PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without MMX,
Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and formula
and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.

Peter Riedt

Peri of Pera wrote:
PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without MMX,
Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and formula
and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.

Peter Riedt

This is not historically correct. Einstein was worried about light from
the point of view of Maxwell's equations. The MMX only confirmed the
ideas that had already developed from that. Note that Einstein derived
the Lorentz transformation from the assumption of the constancy of
light speed, not the other way around.

PD

Peri of Pera wrote:
1. Lorentz explained the null result of MMX as due to contraction of
the parallell arm.

No, that was Fitzgerald. Lorentz used Lorentz transforms.


2. AE agreed with Lorentz (refer AE quote below).

Your quote does not support your assertion. That uses the Lorentz
transform, not merely length contraction.


3. MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR.

Not true. Go read Einstein's 1905 paper, and you'll find no reference to
the MMX. Later in life Einstein stated he could not remember if he was
aware of Michelson and Morley's result when he wrote it.

Einstein's starting point was purely theoretical (but supported by a
half-dozen experiments): he took the then-radical point of view that
Maxwell's equations were true, fundamental, and in accord with the PoR;
he followed their implications and SR just popped out....


The contraction
formula is used by SR. If it falls, so does SR.

Sort of true. SR really uses the Lorentz transform, not merely length
contraction.


4. There is an unexplained redundency in the contraction conjectu Is
the MMX null result due to the nature of light (ie constancy) or is it
due to contraction? If c is a constant why is contraction necessary and
if contraction is real how can c be constant (ie must c not vary to
accommodate the contraction at different v)?

That does not matter. One simply makes a prediction using SR and
compares to measurement.

But in fact you are confused. The "length contraction" is _PART_ of the
reason c is constant, as explained by SR. The actual explanation is the
Lorentz transform (not merely length contraction as you seem to think).


5. MMX only shows that light travels over both MMX arms using the same
time. The speed of light may very well be a constant but this is not
proven by MMX or required by it.

Sure. That, too, is irrelevant. One simply makes a prediction using SR
and compares to measurement.


Tom Roberts

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without MMX,
| Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and
formula
| and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.
|
| Peter Riedt
|
| This is not historically correct.

Ahem...
Examples of this sort,
[Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet]
together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

"let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at
a
time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the error and remove the erroneous statement from further
discussion." --
Phuckwit Duck.

Androcles, [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck
to appear].

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without MMX,
| Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and
formula
| and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.
|
| Peter Riedt
|
| This is not historically correct.

Ahem...
Examples of this sort,
[Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet]
together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

Yes, indeed.

Oh, wait. Let me pretend to plonk you.

Androcles-like drama, with drum roll:
"That does it.
*plonk*"


"let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at
a
time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the error and remove the erroneous statement from further
discussion." --
Phuckwit Duck.

Androcles, [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck
to appear].

"PD" wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without
MMX,
| | Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and
| formula
| | and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.
| |
| | Peter Riedt
| |
| | This is not historically correct.
|
| Ahem...
| Examples of this sort,
| [Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
| a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative
| motion of the conductor and the magnet]
| together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of
the
| earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena
of
| electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
| corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
|
| Yes, indeed.
|
| Oh, wait. Let me pretend to plonk you.
|
| Androcles-like drama, with drum roll:
| "That does it.
| *plonk*"


Got anything sensible to say, hypocrite Phuckwit Duck?
No? Didn't think so. Make sure you have sound on, go to this page,
listen carefully.
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/


|
| "let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
at
| a
| time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
| error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
| the error and remove the erroneous statement from further
| discussion." --
| Phuckwit Duck.
|
| Androcles, [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a
duck
| to appear].
|

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill, the points which I am making a

1. Lorentz explained the null result of MMX as due to contraction of
the parallell arm.

Relative to an aether.


2. AE agreed with Lorentz (refer AE quote below).


I can not find any mention of an aether in that quote.


3. MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. The contraction
formula is used by SR. If it falls, so does SR.


Things have moved on since Einstein's time. The starting point of a modern
treatment is not the MMX - it is the POR.


4. There is an unexplained redundency in the contraction conjectu Is
the MMX null result due to the nature of light (ie constancy) or is it
due to contraction? If c is a constant why is contraction necessary and
if contraction is real how can c be constant (ie must c not vary to
accommodate the contraction at different v)?


I would find it rather difficult to discuss such conjectures since I do not
believe in an aether and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis was a
hypothesis about the aether - namely motion wrt to the aether contracted
objects.


5. MMX only shows that light travels over both MMX arms using the same
time. The speed of light may very well be a constant but this is not
proven by MMX or required by it.


The MMX experiment did not disprove the existence of an aether or of
theories where the speed of light is only the same in an aether frame but
that nature somehow conspires to make it appear constant. Most everyone
exposed to it however recognized it makes theories rejecting an aether a lot
more reasonable.

Bill



Albert Einstein: Relativity
(revised 1924 edition of Dec 1916 1st edition)
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
Chapter 11 The Lorentz Transformation (excerpt)

"Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that, in
accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the law of the transmission
of light in vacuo is satisfied both for the reference-body K and for
the reference-body K1. A light-signal is sent along the positive
x-axis, and this light-stimulus advances in accordance with the
equation

x = ct,

i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz
transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a
relation between x1 and t1. In point of fact, if we substitute for x
the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz
transformation, we obtain:

x'=(c-v)t/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and t'=(1-v/c)t/sqrt(1-vv/cc)

from which, by division, the expression

x1 = ct1

immediately follows. If referred to the system K1, the propagation of
light takes place according to this equation. We thus see that the
velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K1 is also
equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in
any other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is not surprising, since
the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived conformably to
this point of view."

Peter Riedt

"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Grand Constancy of Light Illusion

Einstein agreed with Lorentz that the null result of the Michelson
Morley experiment (MMX) was caused by the contraction of the parallel
arm of the equipment.

Since the arm is stationary relative to the experimenter, SR, and hence
Einstein, does not say that at all.

Bill


Bill, what does SR say about contraction? Does it use the contraction
formula?

It does not use the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction formula because it does
not have an aether. Since SR is experimentally indistinguishable from
theories like LET that do use it you can not tell if it is correct or not -
but as a matter of principle SR does not postulate the existence of an
aether so a formula that requires an aether is meaningless in such a theory.

Bill


Peter Riedt

PD wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
PD, the MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. Without MMX,
Lorentz could not have produced his contraction conjecture and formula
and AE would not have grappled with the constancy of light.

Peter Riedt

This is not historically correct. Einstein was worried about light from
the point of view of Maxwell's equations. The MMX only confirmed the
ideas that had already developed from that. Note that Einstein derived
the Lorentz transformation from the assumption of the constancy of
light speed, not the other way around.

PD

PD, AE did not derive the Lorentz transformation. Contraction was
proposed by Fitzgerald. The mathematical form of the contraction
hypothesis was created by Voigt, Larmor and Lorentz and is known as the
Lorentz transformation (I refer to it as 'the contraction formula'). AE
acknowleges Lorentz as the author in his book from which I have quoted
in this thread.

Peter Riedt

Bill, read the quote I have given in this threat from AE's book. AE
acknowledges the Lorentz transformation which gives the Fitzgerald
contraction hypothesis its mathematical form. To claim that AE and SR
do not use contraction is absurd. It is a fundamental tenet of SR. BTW
the contraction hypothesis does not require an ether. AE appears to
have disallowed the ether but still accepted the Lorentz transforms.

Peter Riedt