|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |