Re: How to Replicate NoEinstein's M-M Invalidation (is Copyrighted.)


"none" <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote in message
news:13o8t2b50gvdi89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| NoEinstein wrote:
| > Are you good at algebra? Then, you might enjoy seeing if you can
| > replicate NoEinstein's invalidation of the historic 1887 Michelson-
| > Morley interferometer experiment. Such was seeking to measure Earth's
| > velocity and direction in the cosmos. When the experiment was first
| > conducted, it was assumed that there was an energy form called ether--
| > even in the vacuum of space. If, by chance, light traveling in the
| > direction of motion of the Earth was slowed in passing through the
| > ether, then, the velocity of the Earth could be determined by how much
| > the light's velocity had slowed. And the direction of motion of the
| > Earth would correspond to the azimuth of the maximum slowing. But no
| > interference phase changes were seen at any azimuth. So, the
| > experiment was a failure... Many, especially A. A. Michelson, were
| > miffed to understand why the experiment didn't work.
| > To have been a failure, the M-M experiment is considered by many
| > to be the greatest scientific experiment of all time.


| It was not a failure. It did not give the results that they were
| expecting but that means their assumptions were wrong.

It certainly was a failure, Michelson was attempting to measure
the speed of light, knowing the speed of Earth through the supposed
aether as he has been commissioned to do by the US Navy.
It was a success for science, though, and Michelson's own belief
in aether was shaken. The greatness of Michelson lies in him biting
the bullet and publishing the result that proved him wrong.
Later, in 1913, Sagnac repeated Michelson's experiment but
got a positive result by constant rotation of the apparatus,
proving that both Einstein and the aetherialists were wrong
and Ritz was right.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm

Einstein failed mathematics anyway, he was hopeless.


Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
Wanker Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton








| Such is because
| > the explanations of Lorentz and FitzGerald that "all matter contracts
| > in the direction of motion" became the basis for Einstein's theories
| > of relativity.
| > But what if matter doesn't contract in the direction of motion?
| > Of course those men, and Einstein, would be wrong. The author of this
| > post, NoEinstein--who has a background in structural design--didn't
| > believe that velocity could compress matter or make any structure or
| > material contract. But he had to find an alternative explanation for
| > WHY the experiment failed. His intuition told him that light, as with
| > sound, speeds up when shined in the direction of motion of the Earth,
| > and slows down when shined in the direction opposite to the Earth's
| > motion. Would those two assumptions--that were never considered by
| > others--yield negative results for the M-M experiment, and without
| > having to resort to... "contracting matter" due to velocity?
| Your assumptions which you claim no one else ever considered were
| exactly the assumptions that you claim to have invented. You should
| be careful or Androcles and Mr. Henri Wilson will be mad at you
| for "stealing" their ideas which they have been trying to sell on
| this group for years. Maybe Ken Seto also but no one is sure what
| it is he is really saying.
|
| > NoEinstein's simple algebraic disproofs, that he is hereby inviting
| > others to replicate, will require an above average ability to
| > visualize the M-M apparatus moving at various angles relative to
| > Earth's velocity vector.
| > Once emitted from the light source, those rays will race around
| > their individual, tee shaped, courses to be reflected by two mirrors--
| > one normal, or perpendicular; the other the 45 degree beamsplitter,
| > that reflects light at a 90 degree angle--till each light ray finally
| > arrives at the target. A wave (crest or valley) reaches the target as
| > a SINGLE timed event from emission to target. The next wave (crest or
| > valley) completes another timed event, identical to the former, but
| > has different values depending upon the azimuth to which the apparatus
| > is oriented, relative to the Earth's velocity vector. Each light ray
| > is actually a continuous TRAIN of evenly spaced photons of a single
| > frequency. The TIME required for a single photon in either train to
| > reach a mirror, or to reach the target, is the same as for any other
| > photon in that train.
| > So, to simplify understanding, assume that just TWO side-by-side
| > photons are simultaneously emitted from the source, each traveling its
| > own unique, tee shaped course to the target. A schematic diagram of
| > the Michelson-Morley experiment can be found in most encyclopedias, or
| > on the WEB. For consistency, assume that the light source is in the -
| > Y position on the crossed light paths; the 50% silvered, 45 degree
| > beamsplitter is at the origin of X-X & Y-Y, and reflects LEFT, or
| > toward -X, at the first reflection; perpendicular Mirror 1 is at +Y,
| > and is equidistant from the center of the beamsplitter; perpendicular
| > Mirror 2 is at -X, and is equidistant from the center of the
| > beamsplitter; and finally, the target surface is perpendicular at +X,
| > and is equidistant from the center of the 45 degree beamsplitter.
| > The light rays (or just those two photons) get to travel one of
| > two light courses. Course 1 is: Source, through the half-silvered
| > beamsplitter to Mirror 1; then, from Mirror 1 back to the 45 degree
| > beamsplitter; then, from the 45 degree beamsplitter to the target
| > (located on the front of the telescope). Course 2 is: Source to the
| > 45 degree beamsplitter; then, from such to Mirror 2; then, from Mirror
| > 2 the light reflects back through the half-silvered beamsplitter to
| > arrive at the same target on the front of the telescope.
| > For the results of M-M to be negative, two photons emitted at the
| > same instant from the source must reflect around their own tee shaped
| > light courses and arrive at the target in the exact same amount of
| > TIME regardless of the orientation of the apparatus relative to
| > Earth's velocity vector. Important note: While the photons are in
| > transit, the apparatus is constantly moving. The point of original
| > "aim" of the light is to cross the centerline of the 45 degree
| > mirror. The purpose of algebra is to calculate WHERE the 45 degree
| > mirror will be when the photons reflect from such. Algebra is also
| > needed to calculate how far each photon must travel to reach a given
| > moving mirror and the moving target. How fast are those moving? Of
| > course it depends upon the orientation relative to the velocity vector
| > of the Earth. There are 360 degrees of possible apparatus orientation
| > to consider. But first consider just the four orthogonal
| > orientations. Since there are two light courses, that means you must
| > do eight algebraic calculations of the TIME to the target; and do
| > eight accrued algebraic calculations of the total distance the light
| > must travel. Done correctly, the TIME calculations will all be the
| > same, while the DISTANCE calculations will be longer or shorter than
| > the measured size of the apparatus.
| > Consider that each of the four legs of each course is length
| > unity, or 1. To simplify calculations, assume that the velocity of
| > light c, also, is unity or 1. And assume that Earth's velocity is .01
| > (of c), and that the apparatus will move a maximum of .01 in the time
| > it takes a photon to travel just one leg of the four legs to the
| > target (as measured when at rest). Re read the above while looking at
| > a schematic diagram of M-M. Most Important: Remember that the
| > apparatus is MOVING while the photons are in transit to a particular
| > mirror, or to the target. Check your algebra for each orientation
| > before considering the next orientation (90 degrees clockwise or
| > counterclockwise as you wish). Good luck to everyone!
| Now we get to the part where we expect you to do the simple calculations
| which "proves" your case. You did not do them but they prove you
| are wrong or perhaps you cannot do them.
|
| >
| > Respectfully submitted, -- NoEinstein --
| >
| > Other posts of mine may be accessed by clicking my "profile".
| > __________

.

Relevant Pages
Loading