|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
On Apr 3, 6:16*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: doug wrote: maxwell wrote: I take an alternative view. *That MMX-type experiments were trying to validate Maxwell's theory. *The null results indicate that this theory was wrong. Well, actually, they indicated that maxwell was right. No, they indicated that Maxwell's theory was wrong (along with a number of other experiments trying to measure "motion wrt the aether"). Do not confuse today's theory of Classical Electrodynamics with Maxwell's theory. Maxwell's theory had more vectors and fields than we use today, at least one of which was related to absolute motion relative to the aether frame. In the late 1800s to the early 1900s a new theory of electrodynamics was inaugurated, using Maxwell's equations, but not his aether, vortexes, etc. I don't know the detailed history.... But I do know that's why we call them "Maxwell's equations", and not "Maxwell's theory". Tom Roberts Bravo Honest Roberts! Yes the Michelson-Morley experiment did refute Maxwell's theory (more precisely, its implication that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) but why don't you add that the selfsame experiment did confirm Newton's emission theory of light (more precisely, its implication that the speed of light is DEPENDENT on the speed of the light source): 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: "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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 3, 6:16 am, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [MMX experiments] indicated that Maxwell's theory was wrong (along with a number of other experiments trying to measure "motion wrt the aether"). Yes the Michelson-Morley experiment did refute Maxwell's theory (more precisely, its implication that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) No, the Michelson-Morley experiment did NOT "refute" the "implication" that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. It refuted MAXWELL'S THEORY. Experiments can only refute THEORIES, not "implications". Indeed, we know that SR includes this "implication" and yet is fully consistent with this experiment. but why don't you add that the selfsame experiment did confirm Newton's emission theory of light Because that was not part of the discussion. 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." Yes, this one experiment is consistent with emission theories of light. But there are LOTS of other experiments, and many of them are inconsistent with emission theories. You chide me for omitting mention of your favorite alternative, but you omit far more important facts, that make your alternative untenable. Grow up. Get a life. You repeat the same nonsense so often that I and most other sensible people just ignore you most of the time. Your posts include a serious naiveté and an irritating style that indicates gross immaturity on your part. Stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the net, and go LEARN something about modern physics. Tom Roberts |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
On Apr 3, 4:57*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: On Apr 3, 6:16 am, Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity: [MMX experiments] indicated that Maxwell's theory was wrong (along with a number of other experiments trying to measure "motion wrt the aether"). Yes the Michelson-Morley experiment did refute Maxwell's theory (more precisely, its implication that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) No, the Michelson-Morley experiment did NOT "refute" the "implication" that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. It refuted MAXWELL'S THEORY. Experiments can only refute THEORIES, not "implications". Whoever told you that, Honest Roberts? Any theory normally has many implications (conclusions), some of them possibly correct, others possibly false. It is so obvious that experimental results initially contadict SINGLE CONCLUSIONS. Then the theory is either rejected or repaired but this depends on additional theoretical analysis. Just consider the standard textbook calculation of the Michelson- Morley experiment: your brothers Einsteinians use constant speed of light (independent of the speed of the light source) and obtain a theoretical result inconsistent with the experimental result. In other words, the experimental result contadicts (refutes) the constant speed of light assumption. If your brothers Einsteinians could find courage to replace "c" with the respective formulas given by Newton's emission theory of light, they would obtain a theoretical result consistent with the experimental result. Indeed, we know that SR includes this "implication" and yet is fully consistent with this experiment. Special relativity can be regarded as the aether theory plus a protective belt built by FitzGerald and Lorentz. Read Lakatos, Honest Roberts. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LORENTZ VIOLATIONS POSTPONED | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 6th 09 08:07 AM |
MMX falsifies the Lorentz transformation | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 4th 08 05:59 PM |
Unique Lorentz Boost? | [email protected] | Research | 1 | June 20th 06 12:48 PM |
Mach-Lorentz thrusters? | John Schilling | Policy | 6 | May 21st 06 01:08 AM |
heavyside lorentz units | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 21st 05 12:41 PM |