MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different. As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

The reason for the absence of the prediction was eventually accepted
to be a contraction of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of
the equipment and resulting in both arms to be equal in length.
Fitzgerald and Lorentz proposed a precise formula for the contraction.
Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper “The Special Theory of
Relativity”:

“In one of the most notable of these attempts” (to detect
the existence of an aether-drift) “Michelson devised a method
which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so
arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other.
A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from one
mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest
with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation, however, that a
slightly different time T1 is required for this process, if the body,
together with the mirrors, be moving relatively to the æther. And yet
another point: it is shown by calculation that for a given velocity v
with reference to the æther, this time T1 is different when the body
is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that
resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the
estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small,
Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in
which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the
experiment gave a negative result - a fact very perplexing to
physicists. Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this
difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the
æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion,
the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the
difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in
Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of
relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one.”

Now if it is true that the parallel arm is contracted as described
before, the lengths of the two arms of the interferometer are equal in
consequence of their motion through space and all that can be said is
that light transits equal distances in equal times. Therefore, MMX is
neither proof that the speed of light is constant or source
independent or not.

If however it is not true that contraction occurs then all that can be
said is that light can transit unequal distances in equal times or
that the logic of MMX has not been understood.

The second is the case. The true nature of the negative result of MMX
is explained by Riedt’s Second Lorentz Contraction Rebuttal.

Peter Riedt

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different. As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

The reason for the absence of the prediction was eventually accepted
to be a contraction of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of
the equipment and resulting in both arms to be equal in length.
Fitzgerald and Lorentz proposed a precise formula for the contraction.
Albert Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper “The Special Theory of
Relativity”:

“In one of the most notable of these attempts” (to detect
the existence of an aether-drift) “Michelson devised a method
which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so
arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces face each other.
A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T to pass from one
mirror to the other and back again, if the whole system be at rest
with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation, however, that a
slightly different time T1 is required for this process, if the body,
together with the mirrors, be moving relatively to the æther. And yet
another point: it is shown by calculation that for a given velocity v
with reference to the æther, this time T1 is different when the body
is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that
resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the
estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small,
Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in
which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the
experiment gave a negative result - a fact very perplexing to
physicists. Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this
difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the
æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion,
the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the
difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in
Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of
relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one.”

Now if it is true that the parallel arm is contracted as described
before, the lengths of the two arms of the interferometer are equal in
consequence of their motion through space and all that can be said is
that light transits equal distances in equal times. Therefore, MMX is
neither proof that the speed of light is constant or source
independent or not.

If however it is not true that contraction occurs then all that can be
said is that light can transit unequal distances in equal times or
that the logic of MMX has not been understood.

The second is the case. The true nature of the negative result of MMX
is explained by Riedt’s Second Lorentz Contraction Rebuttal.

Peter Riedt

You will never know unless
the experiment is tested with the state of the art technology that we have
now.
Physics establishment will be against it because it would undermine it's
social position.
Do it you self and you will be the first to know the truth.

Sincerely,

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

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...
MMX and the Speed of Light


[snip]

The second is the case. The true nature of the negative result of MMX
is explained by Riedt’s Second Lorentz Contraction Rebuttal.

Peter Riedt

hm, not bad for someone who 4 days ago, under another
name , had the following beginner's
question:

| "If I am at rest in my frame (attached to the surface of
| the earth) and observe the sun, how do I define my
| coordinates and the ones of the sun? What are the
| coordinates relative to? What benefits will I derive
| from such coordinates, if they are possible?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_...ing.google.com

Dirk Vdm

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different.

The MMX was designed to detect the motion of the
supposed aether, hence the title, 'On the Relative Motion of
the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether'. No length change
of the arms was expected (or measured).

As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

The reason for the absence of the prediction was eventually accepted
to be a contraction of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of
the equipment and resulting in both arms to be equal in length.

Wrong. The accepted reason for the null result was that there was
no aether (or at least no need for one).

You are criticising something you clearly do not understand.
Have a look at:
http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/cla...michelson.html
for a description of the experiment.

martin Hogbin

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different. As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

This past interpretation is wrong. The null result is because the earth
surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the MMX,
KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different. As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

This past interpretation is wrong. The null result is because the earth
surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the MMX,
KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Ken Seto

Ken, please decode your garbled sentence starting 'The null result....'

Peter Riedt

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different. As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

This past interpretation is wrong. The null result is because the earth
surface (thus the apparatus is moving in the vertical (up or down)
directions. This interpretation will explain the null results of the
MMX,
KTX and the Compton scattering experiment.

Ken Seto

Ken, please decode your garbled sentence starting 'The null result....'

If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN) then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message
om...
MMX and the Speed of Light


If the apparatus is moving in the vertical direction (UP or DOWN) then the
light path lengths, (from the end of the arms to the re-combining mirror),
for all the horizontal orientations of the horizontal arms will be equal and
thus the null result.

Ken Seto

Ken,
1. Moving up or down wrt what?
2. What if the apparatus is not moving up or down?
3. Are you saying that there is no contraction?

Peter Riedt

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

Neither of these two attributes is proven or disproven by the
Michelson Morley experiment (MMX). The experiment is based on the fact
that the interferometer equipment used in the experiment moves through
space attached to earth. One of the two arms of the interferometer is
aligned parallel to the movement, the other perpendicular. According
to the original logic of the experiment, the lengths of the two arms
after rotating them are different.

The MMX was designed to detect the motion of the
supposed aether, hence the title, 'On the Relative Motion of
the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether'. No length change
of the arms was expected (or measured).

Martin, you may be correct that length change was neither expected or
measured but it didn't stop Fitzgerald and Lorentz to propose it and
Einstein to accept it.

Peter Riedt


As a consequence of this
difference, the light beam travelling up and down the parallel arm and
the light beam travelling back and forth along the perpendiular arm
should produce an observable phase shift when recombined.

The reason for the absence of the prediction was eventually accepted
to be a contraction of the parallel arm proportional to the speed of
the equipment and resulting in both arms to be equal in length.

Wrong. The accepted reason for the null result was that there was
no aether (or at least no need for one).

Martin, why then was contraction proposed and is still used by SR?
What has the absence or presence of the aether to do with contraction?

Peter Riedt

You are criticising something you clearly do not understand.
Have a look at:
http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/cla...michelson.html
for a description of the experiment.

martin Hogbin

"Peter Riedt" wrote in message m...
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Peter Riedt" wrote in message om...
MMX and the Speed of Light

The speed of light may be constant in free space and source
independent.

The MMX was designed to detect the motion of the
supposed aether, hence the title, 'On the Relative Motion of
the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether'. No length change
of the arms was expected (or measured).

Martin, you may be correct that length change was neither expected or
measured but it didn't stop Fitzgerald and Lorentz to propose it and
Einstein to accept it.

But you said, 'According to the original logic of the experiment'.
You need to be much clearer than this if you want to make
any point.

Lorentz' explanation involved a contraction due to motion through
the aether; Einstein's explanation did not.

Wrong. The accepted reason for the null result was that there was
no aether (or at least no need for one).

Martin, why then was contraction proposed and is still used by SR?

As far as the MMX goes it is not.

What has the absence or presence of the aether to do with contraction?

What has contraction got to do with SR and the MMX?

Martin Hogbin