MMX and Time Dilation

The interferometer experiment by Michelson in 1881 did not find the
predicted fringe shifts which would have confirmed the existence of an
aether permeating space. Fitzgerald in 1882 attempted to explain the
null result. He proposed a contraction of the parallel arm of the
interferometer equipment in the direction of its motion through space.
Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment in 1887 with the same
null result. It became known as MMX. Voigt in 1887 and Lorentz and
Poincare in 1904 elaborated on the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.
Lorentz established the mathematical relationships for the Fitzgerald
contractions. They became known as the Lorentz transformations. Larmor
found in 1900 that a consequence of contraction was another effect -
time dilation, a shortening of time experienced by bodies in motion.

The Lorentz transformations are used by Special Relativity (SR) to
support its contention that the speed of light is constant. Every body
has the coordinates x, y, z and t. In the Lorentz transformations,
coordinates x and t of moving bodies are affected by a factor, Gamma,
while y and z remain the same. SR assumes that in moving bodies, the x
axis contracts by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2) and t dilates by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2).
In the case of MMX, contraction applies to the x axis of the
interferometer but time dilation affects the whole of the apparatus.
However, the Fitzgerald explanation of the null result of MMX takes
into account only parallel arm contraction. Time dilation is ignored.
There are also time components in the perpendicular arm motion through
space (vt and ct). If time dilation is applied to these components,
the distances in the perpendicular arm shrink proportionally to the
contraction of the parallel arm and the original dimensional
differences are restored. Whatever was gained through contraction of
the parallel arm is lost through time dilation affecting the
perpendicular arm.

Let me restate the argument differently. There are two different times
compared in MMX; t1 (parallel arm) and t2 (perpendicular arm). If
contraction equals time dilation so time dilation equals contraction.
Time dilation applies to the whole of a moving body. It affects
equally all dimensions of the body. Coordinates x, y and z of the
interferometer shrink by the same amount as a consequence of time
dilation. The t1, t2 differences existing at rest are proportionally
preserved throughout any velocity v of the equipment.

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Peter Riedt

In sci.physics, Peter Riedt

wrote
on 12 Oct 2003 19:41:31 -0700
:
MMX and Time Dilation

The interferometer experiment by Michelson in 1881 did not find the
predicted fringe shifts which would have confirmed the existence of an
aether permeating space. Fitzgerald in 1882 attempted to explain the
null result. He proposed a contraction of the parallel arm of the
interferometer equipment in the direction of its motion through space.
Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment in 1887 with the same
null result. It became known as MMX. Voigt in 1887 and Lorentz and
Poincare in 1904 elaborated on the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.
Lorentz established the mathematical relationships for the Fitzgerald
contractions. They became known as the Lorentz transformations. Larmor
found in 1900 that a consequence of contraction was another effect -
time dilation, a shortening of time experienced by bodies in motion.

The Lorentz transformations are used by Special Relativity (SR) to
support its contention that the speed of light is constant. Every body
has the coordinates x, y, z and t. In the Lorentz transformations,
coordinates x and t of moving bodies are affected by a factor, Gamma,
while y and z remain the same. SR assumes that in moving bodies, the x
axis contracts by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2) and t dilates by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2).
In the case of MMX, contraction applies to the x axis of the
interferometer but time dilation affects the whole of the apparatus.
However, the Fitzgerald explanation of the null result of MMX takes
into account only parallel arm contraction. Time dilation is ignored.
There are also time components in the perpendicular arm motion through
space (vt and ct). If time dilation is applied to these components,
the distances in the perpendicular arm shrink proportionally to the
contraction of the parallel arm and the original dimensional
differences are restored. Whatever was gained through contraction of
the parallel arm is lost through time dilation affecting the
perpendicular arm.

Let me restate the argument differently. There are two different times
compared in MMX; t1 (parallel arm) and t2 (perpendicular arm). If
contraction equals time dilation so time dilation equals contraction.
Time dilation applies to the whole of a moving body. It affects
equally all dimensions of the body. Coordinates x, y and z of the
interferometer shrink by the same amount as a consequence of time
dilation. The t1, t2 differences existing at rest are proportionally
preserved throughout any velocity v of the equipment.

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Peter Riedt

Erm...could you give us a hint?

A Google search on "Larmor disproves Fitzgerald" coughs up a character
named Mr. Joseph C. "No Task Too Difficult" Keller at

http://kellerphysics.com/index.php?p=resume

and that's about it. His claims apparently include
Pioneer 10 somehow generating a space warp. (Is NASA
holding out on us? :-) )

Googling for "Larmor falsifies Fitzgerald" coughs up two nearly
identical pages; the first is probably the more interesting of
the two as it includes diagrams. :-)

http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/~erikba/ziegler/1-2.html
http://www.olywa.net/unifieduniverse/I2.html

Larmor is mentioned as one of many theories, but that's all.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and Time Dilation

The interferometer experiment by Michelson in 1881 did not find the
predicted fringe shifts which would have confirmed the existence of an
aether permeating space. Fitzgerald in 1882 attempted to explain the
null result. He proposed a contraction of the parallel arm of the
interferometer equipment in the direction of its motion through space.
Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment in 1887 with the same
null result. It became known as MMX. Voigt in 1887 and Lorentz and
Poincare in 1904 elaborated on the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.
Lorentz established the mathematical relationships for the Fitzgerald
contractions. They became known as the Lorentz transformations. Larmor
found in 1900 that a consequence of contraction was another effect -
time dilation, a shortening of time experienced by bodies in motion.

The Lorentz transformations are used by Special Relativity (SR) to
support its contention that the speed of light is constant. Every body
has the coordinates x, y, z and t. In the Lorentz transformations,
coordinates x and t of moving bodies are affected by a factor, Gamma,
while y and z remain the same. SR assumes that in moving bodies, the x
axis contracts by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2) and t dilates by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2).
In the case of MMX, contraction applies to the x axis of the
interferometer but time dilation affects the whole of the apparatus.
However, the Fitzgerald explanation of the null result of MMX takes
into account only parallel arm contraction. Time dilation is ignored.
There are also time components in the perpendicular arm motion through
space (vt and ct). If time dilation is applied to these components,
the distances in the perpendicular arm shrink proportionally to the
contraction of the parallel arm and the original dimensional
differences are restored. Whatever was gained through contraction of
the parallel arm is lost through time dilation affecting the
perpendicular arm.

Let me restate the argument differently. There are two different times
compared in MMX; t1 (parallel arm) and t2 (perpendicular arm). If
contraction equals time dilation so time dilation equals contraction.
Time dilation applies to the whole of a moving body. It affects
equally all dimensions of the body. Coordinates x, y and z of the
interferometer shrink by the same amount as a consequence of time
dilation. The t1, t2 differences existing at rest are proportionally
preserved throughout any velocity v of the equipment.

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Peter Riedt

Must be a very small world that you live in!
You can repeat the MMX and get the phase shift proportional to angular
velocity.
The rotation speed of the Earth is 0.000277 Hz.
If you spin the MM interferometer at 100 Hz you will see the phase shift.

Please do not post 100 year old fallacy!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...

[snip]

The Lorentz transformations are used by Special Relativity (SR) to
support its contention that the speed of light is constant. Every body
has the coordinates x, y, z and t. In the Lorentz transformations,
coordinates x and t of moving bodies are affected by a factor, Gamma,
while y and z remain the same. SR assumes that in moving bodies, the x
axis contracts by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2) and t dilates by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2).

Just curious: what do you think happens with the
product x*t ?

Dirk Vdm

Mathew Orman wrote:
You can repeat the MMX and get the phase shift proportional to angular
velocity.
The rotation speed of the Earth is 0.000277 Hz.
If you spin the MM interferometer at 100 Hz you will see the phase shift.

Not true. Or rather, true only if you construct your "MMX"
interferometer very poorly and give it a net area. But the non-null
result is due to the similarity to SAGNAC'S experiment, not the MMX.

Topologically, the light paths in Michelson's interferometer
are the same as in Sagnac's interferometer. But Michelson's
encloses 0 area while Sagnac's has a large area. Sagnac's
signal is proportional to the area of the interferometer
(independent of shape).

BTW even for 100 Hz and a modest area the phase shift would be too small
for the naked eye to detect; a modern laser interferometer could easily
do it for much slower rotations, of course -- that's how laser
gyroscopes work. And, of course, the fringe shift is constant for a
constant angular velocity, and thus impossible for the eyeball to
discern unless you can vary the angular velocity; the laser phase
detector does not have this problem (and it is billions of times more
sensitive than the human eye).


Tom Roberts

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and Time Dilation

The interferometer experiment by Michelson in 1881 did not find the
predicted fringe shifts which would have confirmed the existence of an
aether permeating space. Fitzgerald in 1882 attempted to explain the
null result. He proposed a contraction of the parallel arm of the
interferometer equipment in the direction of its motion through space.
Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment in 1887 with the same
null result. It became known as MMX. Voigt in 1887 and Lorentz and
Poincare in 1904 elaborated on the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis.
Lorentz established the mathematical relationships for the Fitzgerald
contractions. They became known as the Lorentz transformations. Larmor
found in 1900 that a consequence of contraction was another effect -
time dilation, a shortening of time experienced by bodies in motion.

The Lorentz transformations are used by Special Relativity (SR) to
support its contention that the speed of light is constant. Every body
has the coordinates x, y, z and t. In the Lorentz transformations,
coordinates x and t of moving bodies are affected by a factor, Gamma,
while y and z remain the same. SR assumes that in moving bodies, the x
axis contracts by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2) and t dilates by sqrt(1-(c^2/v^2).
In the case of MMX, contraction applies to the x axis of the
interferometer but time dilation affects the whole of the apparatus.
However, the Fitzgerald explanation of the null result of MMX takes
into account only parallel arm contraction. Time dilation is ignored.
There are also time components in the perpendicular arm motion through
space (vt and ct). If time dilation is applied to these components,
the distances in the perpendicular arm shrink proportionally to the
contraction of the parallel arm and the original dimensional
differences are restored. Whatever was gained through contraction of
the parallel arm is lost through time dilation affecting the
perpendicular arm.

Let me restate the argument differently. There are two different times
compared in MMX; t1 (parallel arm) and t2 (perpendicular arm). If
contraction equals time dilation so time dilation equals contraction.
Time dilation applies to the whole of a moving body. It affects
equally all dimensions of the body. Coordinates x, y and z of the
interferometer shrink by the same amount as a consequence of time
dilation. The t1, t2 differences existing at rest are proportionally
preserved throughout any velocity v of the equipment.

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Peter Riedt

I think that your conclusion is flawed because it wrongly assumes that time
dilation and length contraction are the only two 'effects' evidenced under
the Lorentz Transform. There is a crucial third effect which is usually
termed "the relativity of simultaneity", which when correctly applied,
nullifies your assertion that MMX proved nothing substantive. See
www.ezrelativity.com for explanation and example of all three relativistic
effects taken together. It is a common error to forget about time
dissynchronicity (ie. "the relativity of simultaneity") and when so
forgotton makes the twin paradox quite impossible to sort out!

-KJS

(Peter Riedt) wrote in message . com...
MMX and Time Dilation


[crap snipped]

If you could do the math, you would see that you are moron.

Paul Cardinale

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Mathew Orman wrote:
You can repeat the MMX and get the phase shift proportional to angular
velocity.
The rotation speed of the Earth is 0.000277 Hz.
If you spin the MM interferometer at 100 Hz you will see the phase
shift.

Not true. Or rather, true only if you construct your "MMX"
interferometer very poorly and give it a net area. But the non-null
result is due to the similarity to SAGNAC'S experiment, not the MMX.

Topologically, the light paths in Michelson's interferometer
are the same as in Sagnac's interferometer. But Michelson's
encloses 0 area while Sagnac's has a large area. Sagnac's
signal is proportional to the area of the interferometer
(independent of shape).

BTW even for 100 Hz and a modest area the phase shift would be too small
for the naked eye to detect; a modern laser interferometer could easily
do it for much slower rotations, of course -- that's how laser
gyroscopes work. And, of course, the fringe shift is constant for a
constant angular velocity, and thus impossible for the eyeball to
discern unless you can vary the angular velocity; the laser phase
detector does not have this problem (and it is billions of times more
sensitive than the human eye).


Tom Roberts


The non null result is due to the fact that light travels in straight lines
only.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Peter Riedt wrote:

MMX and Time Dilation

The interferometer experiment by Michelson in 1881 did not find the
predicted fringe shifts which would have confirmed the existence of an
aether permeating space.
[snip]

Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Bull****.

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

On 12 Oct 2003 19:41:31 -0700, (Peter Riedt) wrote:

MMX and Time Dilation

snip

The null result of MMX remains unexplained; the contraction hypothesis
of Fitzgerald has been falsified by Larmor.

Peter Riedt
Have you ever seen the expression x + ict? How about its derivative,
xdot + ic?
This indicates that MMX velocities always add to the speed of light
orthogonally. Therefore you get the same result xdot + ic or -xdot +
ic. The sum is not only 2nd order but it's invariant. That's my
opinion for the "failure" of the MMX. How say you?

Mr. Dual Space
(If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay).