Re: The true crackpots


PD wrote:
> mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> >
> > > > > > My point was to find a way showing that SR length contraction is due
> > > > > > to the falseness of SR, but sorry, I was complicating the issue, which
> > > > > > is rather simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You recognized that SR would say that the time along each arm is
> > > > > > given by dividing by c the length of the arm:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I'm comfortable with that. The constancy of the speed of light is
> > > > > > taken as an unproven postulate in SR. The fact that the time along each
> > > > > > arm
> > > > > > is L/c immediately follows. Moreover, the experimental predictions of
> > > > > > SR all hold up. I therefore have no reason to doubt the postulate."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to SR, the arm measures shorter in terms of a frame S
> > > > > > relatively to which it is moving with velocity v than it does in
> > > > > > the frame S' of the interferometer in which it is at rest, the
> > > > > > ratio of shortening being sqrt(1-v^/c^2).
> > > > > > If its length is L0 in the interferometer, it becomes
> > > > > > L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^/c^2) according to frame S.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the time along each arm L0/c or L/c?
> > > > >
> > > > > I suppose that depends on what frame of reference you are looking at.
> > > > > In the frame in which the interferometer is at rest, it is L0/c. Why?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > HaHaHa! You are eluding the issue. Of course, I meant the frame S wrt
> > > > which the interferometer is moving! Your response was intentionally
> > > > incomplete!
> > > >
> > >
> > > In a frame in which the interferometer is moving, the length of the
> > > interferometer arm is measured to be L0*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> >
> > According to SR.
>
> Yes, indeed, that's what you asked for.
>
> >
> > > The time for transit, however, is not L/c. This is because in this
> > > frame, the speed of light is c and the arm is moving. If I'm watching a
> > > plane of length D go by with speed v, and I measure the speed of a
> > > sound signal in this frame to be S, then the time that it takes for the
> > > signal to get from the back of the plane to the front of the plane is
> > > not D/S.
> >
> > *According to you*, the pilpul Master.
> > Everybody will agree that "...in this frame, the speed of light
> > is c and the arm is moving.".
> > But don't confuse sound with light!
>
> I'm not. The difference between sound and light is that, in yet another
> frame of reference, the speed of sound would not be S. However the
> speed of light would still be c.
>
> >
> > *According to SR*, the speed of light is independent from
> > the motions of its source and of the observer. Iow, for the S observer,
> >
> > it is independent from the velocity of the interferometer,
>
> Yes.
>
> > hence
> > the transit time of light along the arm which is parallel to
> > the x,x'-axis is L0*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/c, if one believes in the
> > SR length contraction.
>
> No. That's not what SR says. Marcel, it appears your disbelief of SR is
> based on misunderstanding what SR says.
>
> > But for the arm, which is perpendicular to the
> > velocity vector, the transit time is L0/c, because no length
> > contraction
> > occurs, again *according to SR*.
>
> You're right, there's no length contraction of the perpendicular arm in
> the moving frame, but that isn't the time of flight as measured in the
> frame where the perpendicular arm is moving. The distance the light
> travels is not L0 in this frame.
> Exercise: Someone is crossing a 25-ft wide road at 3 mph. As measured
> in the frame of reference of someone riding in a car going along the
> road at 30 mph, what is the distance the pedestrian covers in getting
> from one side of the street to the other? (Hint: It's not 25 ft.)
>

You went back to Galilean relativity! In SR, the velocity of the
pedestrian is always 300000 km/s, that of the car is irrelevant.

> > Conclusively, the transit times of the light waves being different
> > along the two arms, a fringe shift should be observed, which is not
> > the case. Hence, the MMX proves the non-existence of length contraction
> > and moreover falsifies SR.
>
> Sorry, you just haven't figured out what SR says the time of transit is
> in *either* arm as measured in the frame where the interferometer is
> moving.
>
> >
> > Remember that the SR length contraction has been put forward by SRists
> > to explain the null result of the MMX, but those SRists forgot their
> > own postulates.
> >
> > PD (Paul Draper?), don't behave like a SR crackpot!
>
> You asked what SR says, and I told you. You made some claims about what
> SR says, and claimed that this shows that SR is internally
> inconsistent; I told you that this is not what SR says. Whether I
> believe SR is immaterial. Whether you are representing SR correctly is
> completely material.
>
> PD

If SR didn't predict length contraction, the S observer, relatively to
whom the interferometer is moving, would rightly claim that no fringe
shift can occur, simply because light speed is constant according to
SR.
But SR, via the "position" LT, predicts that the length of one arm will
generally be shorter than that of the other arm, hence S should
generally observe a fringe shift.
As no shift occurs, S would rightly conclude that SR is false.

Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light Sources Simultaneously in Multiple Frames of Reference
    ... Both beams are effected by the 'aether' if such exists. ... The LENGTH contraction does not effect that arm. ... analysis utilizing a Michelson interferometer and Einstein's ... I have proposed that a hypothetical moving frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... >> I gave you evidence that length contraction is a proven phenomenon. ... Let's call S the "ether" frame, and S' the interferometer frame. ... The arm of the interferometer, which is parallel to the x,x'-axis ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... If you analyse it from a frame that is at rest, ... Hence we analyze from a relatively moving frame. ... >> and the tubes are of different lengths. ... > in wavelengths along the arm remains exactly the same. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... >>> the transit time of light along the arm which is parallel to ... >> the moving frame, but that isn't the time of flight as measured in the ... >> frame where the perpendicular arm is moving. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation
    ... The arm of the interferometer, which is parallel to the x,x'-axis ... You mean the *relative* velocity along the X-axis as measured in S ... chosen frame of measurement. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)