Re: Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result

On Sep 10, 2:11 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Sep 10, 1:25 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 8:23 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result

The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) produced a null result. An
expected fringe shift did not occur. To explain the absence of the
phase shift, Lorentz postulated a contraction of the parallel arm of
the interferometer equipment used in the experiment as well as a
reduction in clock rates (time dilation) proportional to its speed
through space. The substance of the Lorentz contraction theory
(alternative 1) is represented by the following (Lorentz)
transforms:

x’=x*sqrt(1-vv/cc) [parallel arm contracts]
y’=y [perpendicular arm unaffected]
z’=z [vertical dimension unaffected]
t’=t/sqrt(1-vv/cc) [time dilation, clock rate decrease]

The null result can also be explained by an expansion of the
perpendicular arm. The reasoning is the following: If the lengths of
the parallel and perpendicular arms are unequal but are required to
be equal to allow the transit of light in an equal time, they can
be made so by a contraction of the parallel arm (choice of Lorentz,
alternative 1) or an expansion of the perpendicular arm (alternative
2). Expansion of the perpendicular arm gives the following
transforms:

x’=x [parallel arm unaffected]
y’=y*sqrt(1+vv/cc) [perpendicular arm expands]
z’=z [vertical dimension unaffected]
t’=t/sqrt(1+vv/cc) [time contraction, clock rate increase]

Length contraction and width expansion are equally justifiable.
Their effects in respect of the null result of MMX are equivalent
and indistinguishable. Lorentz used a minus sign in his formulas
(1-vv/cc) and applied contraction to the parallel arm. If the minus
sign is replaced by a plus sign (1+vv/cc) and expansion applied to
the perpendicular arm, the outcome is the same null result – no
phase shift.

A third choice exists (alternative 3). If both parallel arm
contraction and perpendicular arm expansion occur at the same time
in the correct ratio then the outcome is also the null result as
observed in the other scenarios.

However, none of the three alternatives can reasonably be accepted
as the true reason for the null result of the experiment. The true
reason is quite different and does not involve contraction or
expansion at all.

Peter Riedt

Peter, the support for relativity is not centered on one experiment.
Finding alternative explanations for the MMX result does not change
one whit the results from other experiments completely independent of
the MMX. The power of relativity is that it explains, with one model,
the results of dozens of experiments (and in fact predicted the
results of the experiments before they were done).

Now, you can take a piecemeal approach and come up with alternative
explanations for each and every experiment that supports relativity.
And in the end you will have 60 or 70 alternative explanations for 30
or 40 different experiments. But you will not be able to find a
*single* alternative model that explains the results of all 30 or 40
experiments. Relativity explains all of them with one model. To find
a competitive alternative model, you need a single model that
explains *all* those experimental findings.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

PD,
SR is based on the MMX experiment and the train example of AE which is
a verbal explanation of MMX. The AE explanation has been brilliantly
demolished by Spaceman using another train scenario in this thread. If
Lorentz had at least three alternatives to choose the logic of his
contraction conjecture from and all had an equal justification to
explain the null result of MMX, which one was the correct one? In my
opinion, not one of the three has a higher degree of correctness over
the others and therefore none of them can be used to explain the null
result. If there are other experiments to prove contraction and time
dilation it is like stating the answer first and then looking for the
question.

Dear Peter Riedt,
Thanks for the compliment,
But, you are wasting "time" if you think PD will understand logic
anymore, he has been brainwashed beyond help and still refuses
to learn how a clock works so he would then understand what
time truly is, an abstract (counting method) of motion of a mass.

Anyone that does not get that a traveling observer that was gone
for 10 yrs according to the "at home" clock/observer was actually
gone for 10 yrs.
The entire Universe agrees to that "10 yrs of the traveling person
being away.
The fact is, and the universe agrees with me.
The clock malfunctioned.
When the clocks malfunctions are removed, great things like
GPS work and paradox problems go away.
The calculations that are used in GPS are wonderful, but they are
based upon a false assumption, that time changed rate when simply
the clocks are malfunctioning.
All sorts of paradox bologna is removed from science when
you learn the clock malfunctioned.
But for some, this is against thier religion or just to simple for
such complex brainwashed brains to understand.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Nothing in nature malfunctions. It is only our
interpretations/beliefs/theories that do.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast