Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment?

Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson-
Morley experiment; only "later writers" did:

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."

Yet Divine Albert seems to be the original liar:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

Pentcho Valev

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&

You never even answered if the the Lorentz group is the correct one
without gravitation. And you still do not provide a "simple
derivation" to Einstein-1911 that you promise for one week.


Have a good night
Laurent

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson-
Morley experiment; only "later writers" did:

I find it strange that you think of Einstein as a God.

On Jul 27, 9:47*pm, "Pmb" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...

Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the Michelson-
Morley experiment; only "later writers" did:

I find it strange that you think of Einstein as a God.

Actually, I find less heartburn in that than the fact that he has no
idea what the MM experiment proved or disproved,

Quite likely he doesn't even know how the MM experiement was even
conducted.

Just another net troll with too much time on his hands.

Harry C.

On Jul 27, 5:45 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the
Michelson-Morley experiment; only "later writers" did:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity,

Einstein was a nitwit. Voigt has already shown the null results of
the MMX prove the principle of relativity wrong. See the Voigt
transform. In doing so, the absolute frame of reference must exist
and thus the Aether. shrug

whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......

Later writers had a sip of Einstein’s fermented diarrhea, and the rest
is history.

THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Yes, that is true, but the emission theory does not agree with
electromagnetism. shrug

Yet Divine Albert seems to be the original liar:

Yes, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. shrug

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...113FEE3ABC4152....
The New York Times, April 19, 1921

"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

Voigt answered it in 1887. That is 18 years before Einstein’s
plagiarized work of 1905 papers.

On Jul 28, 7:36*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:45 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Yes, that is true, but the emission theory does not agree with
electromagnetism. *shrug

The formulation of the disagreement in terms of "emission theory" and
electromagnetism", given the insufficient knowledge about the particle/
wave nature of light, can be somewhat misleading. The essential
question is "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light
source?" and, accordingly, the disagreement can and should be
restricted to the "yes" given by the emission theory and "no" given by
(Maxwell's) electromagnetism. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle,
explains this in the best possible way:

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."

Pentcho Valev

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."


We already discussed extensivelly on Michelson, and you gave up : you
never even answered if the the Lorentz group is the correct one
without gravitation.
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...read/thread/dc...
Why do you begin again here ?

Even if Michelson was not a proof of Lorentz, there are many
others ... Out of 1000 experimental facts that are Lorentz related,
you know only a one (Michelson), which is not even the most important
one (a part from an historical perspective). You ignore all the
others :

* les particules ont un spin (ce qui suggère SL(2,C) comme groupe de
symétrie)
* l'électromagnétisme de Maxwell est covariant sous Lorentz (et a
des succès expérimentaux)
* le champ magnétique produit par une charge en mouvement est bien
la transformée de Lorentz du champ électrique de la même charge au
repos
* le succès de QED dans la structure hyperfine de l'hydrogène
* Les différentes sections efficaces en physique des particules qui
dépendent d'interférences entre des processus contenant des
particules virtuelles.
* Le défaut de masse dans les processus radioactifs
* Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les accélérateurs
qu'au repos

You said :
Commenter des expériences que je ne connais pas? Pas mal. Je te donne
la victoire.

(translation : To comment experiments that I do not know ? okay, you
won.)

Anything to add ?

Laurent

On Jul 28, 8:52*pm, moky wrote:
Even if Michelson was not a proof of Lorentz, there are many
others ... *Out of 1000 experimental facts that are Lorentz related,
you know only a one (Michelson), which is not even the most important
one (a part from an historical perspective). You ignore all the
others :

** les particules ont un spin (ce qui suggère SL(2,C) comme groupe de
* symétrie)
* * l'électromagnétisme de Maxwell est covariant sous Lorentz (et a
*des *succès expérimentaux)
* * le champ magnétique produit par une charge en mouvement est bien
*la * transformée de Lorentz du champ électrique de la même charge au
*repos
* * le succès de QED dans la structure hyperfine de l'hydrogène
* * Les différentes sections efficaces en physique des particules qui
* dépendent d'interférences entre des processus contenant des
*particules * virtuelles.
* * Le défaut de masse dans les processus radioactifs
* * Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les accélérateurs
* qu'au repos

You said :

Commenter des expériences que je ne connais pas? Pas mal. Je te donne
la victoire.

(translation : To comment experiments that I do not know ? okay, you
won.)

Anything to add ?

Let us consider an experiment you refer to:

"Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les accélérateurs qu'au
repos"

I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and
claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me:

Is this experiment essentially identical to the classical cosmic-ray
muon experiment demonstrating time dilation? If it is essentially
different, describe the difference. In particular, is lifetime at rest
measured in essentially the same way in the two experiments? I know
something about the classical cosmic-ray muon experiment so the
discussion could become interesting.

Pentcho valev

"Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc�l�rateurs qu'au
repos"

I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and
claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me:


At first approximation, yes, this is the same kind of effect that the
muon one. But much stronger : when we measure thinks in the particles
accelerators, EVERYTHINK is Lorentz-deformed. Not only the half-live,
but also the cross-sections, the electromagnetic waves (accelerated
charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase
with speed) and so on.



I did not had a big experimental particle physics course, so I cannot
give you tons of equations and links. I'm more a theorist : I know
better spin and covariance of Maxwell (http://student.ulb.ac.be/
~lclaesse/lectures.pdf). I also saw the computation of the hydrogen
rays using relativistic corrections.

Anyway ... the point is not to give you a course. As I said before,
the facts I was refering to are difficult, need math and time to
analyse.
I can explain them with simplifications in order to be simple. But the
level of knowledge that you can get just by reading the forum or
reading easy books (like the Einstein one that you always quote) is
not enough to draw conclusions about the truth of such or such theory.

The point is to make you more humble : we are in 2008, and there are
1000 reasons to believe in Lorentz. You only know something about
Michelson ... in the scientific backgroud of 1905. In that situation,
how can you pretend to know what is the good choice between Lorentz
and Gallilée ?

Have a good night
Laurent