"Feico Nater" wrote in message
...
On 7 Dec 2005 07:20:08 -0800, wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

This may seem incredible but they in fact used a candle.

So the light source had the same speed as the measuring equipment. In
that case I would not have been surprised if I measured a constant
light speed. It means that the light speed is relative to the light
source, just as in Newtonian physics.

If I throw a ball during a train ride, the speed of the ball will be
the sum of the throw and the speed of the train. Any other passenger
on the train will measure the thrown speed only.

IOW: If M&M used a candle and they measured the same light speed every
time, they would conclude that apparently the speed of light is
relative to the light source.

The experiment was performed at 6 monthly intervals where the speed of
the Earth would differ by 60km/s.

Yes, that would be very sensible, of course.
--
Feico Nater

ianparker is an idiot. You have it right.


The first electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English
scientist. He experimented with electricity and invented an electric
battery. When he connected wires to his battery and a piece of carbon, the
carbon glowed, producing light. This is called an electric arc.
Much later, in 1860, the English physicist Sir Joseph Wilson Swan
(1828-1914) was determined to devise a practical, long-lasting electric
light. He found that a carbon paper filament worked well, but burned up
quickly. In 1878, he demonstrated his new electric lamps in Newcastle,
England.

In 1877, the American Charles Francis Brush manufactured some carbon arcs to
light a public square in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. These arcs were used on a few
streets, in a few large office buildings, and even some stores. Electric
lights were only used by a few people.

The inventor Thomas Alva Edison (in the USA) experimented with thousands of
different filaments to find just the right materials to glow well and be
long-lasting. In 1879, Edison discovered that a carbon filament in an
oxygen-free bulb glowed but did not burn up for 40 hours. Edison eventually
produced a bulb that could glow for over 1500 hours.

Androcles.

wrote in message
ps.com...
IOW: If M&M used a candle and they measured the same light speed every
time, they would conclude that apparently the speed of light is
relative to the light source.

No if that were the case we would see double stars very differently.

We DO, idiot.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

Do stars explode twice in three months, idiot?


We
see stars revolving round other stars and changing their velocity
according to gravitation.

You are full of ****, idiot.


If light traveled with the source we would
see doubles receeding from us rapidly when they were in fact coming
towards us. In fact the light from a double star would be a blur.

It IS a blur, idiot.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010121.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050505.html



No that theory was NEVER believed after the time of Newton.

Yes it is, idiot.

Androcles.

wrote in message ps.com...
IOW: If M&M used a candle and they measured the same light speed every
time, they would conclude that apparently the speed of light is
relative to the light source.

No if that were the case we would see double stars very differently. We
see stars revolving round other stars and changing their velocity
according to gravitation. If light traveled with the source we would
see doubles receeding from us rapidly when they were in fact coming
towards us. In fact the light from a double star would be a blur.

No that theory was NEVER believed after the time of Newton.

But like astronomy newsgroups have their astrologers,
and medicine newsgroups their homeopaths, and geology
newsgroups their flat-Earthers, the physics newsgroups
have their Androsleazes ;-)

Dirk Vdm

"Feico Nater" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:22:05 +0100, "Harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

That doesn't work: Michelson and Morley had already tested before that
with
respect to their equipment, light speed is not c/n relative to a moving
medium ("Fizeau effect").

What do you mean by 'c/n'? What is Fizeau?

He was a french physicist. c is the speed of light, n is refractive index.



The latter can be explained as follows: A man runs with a speed of 10
km/h along a road. He overtakes a lorry which has a speed of 7 km/h.
An observer on the lorry will find that the man is running at 3 km/h.
The runner jumps on the lorry and continues running. The observer now
finds that the man runs at 10 km/h. This result does not depend on the
speed of the lorry.

In the earlier experiment, and in your analogy, the observer on the road

My observer is on the lorry. A moving observer.

sees the "runner" move at less than 17 km/h.

Slightly less, but we do not know about relativity yet.

Yes we do, we have ever since Copernicus figured it out.


The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html

The most recent accusations of forgery made against Einstein came from
Androcles right now. He begins this accusation by stating clearly his
views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.

Towards the end Androcles, having claimed to prove every observation claimed
by Einstein in the theory of relativity was fabricated, writes:-

Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.


The result does depend on the
speed of the lorry (replace "lorry" by "water"; and it's not a perfect
example due to the lack of an equivalent for "n").

What is 'n'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

vanlintel is another idiot. There are lots of them.

Androcles.


--
Feico Nater

"Feico Nater" wrote in message
...
On 7 Dec 2005 06:36:44 -0800, "
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

They used the sun. Since unlike morons and
Quantum Mechaincs idiots they weren't
trying to prove anything about the speed of light.

The distance from the sun to the earth is almost constant. In this
case I would expect the same result as when I used a candle.
--
Feico Nater

There are lots of idiots and trolls here, Feico. Stick to your common sense
and ignore them.

This is real data.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

This is the explanation of that data.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

The idiots want you to think a star explodes twice in three months.

Androcles.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:07:21 +0100, "Harry"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

Fizeau was an experimenter who found that light speed was *not* fully added
to the speed of the medium. Michelson and Morley repeated his experiment.
They concluded that light is delayed by matter, but it is unaffected by
matter in the free space between the atoms, IOW light speed in free space is
unaffected by earlier interactions with matter.

Okay, that's clear, I think. You can even do the experiment in a wind
tunnel, and with a light source that moves with the air. However, I
hope that they were able to do this at a measurable speed. I'll have
to think about this.
--
Feico Nater

Feico Nater wrote:
We all know that Michelson and Morly found that the speed of light is
always the same, even if the observer moves. This result puzzled many
scientists.
But how did they found that?

Such open-ended questions around here often get incorrect responses. In
this case, you can read for yourself Michelson and Morley's paper:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf


What light source did they use? Perhaps a lamp. In that case the light
source moved with their equipment. If the speed of light is always c
with respect to the light source, they would not be surprises if it
were c with respect to their equipment.

Yes, the light source was affixed to the rotating table. But because of
Maxwell's contributions to electromagnetism, and the prevalence of
aether theory back then, it was indeed expected that their result would
be non-null.

The naive sort of "ballistic" theory of light you seem to be thinking of
simply does not work (despite unflagging advocacy of it from idiots
around here).


Or did they use a remote star? In that case the light passed through
the atmosphere, which might change its speed.

Other experimenters did indeed direct light from the sun and distant
stars into this type of interferometer, but not Michelson and Morley.
See the FAQ for references. Your concern about the atmosphere affecting
the speed is correct; look up "optical extinction" in the FAQ and elsewhere.


If I throw a ball during a train ride, [...]

Light does not behave as balls do.

Beware of thinking that phenomena in realms far removed from your
everyday experience will behave as objects familiar to you behave. Your
common sense is QUITE naive, if not just plain wrong, for objects
smaller than ~1 mm, for objects larger than ~10,000 kilometers, or for
speeds a substantial fraction of c.


Tom Roberts

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:48:29 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

We DO, idiot.

I have just arrived in this group, and I already consider to leave.
--
Feico

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:07:46 -0600, Tom Roberts
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

If I throw a ball during a train ride, [...]

Light does not behave as balls do.

True, but I'm talking about Michelson and Morley, who lived before
1900, when Einstein was still in nappies. In that time there was no
reason te expect that light behaved in a different way.

--
Feico

"Feico" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:48:29 GMT, "Dastardly Fiend"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

We DO, idiot.

I have just arrived in this group, and I already consider to leave.

Don't - you just happened to meet the worst of all at a
very early stage :-)
When someone new arrives, Androcles will do just about
everything he can to either convert the newbie to terminal
insanity or, if that fails, to chase him away.
Most crackpots of this forum are slightly less disgusting.

Dirk Vdm