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. The logic used by Lorentz was: 'MMX shows a null
result; therefore, the arm moving in the direction of motion contracts
to the same length of the perpendicular arm.' Einstein extended this
logic: 'MMX shows a null result; therefore, objects in motion through
space contract in the direction of motion causing the speed of light to
be constant.'

It must be understood that in this line of reasoning, constancy of the
speed of light is not due to the nature of light but a consequence of
the contraction experienced by objects proportional to their speed. The
conclusions of Lorentz and Einstein were universally accepted by the
followers of SR to apply to all systems in motion even though the
experiment was never conducted at a speed other than the speed of the
earth around the sun. More importantly however is that the contraction
conjecture only explains why the light travels across either arm at the
same speed in one specific experiment (MMX1). If the interferometer had
another speed through space in another experiment (MMX2), the light may
take the same time across the two arms but there is no telling if the
speed of light in MMX1 is the same as in MMX2.

If the speed of light indeed is a constant, is contraction necessary?
If contraction is redundant, why use the contraction and time dilation
formulas in SR? MMX does not prove anything about the true nature of
light!

The reasoning of both Lorentz and Einstein is based on one observation
(with variations) which is then applied universally. It is the same
method the blind man uses when he touches the tail of an elephant and
says an elephant is a rope. Einstein could have said with equal
justification: 'The speed of light is constant; therefore, either the
parallel arm contracts or the perpendicular arm expands (refer to
Riedt's Expansion Conjecture).' The reasoning of both these eminent
scientists is selective, arbitrary and unscientific and the conclusion
must be that the null result of MMX has a cause different from
contraction. As the great Einstein said himself: 'Any number of
experiments cannot prove me right but one can prove me wrong'.

Peter Riedt

PS I know the real reason for the null result of MMX and the causes of
gravity but I am not going to tell ya.

I'm glad it's not a heavy illusion.

"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

The logic used by Lorentz was: 'MMX shows a null
result; therefore, the arm moving in the direction of motion contracts
to the same length of the perpendicular arm.' Einstein extended this
logic: 'MMX shows a null result; therefore, objects in motion through
space contract in the direction of motion causing the speed of light to
be constant.'

It must be understood that in this line of reasoning, constancy of the
speed of light is not due to the nature of light but a consequence of
the contraction experienced by objects proportional to their speed. The
conclusions of Lorentz and Einstein were universally accepted by the
followers of SR to apply to all systems in motion even though the
experiment was never conducted at a speed other than the speed of the
earth around the sun. More importantly however is that the contraction
conjecture only explains why the light travels across either arm at the
same speed in one specific experiment (MMX1). If the interferometer had
another speed through space in another experiment (MMX2), the light may
take the same time across the two arms but there is no telling if the
speed of light in MMX1 is the same as in MMX2.

If the speed of light indeed is a constant, is contraction necessary?
If contraction is redundant, why use the contraction and time dilation
formulas in SR? MMX does not prove anything about the true nature of
light!

The reasoning of both Lorentz and Einstein is based on one observation
(with variations) which is then applied universally. It is the same
method the blind man uses when he touches the tail of an elephant and
says an elephant is a rope. Einstein could have said with equal
justification: 'The speed of light is constant; therefore, either the
parallel arm contracts or the perpendicular arm expands (refer to
Riedt's Expansion Conjecture).' The reasoning of both these eminent
scientists is selective, arbitrary and unscientific and the conclusion
must be that the null result of MMX has a cause different from
contraction. As the great Einstein said himself: 'Any number of
experiments cannot prove me right but one can prove me wrong'.

Peter Riedt

PS I know the real reason for the null result of MMX and the causes of
gravity but I am not going to tell ya.

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?

Peter Riedt

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?

Peter Riedt

Peri of Pera wrote:
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. The logic used by Lorentz was: 'MMX shows a null
result; therefore, the arm moving in the direction of motion contracts
to the same length of the perpendicular arm.' Einstein extended this
logic: 'MMX shows a null result; therefore, objects in motion through
space contract in the direction of motion causing the speed of light to
be constant.'

It must be understood that in this line of reasoning, constancy of the
speed of light is not due to the nature of light but a consequence of
the contraction experienced by objects proportional to their speed.

This is incorrect and the order of the concepts in the previous
paragraph is also reversed. If you read the 1905 paper that introduced
SR and did NOT do an analysis of the MMX, you'll see that the Lorentz
transformation (and consequently, length contraction) necessarily
follows from the constancy of the speed of light. *After* this was
accomplished, he was able to demonstrate, using the Lorentz
transformations, why the null result was to be expected.

The
conclusions of Lorentz and Einstein were universally accepted by the
followers of SR to apply to all systems in motion even though the
experiment was never conducted at a speed other than the speed of the
earth around the sun. More importantly however is that the contraction
conjecture only explains why the light travels across either arm at the
same speed in one specific experiment (MMX1). If the interferometer had
another speed through space in another experiment (MMX2), the light may
take the same time across the two arms but there is no telling if the
speed of light in MMX1 is the same as in MMX2.

This is indeed why the MMX experiment was *repeated* at different times
of day and at different times of the year, and in different
orientations, to effectively produce multiple copies of the MMX.


If the speed of light indeed is a constant, is contraction necessary?
If contraction is redundant, why use the contraction and time dilation
formulas in SR? MMX does not prove anything about the true nature of
light!

That is certainly correct, and if all that SR did was predict the
result of the MMX, then it would have been eventually rejected.
However, it made multitudes of other predictions which were also tested
in experiment, and which continued to validate SR.


The reasoning of both Lorentz and Einstein is based on one observation
(with variations) which is then applied universally. It is the same
method the blind man uses when he touches the tail of an elephant and
says an elephant is a rope. Einstein could have said with equal
justification: 'The speed of light is constant; therefore, either the
parallel arm contracts or the perpendicular arm expands (refer to
Riedt's Expansion Conjecture).' The reasoning of both these eminent
scientists is selective, arbitrary and unscientific and the conclusion
must be that the null result of MMX has a cause different from
contraction. As the great Einstein said himself: 'Any number of
experiments cannot prove me right but one can prove me wrong'.

Peter Riedt

PS I know the real reason for the null result of MMX and the causes of
gravity but I am not going to tell ya.

It is a common point of ignorance to think that all SR is good for is
to predict the MMX, and that the MMX was conducted in only one instance
and in one orientation. This failure to appreciate both the depth of
the theory and the experiments that have been conducted to test various
aspects of the theory dooms a deeper understanding of both.

PD

Peri of Pera wrote:
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.

Not true. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz and Einstein
wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


The logic used by Lorentz was: 'MMX shows a null
result; therefore, the arm moving in the direction of motion contracts
to the same length of the perpendicular arm.'

That is completely wrong. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz
and Einstein wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


Einstein extended this
logic: 'MMX shows a null result; therefore, objects in motion through
space contract in the direction of motion causing the speed of light to
be constant.'

Not true at all. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz and
Einstein wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


The reasoning of both Lorentz and Einstein is based on one observation
(with variations) which is then applied universally.

Not true. In 1905 Einstein knew of a half-dozen experiments that failed
to display the expected effects of the aether. Today there are literally
hundreds of experiments that support SR. See the FAQ for references.


The constancy of the speed of light in locally-inertial frames is not
any sort of "illusion", it is a well-established experimental FACT.


Tom Roberts

"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?

What contraction formula are you talking about? - the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction formula? No it does not use that because such assumes the
existence of an aether which SR rejects. It does however have the Lorentz
transformations. In SR length contraction is simply a by product of
lorentzian space-time geometry. Such a view looks on contraction like the
rotation of a rod in geometry. Rotate a rod and its projection onto the x
axis changes - but its length is the same. The same in SR - its proper
length (ie its length in a frame where it is at rest) is invariant - but in
other frames where it is not at rest the projection of its length onto that
coordinate system is different and it is measured to be less. In the MMX
the arms of the apparatus are stationary wrt to the experimenter thus its
length is the proper length which is always the same. The null result of
the MMX in SR is trivial - since the apparatus is stationary relative to the
experimenter all lengths are the same so of course the result will be null.

Thanks
Bill


Peter Riedt

Tom Roberts wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
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.

Not true. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz and Einstein
wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


The logic used by Lorentz was: 'MMX shows a null
result; therefore, the arm moving in the direction of motion contracts
to the same length of the perpendicular arm.'

That is completely wrong. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz
and Einstein wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


Einstein extended this
logic: 'MMX shows a null result; therefore, objects in motion through
space contract in the direction of motion causing the speed of light to
be constant.'

Not true at all. Perhaps you should actually READ what Lorentz and
Einstein wrote on this subject, instead of simply making things up.


The reasoning of both Lorentz and Einstein is based on one observation
(with variations) which is then applied universally.

Not true. In 1905 Einstein knew of a half-dozen experiments that failed
to display the expected effects of the aether. Today there are literally
hundreds of experiments that support SR. See the FAQ for references.


The constancy of the speed of light in locally-inertial frames is not
any sort of "illusion", it is a well-established experimental FACT.


Tom Roberts


Tom, the points which I am making a

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

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

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

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)?

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.


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

Bill, the points which I am making a

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

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

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

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)?

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.


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