"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.
You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.
Which false interpretation are you talking about?

It considered that the non-interference proved length contraction,
whereas in it's frame c would always have been the result and
so didn't require length contraction to cause it to be c.
In addition it's implied that it also means that c is always c
in all frames whereas an external at rest frame could simply
have the normal ballistic view of the MMX.

And why would a supposed false interpretation of an experiment
?mean that SR is false?

As above, since Einstein based his concepts on MMX and MMX
was wrongly interpreted at the time of the experiment, Einstein
was up the proverbial creek.

Not at all. Einstein didn't base SR on MMX, though the results of MMX
were of particular interest at the time, and any theory developed would
have to be able to explain it. He based SR on the postulate of the
principle of relativity and the postulate that the speed of light was the
same in all frames. The theory he derived was, along with some others,
able to explain the MMX results. That does not mean that it had to be
the only theory that could explain MMX .. that's not how science works.
Further, his theory was able to explain other experimental results that
other theories were not able to explain, so those other theories were
refuted (eg the normal ballistic theory that you mention). So there is no
problem there are all. You'll have to do better than finding a single
experiment that more than one theory can explain to discredit SR. In
particular you'll have to find an experiment that definitely refutes it.
.................................................. .................................................. ......
.................................................. .................................................. .......

Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all frames?

It really make no difference at all to the physics where he got the idea.
It makes a moderately interesting bit of history, but not physics. Perhaps
angels whispered it in his ear?

Certainly if c is c in all inertial frames, then that is one possible
explanation of MMX, and, as I stated above if you read it, SR explains the
null MMX result nicely. Its not the only possible explanation of course,
but some other theories, like simple ballistic theory, are refuted by other
experiments and so it doesn't matter if they explain MMX or not.

You've certainly not got even the slightest iota of a case for SR being
somehow invalid simply because theories other than SR can also explain its
results.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:w8E%l.752591$yE1.446841@attbi_s21...
Whoever wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:hND%l.752563$yE1.444103@attbi_s21...
Koobee Wublee wrote:


During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
allows for sound propagation. shrug


The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with no aether
at all.

It is perfectly consistent with LET, which has an aether, and also with
ballistic theories.




See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml

Can't read it .. have to subscribe.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...omalis0704.pdf

Says nothing about aether or not

No aether

So you say, but there is no evidence that there is no aether .. nor is there
evidence that there is an aether. Its pretty much a matter of faith. There
is SR worths fine without an aether, and LET that is identical
mathematically to SR, has an aether. Basically, we have no need of an
aether for us to make experimental predictions.

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?
Of course .. because they were testing for a simple ether.
There was none.
That's the whole point.
It showed there was no simple ether, so light propagation by such an ether
was refuted (though some tried to use ideas like ether drag, which are
ad-hoc and don't really work).

Why do you think they would find an interference in an inetial frame?????

Spirit of Truth

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:ObE%l.155626$DP1.78172@attbi_s22...
Whoever wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:hND%l.752563$yE1.444103@attbi_s21...
Koobee Wublee wrote:


During the time of the MMX, the Aether that allows for light
propagation is modeled similar to a medium that allows for sound
propagation. Thus, the answer would be yes. However, the null
results do not mean the Aether does not exist. It could also mean
that the Aether does not behave anything similar to the medium that
allows for sound propagation. shrug


The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with no aether
at all.

It is perfectly consistent with LET, which has an aether, and also with
ballistic theories.



See: Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...omalis0704.pdf
No aether

You're spamming. See my previous reply .. we don't know if there is an
aether or not .. and it doesn't really matter as far as physic predicting
what we observe to be happening in the universe. Its a matter more of faith
and philosophy.

On Jun 21, 9:30 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?


They expected to find that the interference fringes MOVE when the
interferometer is rotated.
The fringes are ALWAYS there, imbecile.

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.
You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.
Which false interpretation are you talking about?

It considered that the non-interference proved length contraction,
whereas in it's frame c would always have been the result and
so didn't require length contraction to cause it to be c.
In addition it's implied that it also means that c is always c
in all frames whereas an external at rest frame could simply
have the normal ballistic view of the MMX.

And why would a supposed false interpretation of an experiment
?mean that SR is false?

As above, since Einstein based his concepts on MMX and MMX
was wrongly interpreted at the time of the experiment, Einstein
was up the proverbial creek.

Not at all. Einstein didn't base SR on MMX, though the results of MMX
were of particular interest at the time, and any theory developed would
have to be able to explain it. He based SR on the postulate of the
principle of relativity and the postulate that the speed of light was
the same in all frames. The theory he derived was, along with some
others, able to explain the MMX results. That does not mean that it had
to be the only theory that could explain MMX .. that's not how science
works. Further, his theory was able to explain other experimental
results that other theories were not able to explain, so those other
theories were refuted (eg the normal ballistic theory that you mention).
So there is no problem there are all. You'll have to do better than
finding a single experiment that more than one theory can explain to
discredit SR. In particular you'll have to find an experiment that
definitely refutes it.
.................................................. .................................................. ......
.................................................. .................................................. .......
Where do you think Einstein got the concept that c was c in all frames?
It really make no difference at all to the physics where he got the idea.
It makes a moderately interesting bit of history, but not physics.
Perhaps angels whispered it in his ear?
Certainly if c is c in all inertial frames, then that is one possible
explanation of MMX, and, as I stated above if you read it, SR explains the
null MMX result nicely. Its not the only possible explanation of course,
but some other theories, like simple ballistic theory, are refuted by
other experiments and so it doesn't matter if they explain MMX or not.
You've certainly not got even the slightest iota of a case for SR being
somehow invalid simply because theories other than SR can also explain its
results.

You appear confused.

First, see this:

"Einstein consistently based the derivation of Lorentz invariance (the
essential core of special relativity) on just the two basic principles of
relativity and light-speed invariance. He wrote:
"The insight fundamental for the special theory of relativity is this: The
assumptions relativity and light speed invariance are compatible if
relations of a new type ("Lorentz transformation") are postulated for the
conversion of coordinates and times of events... The universal principle of
the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: The laws of
physics are invariant with respect to Lorentz transformations (for the
transition from one inertial system to any other arbitrarily chosen inertial
system). This is a restricting principle for natural laws..."

So he gets the concept c is c in all frames from MMX and Lorentz.

SR does NOT explain the null results nicely.

Relativity itself would have zero result of any knid in the rest frame.


Spirit of Truth

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 9:30 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?


They expected to find that the interference fringes MOVE when the
interferometer is rotated.
The fringes are ALWAYS there, imbecile.

.................................................. .................................................. .
.................................................. .................................................. .

You are getting it incorrect.

"They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece,
producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference
based on the spent time to transit the arms. If the Earth is traveling
through an ether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel
to the flow of ether would have to travel farther than a beam
reflecting perpendicular to the ether. The result would be a delay
in one of the light beams that could be detected when the beams
were recombined through interference. Any slight change in the
spent time would then be observed as a shift in the positions
of the interference fringes. If the aether were stationary relative
to the sun, then the Earth's motion would produce a fringe shift
4% the size of a single fringe."

"he noticed that the expected shift of 0.04 was not seen"


Spirit of Truth

On Jun 21, 10:17 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:


"he noticed that the expected shift of 0.04 was not seen"



Notice the word "SHIFT" , imbecile?
M&M expected the fringes to MOVE (SHIFT). The fringes were PRESENT but
did NOT move (SHIFT).
Were you born a cretin or did you become one with age?

"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?
Of course .. because they were testing for a simple ether.
There was none.
That's the whole point.
It showed there was no simple ether, so light propagation by such an
ether was refuted (though some tried to use ideas like ether drag, which
are ad-hoc and don't really work).

Why do you think they would find an interference in an inetial frame?????

They were, as I understand, trying to detect the presence and direction of
an aether. If the experiment is moving through the aether, then you should
get a difference in light speed depending on whether you are moving with or
against or across the aether. They found there was no difference. That
refuted the theory of a simple ether. I'm sure I said all this to you
already.

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Dono." wrote in message
...
On Jun 21, 7:39 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...



On Jun 21, 7:19 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

On Jun 21, 4:54 pm, "Spirit of Truth"
wrote:
In the AT REST frame of the experiment NO interference
would ever be evident!
You are STILL an imbecile.

You may let us know why the false interpretation of MMX
doesn't expose that SR itself is false.

Spirit of Truth

Because your really false interpretation of the alleged false
interpretation of MMX doesn't prove SR false :-)

Have you studied the MMX, or are you just guessing?

I studied it, you didn't. So, what's new?

If you studied it, do you recall they expected to find an interference
and didn't?
Of course .. because they were testing for a simple ether.
There was none.
That's the whole point.
It showed there was no simple ether, so light propagation by such an
ether was refuted (though some tried to use ideas like ether drag, which
are ad-hoc and don't really work).

Why do you think they would find an interference in an inetial frame?????

They were, as I understand, trying to detect the presence and direction of
an aether. If the experiment is moving through the aether, then you
should get a difference in light speed depending on whether you are moving
with or against or across the aether. They found there was no difference.
That refuted the theory of a simple ether. I'm sure I said all this to
you already.

Everything in that frame would be moving (if one considers the
frame moving) so ballistically there would be no interference.

If you considered the frame as not moving, there would still be
no interference.



Spirit