MICHELSON-MORLEY NULL RESULT AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Surfer wrote:
Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
the MMX data.
The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576

They did that by IGNORING the errorbars that are inherent when averaging
data. Those errorbars greatly exceed the "signal" they claim. See
Appendix I of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 .


But Cahill can claim eight
non-vacuum experiments as showing absolute motion.

He, too, ignores the errorbars. See the above paper for a discussion of
Miller's results, on which his entire house of cards is built. The
errorbars shown for Miller's published results are unassailable, and
show there is no significant signal in Miller's results. This also
applies to many of the other experiments he quotes, INCLUDING HIS OWN,
and Cahill's claimed "experimental confirmation" falls.


His analysis of gas mode MM experiments produced remarkably consistent
results. I am not sure it could do that if it was junk.

Sure it can: when data are over-averaged one can find whatever one is
looking for in the data, just as children can find faces in clouds [#].
Finding them does NOT show they are significant, one needs an error
analysis to do that, and Cahill simply does not have a clue. Ditto for
Consoli and Costanzo, and Allais, and Munera, and all the other members
of the "there is a real signal here" cult.

Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts. But you failed to mention the "MM
experiment shows the speed of light is constant and Divine Albert is
right" cult, that is, Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking (the
former Albert Einstein of our generation): "Both Mitchell and Laplace
thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls,
that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the
star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson
and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of
one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it
came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall
back."

Fortunately there are relativists cleverer and somewhat more honest
than you Roberts Roberts who give the real meaning of the null result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...215696-6072004
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

The essence of Banesh Hoffmann's text: The Michelson-Morley null
result shows that the speed of light obeys Newton's particle model of
light, that is, that the speed of light varies with the relative speed
of the light source and the observer (c'=c+v). It also shows that one
should not introduce length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz
transformations and other related idiocies and destroy human
rationality, as Einstein criminal cult have done.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant. MMX disproved the existence of a classical aether ..
it was unerlated to emission theory and proves nothing about that. Nor does
it prove a constant speed of light in all inertial FoR.

However, Emission theory fails other observations where SR predicts the
observed results.

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity", knowing it CONTRADICTS the light postulate, is
irrelevant? I think this is more than relevant.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity",

It neither supports it nor contradicts it. MMs on its own, as I understand,
measures two-light in two orthogonal directions and shows them to be the
same. it doesn't really say anything about light speed in different
relatively moving inertial frames of reference.

knowing it CONTRADICTS the light postulate

How?

is irrelevant? I think this is more than relevant.

Show why.

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity",

It neither supports it nor contradicts it. MMs on its own, as I understand,

You don't understand.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity",

It neither supports it nor contradicts it. MMs on its own, as I
understand,

You don't understand.

Better than you, it seems.

So .. please answer the part of my post you dishonestly snipped .. in what
way do you suppose the MMX contradicts SR?

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity",

It neither supports it nor contradicts it. MMs on its own, as I
understand,

You don't understand.

Better than you, it seems.

So .. please answer the part of my post you dishonestly snipped .. in what
way do you suppose the MMX contradicts SR?

In an obvious way. You should ask Master John Norton, not me. He
wrote:

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

I can only add that if the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully
compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light
postulate, then the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate.
Is my thought deep enough?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
[...]


So .. please answer the part of my post you dishonestly snipped .. in
what
way do you suppose the MMX contradicts SR?

In an obvious way. You should ask Master John Norton, not me. He
wrote:

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

I can only add that if the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully
compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light
postulate, then the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate.
Is my thought deep enough?

Pentcho Valev

This newsgroup is full with logical errors, it's big fun!

I'll spell it out for you:

- "Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory
of light that contradicts the light postulate":
TRUE (assuming that the error bars were sufficiently large)
- "Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with SRT":
JUST AS TRUE

Now, in what way do you suppose the MMX contradicts SR?

Harald

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeckyl wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for
the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

True but irrelevant.

That Einstein criminal cult have taught for a century that
Michelson-
Morley experiment is "support for the light postulate of special
relativity",

It neither supports it nor contradicts it. MMs on its own, as I
understand,

You don't understand.

Better than you, it seems.

So .. please answer the part of my post you dishonestly snipped .. in
what
way do you suppose the MMX contradicts SR?

In an obvious way.

A non anser .. I shouldn't have expected anything better

You should ask Master John Norton, not me. He wrote:

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

And is fully compatible with SR .. it does NOT contradict it, moron.

I can only add that if the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully
compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light
postulate, then the Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate.
Is my thought deep enough?

Nowhere near .. perhaps a little thought on your part instead of your weird
obsession might help.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Surfer wrote:
Consoli & Costanzo also extracted a clear signal from
the MMX data.
The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576

They did that by IGNORING the errorbars that are inherent when averaging
data. Those errorbars greatly exceed the "signal" they claim. See
Appendix I of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 .


But Cahill can claim eight
non-vacuum experiments as showing absolute motion.

He, too, ignores the errorbars. See the above paper for a discussion of
Miller's results, on which his entire house of cards is built. The
errorbars shown for Miller's published results are unassailable, and
show there is no significant signal in Miller's results. This also
applies to many of the other experiments he quotes, INCLUDING HIS OWN,
and Cahill's claimed "experimental confirmation" falls.


His analysis of gas mode MM experiments produced remarkably consistent
results. I am not sure it could do that if it was junk.

Sure it can: when data are over-averaged one can find whatever one is
looking for in the data, just as children can find faces in clouds [#].
Finding them does NOT show they are significant, one needs an error
analysis to do that, and Cahill simply does not have a clue. Ditto for
Consoli and Costanzo, and Allais, and Munera, and all the other members
of the "there is a real signal here" cult.

Absolutely correct Roberts Roberts. But you failed to mention the "MM
experiment shows the speed of light is constant and Divine Albert is
right" cult, that is, Einstein criminal cult:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking (the
former Albert Einstein of our generation): "Both Mitchell and Laplace
thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls,
that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the
star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson
and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of
one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it
came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall
back."

Fortunately there are relativists cleverer and somewhat more honest
than you Roberts Roberts who give the real meaning of the null result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence
for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers [that is,
Einstein criminal cult] almost universally use it as support for the
light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...215696-6072004
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

The essence of Banesh Hoffmann's text: The Michelson-Morley null
result shows that the speed of light obeys Newton's particle model of
light, that is, that the speed of light varies with the relative speed
of the light source and the observer (c'=c+v). It also shows that one
should not introduce length contraction, time dilation, Lorentz
transformations and other related idiocies and destroy human
rationality, as Einstein criminal cult have done.

An interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment that is even sillier
than Stephen Hawking's:

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/Fre...FreeTimes.html
"THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE OF LAWRENCE KRAUSS....Lawrence Maxwell Krauss
is a theoretical astrophysicist, and you're going to hear from him, if
you haven't already.....He fires off opinion pieces to the fancier op-
ed pages in the Republic whenever he thinks he has something to offer
(which is often), and makes the occasional Aspen saloon crawl with
buddy Stephen (A Brief History of Time) Hawking.....In 1887, with
backing from Alexander Graham Bell, chemist Edward Morley and
physicist Albert Michelson decided to test a pillar of Newtonian
physics namely, that light moved at varying speeds, depending on its
direction. They placed a pile of optical equipment on a stone slab
floating over 200 pounds of mercury to prove that the speed of light
was constant. The experiment, Einstein wrote later, "showed that
physics could not only be explained, but served as an essential basis
for modern concepts of space and time." When he actually clocked the
speed of light, Michelson received the Nobel Prize."

Having proved, through the Michelson-Morley experiment, that the speed
of light is constant, the self-same Lawrence Krauss is going to
contribute to the old story in which Einstein's biggest blunder is not
so big etc.:

http://www.nyas.org/snc/calendarDeta...207:00:00%20PM

Pentcho Valev