Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result

On Sep 10, 9:16*pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Peter Riedt skrev:

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.

Indeed.
The simple explanation is that the speed of light is isotropic,
and nothing is contracting or expanding.

Bravo Clever Andersen, you have finally understood the hint made by
Banesh Hoffmann, Divine Albert's Apostle, many years ago:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

But that is not the end of your education, Clever Andersen. You still
believe that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), showing how the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V, is wrong:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ab189dc1bb91b

No Clever Andersen, Einsteins 1911 equation is not wrong because it is
the only equation consistent with the gravitational redshift factor
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT factor."

Pentcho Valev