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

On Jan 21, 6:51 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Eric: [by the numbers] (1.) Google doesn't allow using
italics. Since I wished to emphasize that one sentence, my only
option was to capitalize it. (2.) Congratulations; you are trying!
However, you have missed "catching" the most important distinction
between a path length variation in ONE arm caused by the PHYSICAL
micro-adjustment of the location of a mirror, or the target; and: A
light path length change that KEEPS all of the 'designed' apparatus
dimensions.

How could the latter case vary the path length, and still have ZERO
physical change in the designed layout of the optics? VERY SIMPLE!
Because M-M was an Earth-mounted experiment, the changing velocity
component of the Earth [depending on the hour of the day; season of
the year; movement of the Sun about the galactic center; movement of
the Sun in our neighboring star grouping; movement of the Milky Way in
our galaxy's cluster; and... the supposed movement of 'everything' away
from... the Big Bang event point (sic)] ALSO affects the velocity of the
M-M apparatus, itself.

When light is in transit from the source to a mirror, the location of
that mirror, as a 'destination', CHANGES depending on the Earth's
velocity component at that particular instant. Suppose that light
does have only velocity 'c'. If it takes x amount of time to cover
the 'designed' apparatus length (in a single axis), then it will take
x + delta if the apparatus is moving away from the light source; and x
- delta if the apparatus is moving toward the light source. The value
of delta can be calculated using simple algebra. Measure (via
interference) or assume an Earth velocity and use such value to
compute how far the mirror will move while the supposed 'c'-velocity-
light is in transit to it. Once you know how far the mirror or target
has moved, then you can calculate how much additional time is required
to get there--which is your delta.

A unique aspect of the two tee-shaped light courses in M-M is that
they are asymmetrical. And the two axes have portions that are common
for each. For example: the last leg heading toward the target. I
have calculated the total time for each course to circuit the
apparatus from source to target and find that the 'assumption' that
'c' is constant doesn't yield equal times of arrival. Those were the
same 'logic' calculations performed by Michelson and others--that
didn't work for them, either! Because those calculations didn't
explain the failed results of M-M, Lorentz and FitzGerald concocted
their 'contraction' factor Beta: (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2.

Amazingly, not a single person before yours truly, NoEinstein,
actually 'did the math' and plotted the arrival times USING the
Lorentz transformation! When I did, the arrival times are no were
close to being the same! The simple reason: The supposed contraction
factor beta must have a DIFFERENT value for each light course while
traveling over the SAME portion of stone! That's because one light
course can have 'two legs' on a single axis, while the other light
course, simultaneously, has only 'one leg' on that same axis.
Obviously, the velocity component isn't going to affect both light
courses in the same way, so the arrival times vary widely. And if
they HAD varied widely, hundreds of interference changes would have
been observed! But since none were observed, then, light velocity
cannot be "only" 'c', and L-F can't explain the nil results!

The most easy to visualize, and devastating invalidation of Lorentz-
FitzGerald is that it is a 'contraction factor' only. In order for
any physical change in the apparatus--due to velocity alone--to have
'explained' the nil results of M-M, that factor would have to become
am "expansion" factor for the 180 degrees of apparatus rotation in
which the Earth's velocity component is ADDITIVE. And such would
require that all objects experiencing an additive velocity STRETCH in
length to infinity at velocity 'c'! Haahahaha! Quote me on this: "L-
F was just a supposed 'law of nature' batted about over BEERS, and
everyone just said: Yeah, that could explain it." In the last
century, no one before NoEinstein has done the math! If and when
physicists get off of their pompous asses and do-the-math, then their
past idiocy will become the stuff for the history books!

(3.) Yes, I do! The M-M apparatus includes a micro adjustment
screw. When Michelson measured the length of the 'official' meter
stick, he incrementally moved such using a spacer block which he had
previously calculated the length of via interference. By adjusting
his micro screw to move the meter stick an amount equal to the
precision spacer, he could count how many increments of the spacer he
needed. Then, he could use his micro adjustment screw to measure the
amount above the combined multiples of his spacer.

(4.) Absolutely! That is... unless the velocity of the light 'c'
always gets increased or decreased to match the additive or
subtractive Earth velocity component. I tested that most intuitive
assumption [intuitive, because that's what 'sound' does],
mathematically, and found it to be TRUE! When both the light source--
which can be either the light itself, or the re emission or
'reflection'--and the perpendicular mirror or target toward which it is
aimed are moving with identical velocity components, the time for the
light to travel such distance is exactly the same as if the apparatus
isn't moving at all!

The last sentence is my 4th Law of Light. The light speeds up and
slows down, but because the distances the light must travel increase
or decrease EXACTLY proportionately, there will always be zero fringe
changes evident in M-M! So, no L-F factors were or are needed--because
the intuitive hypothesis explains everything! Things would be so
different in science IF there had been a physicist in the last 100
years who knew his ass from a hole in the ground.

(5.) Eric, when you try to reach conclusions based on your own
misunderstanding of spatial, and other issues, it is you who err, not
me. -- NoEinstein --

However, when James Clerk Maxwell proposed to Michelson that his
interferometer, when rotated, might be able to detect velocity
changes... that was something his instrument, by its design, was NOT
suited to detect. INTERFEROMETERS THAT CAN DETECT PHYSICAL
LENGTH CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUITED TO DETECT
VELOCITY CHANGES! Why?

For the same reason I don't think what you have to say is more
truthful or even important because you put it in capital letters? (1.)
If the velocity of light was different along the respective arms, the
path lengths the light took would be different and there would be
phase shifts. (2.) It really isn't that complicated.
Velocity detection is a race of two photons (actually a train of
photons) to circuit the entire instrument; and races are TIME(D)
events. Whereas, length change in one arm isn't a timed event at
all. It is just a gradual adjustment of the length of one arm and
observing the phase shifts as the length changes--by letting the light
course that doesn't change length act as the control.

It doesn't matter if the length change is a "gradual adjustment" -
something you have no evidence for - or not. (3.) A change in length means
there will be phase shifts. (4.)
If the points of reference on each of the two light beams always
circuit the interferometer in the same amount of TIME, regardless of
the instrument's orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector, then
it is because the instrument, for the purpose of velocity detection,
has no CONTROL. I've explained all of this to you in various ways,
before. But you just won't listen, or you just can't read. I think
history will show where stupidity lies. -- NoEinstein --

Actually I think history will completely ignore you. Your inane
whining on USENET is indistinguishable from the inane whining of every
other crank that has had delusions about relativity. You are not
special in any way. (5.)
__________
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When did we establish...
    ... it doesn't need a change in velocity. ... The MMX ... >> have detected a difference in light speed as the apparatus rotated. ... > explained with a rigid aether. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Ree: Relativitys Binaric Universe
    ... As soon as the Entire Frame is under acceleration (velocity variation) ... > As well as Acceleration Interference, ... > All the Universe's Physics and all Relativity's Spacetime Dimensions ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)