Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.

On May 26, 8:24�am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On May 26, 2:33 am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:

Your thinking is so muddled that your equations are
meaningless. �Before you can do the maths you have to
be clear what the variables stand for.

Lorentz ether theory is the one I never studied. �I can guess at what
Lorentz was saying, but I have never gone through the mathematics,
which I have done with Einstein's special theory of relativity. �I am
a lot more clear about what the variables stand for than you are. �As
Einstein described his theory, there was a set of coordinates taken to
be at rest which he called K. �There was a set of coordinates in
motion relative to K which he called K'. �In the case of the Michelson-
Morley experiment, the interferometer would be K'. �So if you want to
know what K represents, I would say it represents the frame of
reference of the sun or whatever source of light there is.

The sun?!! Why the sun? �M and M use a local light
source, I believe a sodium lamp.

The
interferometer was taken to have a velocity of v relative to K. �What
did you think v in the Lorentz equations meant?

The Lorentz transformations are use to transform
measurements made in one frame of reference to those
made in another. �V is the relative velocity between
the two frames.

The MMX was performed in a cellar. �The light source,
the rest of the experimental setup, and M and M
themselves were all in the same frame of reference.

In other words, according Einsteins theory, there is
only one frame of refernce needed in the MMX. �Of
course, M and M were hoping to find evidence of an
aether frame, but they found none.

I could not tell you about what happened in the basement. All I know
is that in Einstein's explanation of it, he used two frames of
reference. He said K is a frame of reference at rest, K' is a frame
of reference in motion. Here are the Galilean transformation
equations. They do not work. Here are the Lorentz equations. They
show light to be traveling at c in both frames of reference.
Now according to Einstein, K' is traveling with a velocity of v
relative to K. So you claim all of this took place in Michelson's
basement, and there was only one frame of reference. Why do you
suppose that Lorentz said that the arm of the interferometer was
shortened in the direction of motion?
According to you, Michelson was not moving, Morley was not moving,
the interferometer was not moving, the light source was not moving,
and the basement was not moving. So why did Einstein say that K' was
moving relative to K? Why did Lorentz say the arm was shortened?
Are you accusing Einstein and Lorentz of lying?
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Twin paradox wikipedia version
    ... I just watched the twin paradox demonstration at ... imply that the space-ship is moving in its own frame. ... If one actually applies the Lorentz Transformations graphically to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: HUBBLE Observations - The Age of the Universe - Continued:
    ... moving away does not move ... Multiple frames of space-time reference are a sure thing, ... Treating one relative frame ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... from the frame of reference. ... what the Lorentz transform predicts. ... The Lorentz transform expresses the S'coordinates of an event ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... reference, just as it is in SR. ... all frame of reference. ... anisotropy wrt moving objects because when you combine 'true' velocities ... in Lorentz trnasforms .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... The Lorentz Ether Theory is not an active theory. ... inertial frames moving in the ether have the same ... the absolute frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading