MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation

On Sep 4, 4:49*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
wrote in message

*

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the one-way speed of
light is different from c:

A quick google search reveals that this was completely handled
in August 2002 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7df737f34ac793
and in October 2003 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ae285c8e19fdc/
and in October 2005 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c620970e5b236/
and in September 2006 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3edcab3d02743/

Nice reading!

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel, Cleverest Moortel, you often declare that
sci.physics.relativity should not be taken seriously, and now you seem
to contradict yourself. The close relation between the negative result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's 1905 light postulate
is described by two Great Masters, and you should take more notice of
what they say, Cleverest Moortel:

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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

And of course Cleverest Moortel you should pay no attention to what
Great but Silly Masters say:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.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."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "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."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 4, 8:25�am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 4, 4:49�pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:





wrote in message

�

The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the one-way speed of
light is different from c:

A quick google search reveals that this was completely handled
in August 2002 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
and in October 2003 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
and in October 2005 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...
and in September 2006 in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Nice reading!

Dirk Vdm

Clever Moortel, Cleverest Moortel, you often declare that
sci.physics.relativity should not be taken seriously, and now you seem
to contradict yourself. The close relation between the negative result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's 1905 light postulate
is described by two Great Masters, and you should take more notice of
what they say, Cleverest Moortel:

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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

And of course Cleverest Moortel you should pay no attention to what
Great but Silly Masters say:

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...istory_of_rela...
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."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "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."

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The arm of the interferometer does not get shorter. What scientists
do not consider is that light has a velocity. When a photon is
reflected by the mirror of the interferometer, its velocity is changed
from c to -c relative to the interferometer if you are using the
Lorentz equations. The Lorentz equations compensate for this
automatically by having c always squared wherever it appears in the
equations, since (-c)^2 =c^2. The negative velocity of light appears
implicitly in the Lorentz equations in the values for x and x'.
Einstein's two little equations x=ct and x'=ct' will not substitue
back into the Lorentz equations if x and x' are negative, and t is
positive, which is the case when a photon is reflected by the mirror
at the end of the interferometer arm.
The correct equations to describe what happens in the
interferometer are the Galilean transformation equations.

x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t

The time on a clock in the frame of reference of the
interferometer is n'=t(1-v/w), where w is the velocity of the light.
n' is not the local time in S' in the Galilean transformation
equations because t'=t, or
t'= wn'/(w-v) = x'/(w-v). n' is time on a clock running slower than
local time t' in S'. If scientists would use velocity of light
instead of speed of light, they could understand what is happening
with the interferometer.
Robert B. Winn