MMX-LT-Einstein = discrepancy

I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.


Spirit of Truth

"doug" wrote in message
et...



Spirit of Truth wrote:

I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.

SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.


Spirit of Truth

Doug, time for you to grow up.

Spirit of Truth

Spirit of Truth wrote:

I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.

SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.


Spirit of Truth

Spirit of Truth wrote:
[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions are NOT
relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#]
moving with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with
speed c in every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other
inertial frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame in
which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels
isotropically with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same location
no matter what the orientation of the apparatus, and no fringe movement
is predicted as the instrument is rotated. There are a bunch of small
effects that can easily be shown to make no significant difference in
this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect the
results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


Tom Roberts

Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...



Spirit of Truth wrote:


I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.

SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.


Spirit of Truth


Doug, time for you to grow up.

Spirit of Truth

Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...



Spirit of Truth wrote:


I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.

SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.


Spirit of Truth


Doug, time for you to grow up.

Spirit of Truth

Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.

I told you to grow up. If you have any basic understanding of SR try to
confront the thread.

Spirit of Truth

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions are NOT
relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#] moving
with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with speed c in
every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other inertial
frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame in
which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels isotropically
with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same location no matter what
the orientation of the apparatus, and no fringe movement is predicted as
the instrument is rotated. There are a bunch of small effects that can
easily be shown to make no significant difference in this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect the
results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


No, you are missing the point. You do understand SR so should
be alble to confront the question.

None of your post above confronts the fact that the actual time
of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest frame in the experiment.
If you disagree with that you really don't understand SR.

Now, if, as I posted it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that let time
DIOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.


Spirit of Truth

I reread your post, so corrected this
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Spirit of Truth wrote:
[...]

In order to challenge SR, you must learn what it ACTUALLY says, and what
it predicts for various experiments. Your mistakes and delusions are NOT
relativity.

In SR, the standard Cartesian coordinates of inertial frames are related
by the Lorentz transform. This has the property that any object [#] moving
with speed c in any direction in one inertial frame moves with speed c in
every other inertial frame. This applies to SPEED -- in other inertial
frames the direction can differ, but the speed does not.

[#] Such as a light pulse, or a small region of a light beam.

For the MMX, the application of this is simple: in the inertial frame in
which the center of the apparatus is at rest, light travels isotropically
with speed c. So the fringes will be in the same location no matter what
the orientation of the apparatus, and no fringe movement is predicted as
the instrument is rotated. There are a bunch of small effects that can
easily be shown to make no significant difference in this prediction:
* the presence of air or any other medium at rest wrt the
instrument
* a continuous rotation of the interferometer
* the gravity of the earth
* the rotation and revolution of the earth
* imperfect configuration of the mirrors (e.g. non flatness,
imprecise adjustment, optical imperfections)
* the use of white light or monochromatic light
Some of these can change the location of the fringes, but they cannot
induce any orientation dependence.

There are also a number of instrumentation effects that can affect the
results, and have confused early experimenters:
* temperature variation of the air in the optical path (even
0.001 C variations can cause trouble, so the best measurements
avoid air in the optical paths)
* mechanical flexing of the apparatus (for some, 0.02 wavelength
can cause trouble; for others this limit is much smaller)
* temperature variations in the support structure (0.01 C can
cause trouble)
* non-vertical rotation axis (for some, micro-radians can cause
trouble)
* a proper error analysis (doesn't affect fringe positions, but
does affect whether or not variations are important)

Conclusions?
* The MMX is a very difficult experiment to do correctly.
* The predictions of SR are consistent with the observations of
the MMX and all repetitions of it to date (some of which are
millions of times more sensitive than the original).
* YOU have a serious problem in understanding SR, and its LT.


Tom Roberts

No, you are missing the point. You REPEATED what
I had written about it being a rest frame!!! You
understand SR so should be able to confront the question.

The actual time of the return as I posted fits exatly a rest
frame in the experiment. If you did disagree with that
you really don't understand SR.

Now, if, as I posted, it fits a rest frame THEN it is a real leap
to then try to explain it in terms of the LET when that LET
time DOES NOT SHOW UP in the experiment. Now, try to
confront it, Tom, and offer some reason for the leap of faith
done by Einstein.


Spirit of Truth

"doug"
wrote in message et...

*plonk*# for juvenile response.


Spirit of Truth

Spirit of Truth wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Spirit of Truth wrote:


"doug" wrote in message
cknet...



Spirit of Truth wrote:



I stated this much earlier but in a different form.

It is now time for SRians to answer up to this situation.

I am keeping it simple so you SR'ians who do understand SR
and MMX please use your full understanding to dub in the
scientific expressions that will allow you to confront this
situation and answer with your solution if, of course,
you have one.

In MMX, the LT only allows the gap closure in the direction
of motion to be travelled in the same time as the hypotenuse
gap closure. Whereas in that local frame, the time calculated
for the return time per Relativy (That frame at rest!) would
simply be the time taken in that local system for light to
travel the actual length of the arms of the experimental
device.

The times of both the above are not the same. In the
experiment the measurement would be the actual
time of the local frame, THUS the LT as a proposal
would of only answered an exterior observation
of the local experiment that exterior observer seeing the local
frame in motion! But this is NOT the local observation and
the local observation would only see the time past of the
light travelling along the arms in that local frame....a
non-moving system!

Conclusion? Unless you can explain this away, _SR_ has
a serious problem with the LT.

SR has no problem. You have a problem with english and
with comprehension. That is not our problem.


Spirit of Truth


Doug, time for you to grow up.

Spirit of Truth

Your stupidity and dislike of relativity are not my
problems. You can keep looking like a fool here as
long as you want and anyone can comment on your ignorance.


I told you to grow up. If you have any basic understanding of SR try to
confront the thread.

Spirit of Truth

The problem is that you have no understanding of SR. You saying stupid
things like claiming SR has problems with the LT shows the depth
of your ignorance. You have the choice of remaining ignorant but
doing so willingly makes you stupid as well.