NO SIGN OF ETHER DRIFT: WHY?

http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
the ether theory:

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 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."

Which explanation would have been more correct?

Pentcho Valev

On 13 nov, 08:13, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
perpendicular to the ether drift
Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
the ether theory:

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 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."

Which explanation would have been more correct?

Pentcho Valev

"Which explanation would have been more correct?"
une française explication des fois,
Dis nous CLAIREMENT, si qui pourrait justifier le maintien
de l'éther ...

Alain

Dear Pentcho Valev:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
had been less prejudiced in favour of the ether theory:

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 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."

You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Which explanation would have been more correct?

None of the above. Since it is only a challenge to Maxwell's
equations. As you know the "light postulate" was redundant to
"the laws of physics"... inclusive of Maxwell.

By the way, if no experiment can differentiate between
"perspective" and "aether", then the question itself is a
nonsequitur.

The emission / ballistic theories get into trouble when (for
example) starlight is used in MMX, or when the Moon is used for a
shutter for high-z objects.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...

: The emission / ballistic theories get into trouble when (for
: example) starlight is used in MMX, or when the Moon is used for a
: shutter for high-z objects.
:
Baloney. Emission Fact cannot "get into trouble", only
crackpot theorists get into trouble.

On 13 Nov, 15:15, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:
Dear Pentcho Valev:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
had been less prejudiced in favour of the ether theory:

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 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."

You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
No aether

http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/a
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Nov 13, 6:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:15, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:
....
You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so
consequently the motion of light was conformed
to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic,
zombie become professor.

Since I research what I post, I assume you are referring to your self
as a zombie. Whay would you want to be a professor?

David A. Smith

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev wrote:
: [snip crap]
:
: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
: http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
: http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
: No aether
:
: http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
: http://physicsweb.org/a
: No Lorentz violation
: --
: Uncle Al
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
: (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
No brain

On Nov 13, 8:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:15, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:





Dear Pentcho Valev:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
had been less prejudiced in favour of the ether theory:

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 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."

You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.

Pentcho Valev

I wasn't aware that you were a professor. A professor of what,
exactly?

On 13 nov, 22:43, Igor wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:39 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On 13 Nov, 15:15, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:

Dear Pentcho Valev:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether
drift (= motion of ether with respect to earth). Many
failed attempts to detect ether drift, one of the most
famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
(1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
Explanation: compensating effect: length of
interferometer arm changes as it rotates: parallel to
ether drift it is shorter than perpendicular to the ether
drift. Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an
object moving with a velocity v through the ether
contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
direction of motion."

Another explanation that essentially could have
been advanced by FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they
had been less prejudiced in favour of the ether theory:

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 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."

You forgot:
- the aether was dragged by the Earth, and so consequently the
motion of light was conformed to the motion of the Earth.

Zombie know, zombie say, zombie kill heretic, zombie become professor.

Pentcho Valev

I wasn't aware that you were a professor. A professor of what,
exactly?- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

*************************
Un professeur de pâte à physique...

Al1