Lrt us consider wave omni-directaional emitting wave source moving in a
medium configured as a Michelson setup.

o___________________________________|
Source------------- d ----------------Reflector

In any mundane medium, the speed of the wave [c] is fixed by it's properties
(modulus and density), and is independent of any motion of a source.
Therefore, in the case of a round trip, traveled from any moving emitting
source from a co-moving reflector separated by a 'fixed' distance [d]
see figure above, the distances traveled can be described as follows. For
the 'path' taken in the direction of motion the time required to complete
the trip is:

t = d/(c - v) + d/(c + v) ... {1}

This is strictly due to the so-called Galilean transformations. We note that
when v = c the time it takes for the wave to get to the reflector is infinite,
that is, it WILL never catch the reflector which is moving away just as fast
as the wave can propagate. Now doing some simple algebra the round trip, we
get:

d(c + v) + d(c - v)
t = -------------------- ... {2}
(c - v)(c + v)

which resolves to:

2d
t = -------------- ... {3}
c[1 - (v/c)^2]

Thus the actual distance [L], or path of the wave for the round trip becomes:

2d
L = ------------- ... {4}
[1 - (v/c)^2]

Now if we evaluate the orientation of the assembly at 90 degrees relative to
the motion we get the time as:

2d
t = ------------------ ... {5}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c

This comes about from the fact that the actual path taken by the wave is not
d, but the hypotenuse of a triangle illustrated as follows:
___
/ \
/ | \
/ | \
c | c
/ d \
/ | \
o___v__|___v__o

And the actual distance as:

2d
L = ----------------- ... {6}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]

Which is different from the parallel direction by a factor of exactly:

Sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) ['gamma'] ... {7}

This was the expected difference which would have resulted in the fringes
predicted to be seen in the MMX.

The lack of which is why, in 1889 Fitzgearld and in 1895 Lorentz suggested that
matter contracted by this factor along the axis of motion when moving through
the medium, since this results in both round trip paths becoming of equal length.

Now with the Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction we find that for the local (moving),
system

dx L
c = -- = -- ... {8}
dt dt

and the defintions of dt as,

2d
------------------
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c


Then,


2d Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c
c = ----------------- x ------------------ ... {9}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] 2d

or simply,

c = c

Now it should be clear to anyone that gamma disappears and for any given
local value of d and the definitions,

c = dx/dt

and

dx = 2d

and

dt = 2d/c

the wave speed c will be measured as the same value regardless of v, as long
as v c...

If however the actual round trip paths are L (Eq. 6) and not 2d (the local path)
then the actual travel times are expressed by Eq. 5, and not simply local time
2d/c and all paths MUST travel per Eq. 6, one can set up local coordinates
based upon measured speed c and a local time t' BUT the relationship of different
lcoal times at different speeds v leads direct back to Lorentz's 1904 paper known
as LET.

From the above one can get out the posulates that for the functional basis
of Special Relativity. All physical processes would be constrained to behave
in a manner consistent with the tenets of SR. However, the very existence of
observable time distortions (time dilation) between moving inertial frames can
be considered strong evidence that light's speed is universal invariance and an
underlying medium is what regulates this behavior and give rise to its very
existence.

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news
Lrt us consider wave omni-directaional emitting wave source moving in a
medium configured as a Michelson setup.

No, lrt us consider laser beams which are not wave omni-directational
emitting wave
or even omnidirectional.
Good word, "lrt". Two out of three isn't bad. Invent it all by yourself, did
you?
I didn't care much for "directaional", though.

Aetherist wrote:

Lrt us consider wave omni-directaional emitting wave source moving in a
medium configured as a Michelson setup.

o___________________________________|
Source------------- d ----------------Reflector

In any mundane medium, the speed of the wave [c] is fixed by it's properties
(modulus and density), and is independent of any motion of a source.
Therefore, in the case of a round trip, traveled from any moving emitting
source from a co-moving reflector separated by a 'fixed' distance [d]
see figure above, the distances traveled can be described as follows. For
the 'path' taken in the direction of motion the time required to complete
the trip is:

t = d/(c - v) + d/(c + v) ... {1}

This is strictly due to the so-called Galilean transformations. We note that
when v = c the time it takes for the wave to get to the reflector is infinite,
that is, it WILL never catch the reflector which is moving away just as fast
as the wave can propagate. Now doing some simple algebra the round trip, we
get:

d(c + v) + d(c - v)
t = -------------------- ... {2}
(c - v)(c + v)

which resolves to:

2d
t = -------------- ... {3}
c[1 - (v/c)^2]

Thus the actual distance [L], or path of the wave for the round trip becomes:

2d
L = ------------- ... {4}
[1 - (v/c)^2]

Now if we evaluate the orientation of the assembly at 90 degrees relative to
the motion we get the time as:

2d
t = ------------------ ... {5}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c

This comes about from the fact that the actual path taken by the wave is not
d, but the hypotenuse of a triangle illustrated as follows:
___
/ \
/ | \
/ | \
c | c
/ d \
/ | \
o___v__|___v__o

And the actual distance as:

2d
L = ----------------- ... {6}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]

Which is different from the parallel direction by a factor of exactly:

Sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) ['gamma'] ... {7}

This was the expected difference which would have resulted in the fringes
predicted to be seen in the MMX.

The lack of which is why, in 1889 Fitzgearld and in 1895 Lorentz suggested that
matter contracted by this factor along the axis of motion when moving through
the medium, since this results in both round trip paths becoming of equal length.

Now with the Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction we find that for the local (moving),
system

dx L
c = -- = -- ... {8}
dt dt

and the defintions of dt as,

2d
------------------
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c


Then,


2d Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]c
c = ----------------- x ------------------ ... {9}
Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] 2d

or simply,

c = c

Now it should be clear to anyone that gamma disappears and for any given
local value of d and the definitions,

c = dx/dt

and

dx = 2d

and

dt = 2d/c

the wave speed c will be measured as the same value regardless of v, as long
as v c...

If however the actual round trip paths are L (Eq. 6) and not 2d (the local path)
then the actual travel times are expressed by Eq. 5, and not simply local time
2d/c and all paths MUST travel per Eq. 6, one can set up local coordinates
based upon measured speed c and a local time t' BUT the relationship of different
lcoal times at different speeds v leads direct back to Lorentz's 1904 paper known
as LET.

From the above one can get out the posulates that for the functional basis
of Special Relativity. All physical processes would be constrained to behave
in a manner consistent with the tenets of SR. However, the very existence of
observable time distortions (time dilation) between moving inertial frames can
be considered strong evidence that light's speed is universal invariance and an
underlying medium is what regulates this behavior and give rise to its very
existence.

If, of course, you ignore the century of experimental evidence which
shows that your aether is not present. But keep your delusions.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:45 -0800, doug wrote:

{snip...}

If, of course, you ignore the century of experimental evidence which
shows that your aether is not present. But keep your delusions.

Please provide one specific example of experimental evidence that
you think is being ignored.

On Jul 3, 2:17 pm, Aetherist wrote:
Lrt us consider wave omni-directaional emitting wave source moving in a
medium configured as a Michelson setup.

o___________________________________|
Source------------- d ----------------Reflector

In any mundane medium, the speed of the wave [c] is fixed by it's properties
(modulus and density), and is independent of any motion of a source.
Therefore, in the case of a round trip, traveled from any moving emitting
source from a co-moving reflector separated by a 'fixed' distance [d]
see figure above, the distances traveled can be described as follows. For
the 'path' taken in the direction of motion the time required to complete
the trip is:

t = d/(c - v) + d/(c + v) ... {1}

This is strictly due to the so-called Galilean transformations.

No, it isn't . It is due to another reason but you obviously don't
know why this is so. Einstein started with this calculation in his
paper in the derivation of the LORENTZ transforms, so this should give
you a hint that it CANNOT be based on the Galilei transforms.


rest of your nonsense snipped as irrelevant

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Aetherist wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:45 -0800, doug wrote:

{snip...}


If, of course, you ignore the century of experimental evidence which
shows that your aether is not present. But keep your delusions.


Please provide one specific example of experimental evidence that
you think is being ignored.

You have ignored all of it. Pick any one that you think you can
refute.

Why, you have shown an inability to confront any questionable
conditions of SR?


Spirit of Truth

Aetherist wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:45 -0800, doug wrote:

{snip...}


If, of course, you ignore the century of experimental evidence which
shows that your aether is not present. But keep your delusions.


Please provide one specific example of experimental evidence that
you think is being ignored.

You have ignored all of it. Pick any one that you think you can
refute.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:15:32 +0200, "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

Aetherist wrote in message

Lrt us consider wave omni-directaional emitting wave source moving in a
medium configured as a Michelson setup.

o___________________________________|
Source------------- d ----------------Reflector

In any mundane medium, the speed of the wave [c] is fixed by it's properties
(modulus and density), and is independent of any motion of a source.
Therefore, in the case of a round trip, traveled from any moving emitting
source from a co-moving reflector separated by a 'fixed' distance [d]
see figure above, the distances traveled can be described as follows. For
the 'path' taken in the direction of motion the time required to complete
the trip is:

t = d/(c - v) + d/(c + v) ... {1}

This is strictly due to the so-called Galilean transformations.

Transformation between *which* coordinate systems?

What Equation 9 says is, it doesn't matter. You csnnot use this methodology
to determine the actual rest frame as Lorentz concluded in 1904. However we
can find the rest frame, its called the CMBR...

Dirk Vdm

On Jul 4, 8:38 am, Aetherist wrote:


What Equation 9 says is, it doesn't matter. You csnnot use this methodology
to determine the actual rest frame as Lorentz concluded in 1904. However we
can find the rest frame, its called the CMBR...


No, it isn't. Physicists use the FRAME IN WHICH CMB RADIATION IS
ISOTROPIC as a convenient "preferred frame". None is such an idiot as
a claim that "we can find the rest frame"

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 08:46:17 -0700 (PDT), "Dono." wrote:

On Jul 4, 8:38 am, Aetherist wrote:


What Equation 9 says is, it doesn't matter. You csnnot use this methodology
to determine the actual rest frame as Lorentz concluded in 1904. However we
can find the rest frame, its called the CMBR...


No, it isn't. Physicists use the FRAME IN WHICH CMB RADIATION IS
ISOTROPIC as a convenient "preferred frame". None is such an idiot as
a claim that "we can find the rest frame"

denial isn't just a river in Africa