Re: michelson morley experiment


<vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145464525.282141.314530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

[snip]

We are evidently talking past each other. This has nothing to do with
SRT and the frame in the experiment is the not the ECI frame, it is in
the frame of the Earth's surface. The comment I made in the previous
post was only an analogy to HK and GPS and aether theories which use an
ECI frame. That was only relative to a positing a reason why
terrestial light does not have aberration. Do you accept that
terrestial light does not have aberration (in the reference frame of
the Earth's surface), and if so, why do you believe there is no
aberration, when all light should exibit aberration.

Sorry to have to respond to my own post, but obviously the above
paragraph of Message No. 36 is in error as I was in a hurry and I have
taken some time to try to think the experiment through from the
standpoint of reference frames.

That's great, I could have saved myself time by immediately looking at this
posting of yours.

The experiment is based on the
assumption that when a laser pulse is in the air between the source and
target, the target continues to move along with the Earth in the
essentially linear motion of the Solar System towards the constellation
Leo. The target will have moved about 4 inches before the pulse hits
it. So the reference frame for the whole experiment is the CMBR frame.

OK

Does the target move in the reference frame of the Earth's surface in
the time the pulse is in the air? I guess the answer is "no" because
both the source and target are stationary during the length of time
starting when the pulse is fired from the source and ending when the
pulse hits the target in the reference frame of the Earth's surface.

Right - apart of a negligibly small rotation.

But that can't be used as a reason that there is no aberration of
terrestial light, since in the reference frame of the CMBR, the Earth
is moving and that resulting aberration of terrestial light should be
evident in any experiment using light on the surface of the Earth.

What do you think needs to abberate, and why? What makes you think that the
light should change its course when it exists the laser? (Note how the path
inside the laser is when mapped to the CMBR frame).

Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: michelson morley experiment
    ... that does not involve MMX concepts, SRT, length contraction, ... isotropic (the CMBR frame). ... there is aberration of terrestial light. ... asked Tom for his explanation of why terrestial light is not aberrated ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
    ... I'm in an inertial frame. ... The moving observer measures the length of one pulse to be ... comprised of N photons, then either the spacing between photons must ... how a moving frame moving with V relative to a laser source measures ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
    ... I'm in an inertial frame. ... The moving observer measures the length of one pulse to be ... comprised of N photons, then either the spacing between photons must ... how a moving frame moving with V relative to a laser source measures ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
    ... I'm in an inertial frame. ... The moving observer measures the length of one pulse to be ... about the range of speeds my photon emitting device can have and the ... how a moving frame moving with V relative to a laser source measures ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... >> The observer is just changing his perspective of the pulses. ... >> first frame, or the frame he transfers to, see nothing different when ... > at exactly midway between the two observers,the first pulse would reach both ... It would support the theory of relativity and the wave ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)