Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

In summary, the conversation discusses a supposed "solution" to the Michelson and Morley interferometer and the theory of relativity. The person speaking claims to have spent twenty years as a professional engineer and believes Einstein's theory of relativity to be incorrect. They offer to share their solution through email, but also make disparaging remarks about Einstein being a patent clerk and belittle those who disagree with their views. The other participants in the conversation express skepticism and point out the flaws in the person's argument.
  • #36
Tom: The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Paul: It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. Not the question of an aether or not.

A correct interpretation will cause the whole house to come down, and it has. And of course, Einstein admitted later in life that he had read the MMX prior to his theory, not that chronological order makes a whole lot of difference when an error is involved.

Did you notice the part of my post that I have quoted above?

Do you know what QED is?

The whole thing is explained, but unsually (there can't be any engineers on this site) only one person is brave enough to leave me their email address, in order that they can receive a copy of my solution.

edit:
On second thought, you can just hang on to that file.

Thanks Hurkyl! :wink:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #39
Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?
Something about computer viruses, I think...suggesting that whoever thsi person is, they want to infect your system with a virus. That is why he or she has refused to post a single idea, and insists on sending you a huge attachment to download.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky!
 
  • #41
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky!
Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?
 
  • #42
I've downloaded Paul's 180K word file and it's passed my virus checker. He is expressing his views on the MM experiment.
I haven't read it yet as I've had a busy weekend.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them.
Is that the technical term for it? Where's the roll-eyes smiley when you need it? I guess this will have to do:
GPS data is fudged for the civilian market. The military versions are accurate to within about a meter, and I should know, I was a military surveyor. The signal is intentionally degraded to prevent a GPS being used for enemy missile targeting.
Actually, selective availability (the little knob in an office in the Pentagon that a general could turn on a whim to degrade accuracy to as much as 100m) was done away with under the Clinton administration. And with things like WAAS and DGPS, civilians can get 3m accuracy. Surveyors gps uses a different process which time-averages signals to get a much higher precision.

The ship I was on had a crappy old military GPS that only got 10m accuracy so the Captain got me some money to get us a commercial one with waas and dgps and a laptop for computerized navigation. Ironic.

Now, the military does have better - an additional encryped signal for even higher accuracy (1m), but the old not knowing at anyone time if you were getting 10m or 100m accuracy is gone.
 
  • #44
The simplicity of it all is to know what moves with respect to what that don't move.

The ether concept is the immovable where other things move.

But if there is only the ether and you. How do you know that you move? Maybe it's the ether that moves?

Anything that moves is a function of time. If there is no time, nothing moves. Everything exists forever.
 
  • #45
Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by wisp
Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.

The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre. Computer simulation has been carried out, producing the associated graph in the appendix. Regardless of how many experiments and readings have been carried out, the maths have changed, not the experimental results. These maths will fit all the experiments.
Remember, that beam is not connected to the apparatus, it is on a separate level if you like.
 
  • #47
The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre.

Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?
 
  • #48
Originally posted by wisp
Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light beam from the source is straight, not diagonal. Move the apparatus, not the beam. It's true that the two (straight) beams strike the final lens side by side, but the lens integrates them.

The reason for the beam striking the mirror off centre is because of the slew effect of the moving mirror. I.e. the mirror moves upwwards and the part of the mirror which is struck is lower than the centre. The same would be true using the laser (parallel beam) experiment, which of course is the ideal experiment. Remember what we are trying to establish. Whether or not (even with ideal stright laser beams) that orthogonal path times are the same or not.

If you move the light beam (following the mirror upwards) then you are moving the coordinates of space as well.

Paul
 
Last edited:
  • #49
wisp said:
Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light the viewer looks at, is the light that he is lined up with. Please find one page file attached.

Paul
 

Attachments

  • Earth movement inverse.doc
    24 KB · Views: 187
  • #50
Paul

I read this and let you know my thoughts.

Thanks
 
  • #51
Paul

Yes, there is something interesting here. Although I think that there is something more fundamental that is responsible for the MM "near null" result.
You are correct in that the light does not behave the way MM thought it did, i.e. it does not meet back at the centre of the mirror. This is an interesting observation and needs further investigation.
I will run mathcad on a model using your findings and see what happens.
 
  • #52
wisp said:
Paul

Yes, there is something interesting here. Although I think that there is something more fundamental that is responsible for the MM "near null" result.
You are correct in that the light does not behave the way MM thought it did, i.e. it does not meet back at the centre of the mirror. This is an interesting observation and needs further investigation.
I will run mathcad on a model using your findings and see what happens.

I use the term MM to refer to all experiments. With the true speed of the Earth being 5500m/s on MM's day, and it varying sinusiodally during the year, this model (given the exact prediction of amplitude, phase and offset of MM original experiment) will undoubtably predict all the other experimental results.
With such an exact fit, the chances of it not matching other experiments is very unlikely.

Paul
 
  • #53
Nereid said:
Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?
I don't believe we have enough evidence to conclude that Paul here is really trying to send anyone a virus. More than likely, he just fell victim to MyDoom a while back like many other innocent people.

This guy seems harmless, though a little daft and suffering from a scorching superiority complex.

- Warren
 
  • #54
Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.
That's simply one of the funniest statements I've ever read on pf. Engineers making mathematical discoveries?

(And I hold an engineering degree, but I'm objective about engineers' training. It certainly doesn't prepare an engineer to make mathematical discoveries, of all things!)

- Warren
 
  • #55
Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.
 
  • #56
paulanevill@fsmail.n said:
Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.

Antonio Lao said:
Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.

Most engineers create.
One engineer was responsible for a great discovery.
Therefore most engineers are responsible for most great discoveries.


hmm... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #57
The ancient builders of the pyramids are foremost engineers and second mathematicians. It took them many years to find out the stability angle of the slope to the pyramids which is about 54? degrees. The mystery of how they built the pyramids still remains to these days.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Antonio Lao said:
The ancient builders of the pyramids are foremost engineers and second mathematicians. It took them many years to find out the stability angle of the slope to the pyramids which is about 54 degrees. The mystery of how they builts the pyramids still remains to these days.

It also took Thales (the Greek philosopher/scientist) to teach them how to calculate a pyramid's height, because they didn't know how :wink:

PS Sorry, even further OT, but interesting nonetheless! The abstraction of numbers was an invention and we take it for granted.
 
  • #59
I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Antonio Lao said:
I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?

I should definitely quote my source, as I'm not a history scholar (especially not the history of geometry). But the book Euclid's Window is very interesting, and discusses the progression of geometry from ancient civilization to modern theory.

Not "exchange students" per se, but traveling men who were interested in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. But these men (Pythagoras in particular) found different systems of math everywhere they traveled.

The author (Mlodinow) explains that few cultures looked for meaning behind the numbers, and instead applied them immediately to applications. Babylonians engineered canals and projected anticipated man hours to dig a canal based on the area of its trapazoidal cross section, its anticipated length, and how much dirt a man could shovel per hour. The egyptians crafted the pyramids utilizing the crucial 3, 4, 5 triangle. But only the greeks were interested in finding the answer to the following connundrum:

Given a triangle with sides measuring one unit of length, what's the length of the third side?

In Thales' elder years he was affraid of his own growing bewilderment, and offered some guidance to Pythagoras (in whom he must have seen some of himself). Thales was named one of the 7 wisest men in the world (one of the seven sages) by the Greek civilization.

Good stuff!
 
  • #61
Thanks for these information. I will look them up more thoroughly.
 
  • #62
Sure! It really was my pleasure. The book is very entertaining, and you can get a used copy pretty cheap :)
 
  • #63
The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Wrong. SR is not a scientific theory and recently books and TV progs on related subjects (such as "The Planets", "Universe" "Neutrinos" and "The elegant universe") are careful to draw a distinction between mathematical prediction theories that are properly classified as philosophies and scientific theories that are theories related to reality. Greene in "The elegant universe" makes the point on several occassions. If you do not have the book, you will find the quotes on my webpage (see 'Strings and vacuum' forum).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
Einstein used to say that the objective reality has its independent existence. All physical theories can do but to approximate this reality to only a very trivial degree of model (mathmatical or physical) building. All empirical data can help in understanding the reality but not fully in the sense of complete understanding.
 
  • #66
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of QED has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.
 
  • #67
elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.

russ waters
I agree and according to leaders in the field of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and to leaders in the field of physics (including Prof. Greene author of The elegant universe), the Standard Model fails that test. I wrote at length on this subject in a forum titled 'Why all the nutcases'. If you really want to learn something look up SSK and physics on the web, it's a real education for those who mistakenly believe ST is a science subject.
 
  • #68
2clockdude said:
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym>, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym> has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.

That is what the interferometer does, by comparing path times. The answer is clear, just give me your email address and you shall receive a copy of the discovery.
PAN
 
  • #69
2clockdude

Well put. The only person that I know of who carried out a similar test - using an electrical pulse instead of light - was Roland DeWitte, in 1991, and his finding show SR to be wrong. His test ran for 178 days and used a set of 3 caesium standard clocks at point A and 3 at point B.
Krisher et al, in 1990, did a 5-day test using two clocks and light traveling down a fibre optic cable. Their result has too much noise to be conclusive, but they say it supported SR!
 
  • #70
2clockdude said:
(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)
That's his postulate, not a prediction. The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope.
And the answer is, no one.
We've been over this oh, so many times. Which one of the dozens of examples already given would you like to discuss?
I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).
This is absolutely trivial: so trivial in fact, that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. We are far, far beyond that. GPS (designed and built by engineers using Einstein's math), for example uses the one-way invariance of the speed of light, combining SR and GR time dilation predictions. Far more sophisticated than what you suggest.

And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident: synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them. Simple.

wisp, I find it ironic that in some threads you trumpet how ether theory makes accurate predictions (which is to say it is mathematically equivalent to Relativity in some cases) and in other threads you say Relativity is wrong. You can' have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Michelson-Morley Experiment question
Replies
1
Views
2K
How does fringe shift relate to velocity in the Michelson-morley experiment?
Replies
6
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top