Re: MMX and Zeno

Dear riedt1:

<riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1115514249.382076.312490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear riedt1:
>>
>> <riedt1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1115434544.998598.44640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > 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, it appears that you accept Zeno's
>> > postulate in his paradox that the quicker
>> > cannot catch the slower.
>>
>> I do not. I do agree that nothing can catch
>> light, however. And light from a moving
>> source moves just as fast as light from a
>> source that is stationary wrt me.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Have you read any real references to
>> Zeno? He was making a point *against*
>> a certain type of argument. "Zeno's logic"
>> is exactly like you strain to point out.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> It wasn't "offered by" them. It was a
>> belief already held en masse.
>>
>> > Again the logic is faulty
>> > and no amount of fancy footwork such
>> > as Lorentz's contraction can prove
>> > the faulty logic of MMX.
>>
>> MMX set out to determine the difference
>> between c_upwind and c_crosswind,
>> or c_downwind and c_crosswind. Your
>> assertions of "c+v" and "c-v" don't apply
>> to MMX, since the source and detector
>> are in the same frame. Your logic is
>> broken.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> NOT "just as". Since nothing can be
>> faster than light, this means that light is
>> not "plus or minus". An arrow can always
>> be outpaced by an arrow launched with a
>> stronger pull. Light cannot outrun itself.
>>
>> ...
>> > 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.
>>
>> How about reversing those last two?
>>
>> > The effective speed of light
>> > is therefore c-v = 299970km/sec.
>>
>> No. c is always "300000" (or whatever
>> approximation you wish to use). The
>> source, the mirror, and "distance AB"
>> (which is established by light and time)
>> all have the same velocity v. Light
>> always travels at c for any inertial frame.
>>
>> > 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 mirror isn't receding. Distance AB
>> is not altered (unless you wish to
>> consider Lorentz aether). The system
>> "internally stationary", even if you are not.
>>
>> > The increase in distance has been
>> > compensated for by proportionally
>> > decreasing the constant speed of
>> > light to an effective speed.
>>
>> "Incorrectly compensated", yes.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> All parts of the MMX apparatus have 0
>> net speed between them, except for the
>> light. Your argument is a dull thud.
>
> David, let me congratulate you on your
> extraordinary grasp of the complexities
> of MMX

It was done more than 100 years ago, and still struggled over by
those that "don't get it".

> which must have led you to the
> insight that the solution produced by
> Lorentz and accepted by Einstein is a
> fallacy.

Not at all. The insight I achieved is that there is no way to
tell whether "simple" SR or LET is correct.

> Your understanding that the
> perpendicular arm and the parallel arm of
> the MMX apparatus are and always
> remain of the same physical length
> regardless of any motion through space

No. In the apparatus' frame, the arms do not change length. One
can insist on SR's version, that length contraction is an
"optical illusion", or one can use LET and say that the apparatus
changes shape with c. No experiment can be constructed to
differentiate between them.

> and that the speed of light also
> remains always the same supports
> the contention that the time taken by
> light to travel upwind and downwind
> is exactly equal to the time taken
> by light to travel twice crosswind.
> Why then all the fuss about
> contraction?

Because experiment cannot disallow it. In fact experiment will
certify it. But whether it is "illusion" or "c-moderated
forces", we cannot say.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MMX and Zeno
    ... >>> logic in respect of light and all moving objects. ... > Here we have a parallel with MMX. ... > A and mirror B at the end of the parallel ... The source, the mirror, and "distance AB" (which is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX and Zeno
    ... >> overtake a target moving at a slower speed, ... >> Here we have a parallel with MMX. ... >> A and mirror B at the end of the parallel ... The source, the mirror, and "distance AB" (which is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... MMX is a good example to explain it. ... interferometer used in MMX is attached to the earth. ... The distance between beam splitter and mirror is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of light is c or c+v or c-v depending on the motion of the target
    ... MMX is a good example to explain it. ... interferometer used in MMX is attached to the earth. ... The distance between beam splitter and mirror is 11m ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: =?windows-1252?Q?Riedt=92s_Anisotropic_Light_Formula?=
    ... MMX is isotropic. ... If they don't you must adjust the length of a groove until they do. ... explanation by Lorentz. ... Since you also believe that contraction is not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading