that the force applied to the bow is
sufficient. Zeno's logic is contradicted by experiment. This
demonstrates that his logic is faulty. No amount or complexity of
mathematics can prove faulty logic. Here we have a parallel with MMX.
The result of the MMX experiment contradicts the outcome predicted by
the logic offered by Michelson and Morley. Again the logic is faulty
and no amount of fancy footwork such as Lorentz's contraction can prove
the faulty logic of MMX.

Now about c and v. The speed of light is constant but the time from the
source to the target is subject to the motion of the target just as the
time of the arrow to its moving target is subject to the motion of the
target. An example: Achilles aims at a target which moves away from him
at 3m/sec. When the target is 150m from Achilles, he releases the arrow
which travels at 18m/sec towards the target. The effective speed of the
arrow is 15m/sec ie a-t = 18m/sec-3m/sec. The arrow will impact in 10
seconds. We will ignore any loss of speed from friction and gravity or
the possibility that Achilles is a lousy shot.

Now let us apply this logic to MMX. The distance between the
halfsilvered mirror A and mirror B at the end of the parallel arm is AB
= 10m, v = 300000km/sec and c is 30km/sec. The effective speed of light
is therefore c-v = 299970km/sec. Mirrors A and B will always be 10m
apart but the distance light has to cover from the time it leaves A to
its impact on the receding mirror B is AB', a distance greater than AB.
The increase in distance has been compensated for by proportionally
decreasing the constant speed of light to an effective speed. On the
return journey the reverse applies ie the effective speed of light is
c+v = 300030km/sec. I have used the term 'motion adjusted distance' to
describe this process.

Peter Riedt

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >nothing to do with distance. ... It is much like moving in the x-axis direction ... >the speed of light is much faster than the speed of the target that means ... >The first photon will have to travel a full two light-second to reach the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >nothing to do with distance. ... It is much like moving in the x-axis direction ... >the speed of light is much faster than the speed of the target that means ... >The first photon will have to travel a full two light-second to reach the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... a> photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its ... The front of the wave is always the front ... as emitted from the moving source. ... its not the case that after emissions one wave speeds up and the other slows down. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. ... waves, isn't it? ... photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic ... what the distance 'vt' is for different rotational speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Questions (Space)
    ... and visualize something moving exactly that speed. ... With other things, I look at either more time, or more distance (or more ... driving speeds. ... Zero point sounds like a cool term for in a sci-fi ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)