WHAT MICHELSON AND MORLEY REALLY PROVED

On Apr 30, 1:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

Alternatively, one can assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

Conclusion: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

Pentcho Valev




Idiot

The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Now the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be EQUAL, in conformity with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

This means that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed that the speed of light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. Of course Einsteinians are free to start singing "Divine Einstein" and explain why, after 1887, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" had to be involved in the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
news:5904813.3403.1335763266650.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbki8...
The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the
standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then
calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for
the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the
direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in
contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are
EQUAL.

My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially
assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

==============================================
Trivial. Covered in

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS

_______________________________

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1. Jan 1965

_____________________________

Evidence Against Emission Theories

J.G. Fox

Einsteiniana's blatant lies:

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement. Autrement dit, la lumière n'obéit pas à la loi d'additivité des vitesses de la cinématique newtonienne (héritée de Galilée). Or la cinématique est l'étude des mouvements de la matière libre de toute interaction, et qui ne dépendent donc que des propriétés de l'espace et du temps. L'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière entraînait donc une remise en cause des notions newtoniennes de temps et d'espace absolus, ce qu'Einstein fut le premier à reconnaître pleinement."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 30, 3:59*am, "Androcles" :00pm wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

news:5904813.3403.1335763266650.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbki8...
The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the
standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then
calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for
the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the
direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in
contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are
EQUAL.

My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially
assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

c * (d /c) = :-)
c * c = :-(

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...t=d irectlink