A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 3rd 09, 09:22 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

Scenario:

We are in 1887 (that is, before any ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses have
been devised) and we are to adopt one of the following two statements:

(1) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes the
hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the
light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein) and
confirms the hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the
speed of the light source.

(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein) and
refutes the hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the
speed of the light source.

Clever Einsteinians know that (1) is correct, (2) is wrong.

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old February 3rd 09, 09:43 AM posted to sci.astro
ukastronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,184
Default Valev still running away from simple questions

On 3 Feb, 08:22, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.


  #3  
Old February 3rd 09, 12:57 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
SolomonW[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:

(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)



Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source.


actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
could not explain it.
  #4  
Old February 3rd 09, 03:31 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro,fr.sci.physique
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

On Feb 3, 1:57*pm, SolomonW wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:
(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)


Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source.

actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
could not explain it.


The hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source is the only one acceptable in 1887, due to the
dominance of the aether theory (that is why Michelson and Morley are
so "stunned" with their result). In the 18th century its antithesis -
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - is
the only one acceptable, due to the dominance of Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton’s dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that ‘a body-light’, as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range ‘refringent’ force of the corpuscular theory of light —
which is part of the Principia— but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton’s theory of gravitation. The fact
that the ‘mass’ of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724–1793), Robert Blair (1748–1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776–
1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786–1853) were to do at the end of the
18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton’s dynamics. Actually this ‘completed’ Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner’s calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of — but also the questions raised by— the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler’s effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton’s Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n’y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l’observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n’y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement – quant à sa
trajectoire – qu’une particule matérielle. Il n’y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie
newtonienne ?......Un corpuscule lumineux est soumis à la force
gravitationnelle de l’étoile qui l’a émis : il voit donc sa vitesse
peu à peu diminuée.....Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
l’optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
est infiniment plus intéressante – et plus utile pédagogiquement – que
le long cheminement qu’a imposé l’éther."

Pentcho Valev

  #5  
Old February 3rd 09, 03:41 PM posted to sci.astro
ukastronomy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,184
Default Valev still refusing to answer the most basic of questions.

On 3 Feb, 14:31, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.


  #6  
Old February 3rd 09, 05:15 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Androcles[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887


"SolomonW" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:

(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)



Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source.


Einstein's lack of 12 brothers and sisters (a null result) confirms the
hypothesis that the ******* didn't know his own father.

actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
could not explain it.


False.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf

Page 336:
Quote/
Let V = velocity of light
v = velocity of the Earth
Then T = D/(V-v)
/Unquote

That is "stunned"?
Not so, and by Ockham's Razor the velocity of light
is source dependent.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm


  #7  
Old February 3rd 09, 05:16 PM posted to sci.astro
gb[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,501
Default Valev ignore this stalker big brother gangster from UK wherecameras watch the streets. Anne's Clar Der Kommissar

On Feb 3, 1:43*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 3 Feb, 08:22, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.

2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.

3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.

4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.


  #8  
Old February 3rd 09, 05:55 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

On Feb 3, 12:22 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

We are in 1887 (that is, before any ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses have
been devised) and we are to adopt one of the following two statements:

(1) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes the
hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the
light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein) and
confirms the hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the
speed of the light source.


No, Paco. You wait a few years and you get immediate falsification
from the DeSitter and a few more and you get more falsification from
Ives. Sorry, you lose :-(


(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein) and
refutes the hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the
speed of the light source.

Clever Einsteinians know that (1) is correct, (2) is wrong.

Wrong again, Pasha.




  #9  
Old February 3rd 09, 06:58 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 134
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

On Feb 3, 6:57*am, SolomonW wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:
(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)


Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source.

actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
could not explain it.


Actually, they understood the result quite well, so well in fact that
their conclusions have never been overturned.

My guess is that you really don't undertand the nature and context of
the MM experiment. Now Solomon, go back and review the focus of the MM
experiment. This time, read about it in a physics text, not some table-
top book crap.

The MM experiement was inteneded to prove or disprove the Aether Drift
Theory, and the result was that the MM experiment clearly dispoved the
existence of an Aether. It entirely killed that line of theory or
thought. Maxwell went on to demonstarte why and how electromagenetic
radiation requires no transmission medium, other than that which is
always prevent, including in the vacuum of space.

These fact have been know for over 150 years, and Maxwell's work
producest measurable and pridictable outcome preductions. So, it is
today regarded as scientific fact, and can be tested by anyone with
the motivation to do so.

After Maxwell, the Aether theory fell into the same along with other
false theories. Please don't dwell into the distant past. It only
makes you appear to be a fool.

Harry C.

  #10  
Old February 3rd 09, 07:59 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Tom Roberts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887

wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:57 am, SolomonW wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:22:31 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev wrote:
(2) The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms
the hypothesis that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (the future 1905 light postulate of Einstein)


I have no idea why you say this -- the then-prevalent theory was not
described in this way at all. In Maxwell's theory the speed of light is
indeed independent of the speed of its source -- this is implicit and
unremarkable, and nobody bothered to discuss it.


Since we are in 1887, there is no hypothesis that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source.


Sure there was such an hypothesis -- this is DIRECTLY predicted by
Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (1865 or so), which was expected at
the time to be valid for light. Essentially everyone back then thought
that the speed of light should be independent of the speed of the source
-- that's why Einstein used that as his second postulate for SR. As I
said above, in the context of the 1870s through about 1900 this is
unremarkable and nobody bothered to discuss it.


actually Michelson and Morley were quite stunned with their results and
could not explain it.


Yes.


Actually, they understood the result quite well, so well in fact that
their conclusions have never been overturned.


Hmmm. They understood their lack of fringe shifts of the magnitude
expected (from the orbital speed of the earth). They did not have a
cohesive theory to explain that lack, however.


The MM experiement was inteneded to prove or disprove the Aether Drift
Theory, and the result was that the MM experiment clearly dispoved the
existence of an Aether.


Rather, it was intended to measure the speed of the earth relative to
the aether. Their result was expressed in terms of a limit on such speed.


It entirely killed that line of theory or
thought.


Not at all! But it was among several experiments that forced physicists
to re-evaluate Maxwell's theory. Theories based on aether did not
disappear from the mainstream of physics until at least 1920.


Maxwell went on to demonstarte why and how electromagenetic
radiation requires no transmission medium, other than that which is
always prevent, including in the vacuum of space.


Maxwell had been dead for many years when the MMX was published. You
really should get your facts straight.

It was Lorentz and Poincare' and Einstein that showed how Maxwell's
equations [#] could be applied in any inertial frame, independent of any
aether, and that no transmission medium was required.

[#] Maxwell's equations became divorced from the underlying
theory he presented. That's why Einstein's first postulate of
SR discusses "The laws by which the states of physical systems
undergo change" -- he wants to use just Maxwell's equations,
not his underlying theory, and those equations are such "laws".


After Maxwell, the Aether theory fell into the same along with other
false theories. Please don't dwell into the distant past. It only
makes you appear to be a fool.


You mean after Lorentz, Poincare', and Einstein.


Tom Roberts
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Michelson and Morley experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1027 December 6th 08 07:54 PM
Michelson and Morley experiment Xaustein Astronomy Misc 0 October 18th 08 07:04 PM
Michelson and Morley experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 September 12th 08 02:56 PM
Michelson and Morley experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 September 9th 08 02:32 AM
Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 July 30th 08 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.