Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 4:11 AM
427 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 426 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,907 Year: 6,513/21,208 Month: 2,274/2,634 Week: 462/572 Day: 9/70 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9317
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 46 of 54 (761421)
07-01-2015 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
07-01-2015 8:42 AM


Re: GIGO
The fact is that the relativity principle obviates the heliocentric model just as much as it supports that model. ...

When a geocentrist talks about the relativity principle, they refer only to the equivalence of inertial frames and the mach principle that Eallows them to postulate that the rotational effects seen on earth are due to the rotation of the stars at great distances.

What they do not and cannot claim is that Newton's or Einstein physics including their theories of gravity can be given any credence. They must instead claim that the causes of motion in their system obey strange and inexplicable laws that don't resemble what you observe in your every day life.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2015 8:42 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 47 of 54 (762632)
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


SCENE SYNOPSIS: MICHELSON-MORLEY
Scene VI: The Michelson-Morley Experiments

Background: We recall the starlight experiment of Dominique Arago, and one of his presuppositions; namely that the space between the Sun and the Earth is not empty but rather filled with a rarified material substance called aether, through which medium light travels. The existence and the presence of aether in the universe was conceded by all the scientists of the time, it being a very ancient principle of natural philosophy. Aether was held to be omnipresent in the universe, and, as we see in Fresnel's hypothesis, impenetrating all matter. Indeed Fresnel's equation explicitly sought to measure the drag motion of the aether trapped inside a telescope's magnifying glass.

Newton's theory of gravitation posited that matter possesses an inherent quality of attraction, making possible what he referred to as "action at a distance." Thus the Sun, having great mass, attracts the Earth and the planets; and, in virtue of their opposite gravitational attractions creating a stasis of sorts, their orbits of rotation around the Sun (or the center of mass for the whole system) result. But how does this "action at a distance" actually happen? The experiments of Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, and Airy were attempts to prove the heliocentric thesis using observations and measurements demonstrating the presence and effects of aether on bodies presumed to be in motion; the common supposition being that the gravitational force of these bodies acted through the aether medium.

Description of Interferometer: Enter Albert Michelson, who invented the interferometer, a highly sensitive instrument capable of measuring the interference patterns of intersecting beams of light. The interferometer uses a beamsplitter and mirrors to separate one beam of light into two arms at right angles to one another. The beams are sent through air along numerous perpendicular paths - their intersection producing an interference pattern hypothetically capable of detecting the motion of the Earth.

Description of Experimental Procedure: One light beam is directed toward the west, the direction believed to be that of the Earth’s movement around the Sun. Perpendicularity would require the other beam to be directed north to the pole. The west-directed light beam, presumed to be heading right into the aether at 66,000 mph (the supposed speed of the Earth around the Sun) was expected to encounter resistance (interference) from the aether. The light beam going north was expected to experience very little or no aether resistance because it would not encounter Fresnel's "opposite-direction aether drag." Thus it was hypothesized that the faster moving north-directed light beam would return to the detection plate before the slower-moving west-directed beam. Whether the light was constituted of particles or waves, the north-directed beam would be ahead of the west-directed beam by a wide enough margin that the difference would mean the Earth was revolving around the Sun.

Experimental Results: Michelson's hypothesis was falsified: The west-directed beam arrived at the detector at essentially the same time as the north-directed beam. Rather than a wide margin in speed of return to the detection plate, only a miniscule difference was measured in the interference fringe. The wave displacement (distance between the light waves) needed to prove the Earth's motion was 0.4; but the highest displacement recorded was 0.02, a mere 5% of the magic number. In order to prove the motion of the Earth, Michelson required a wave displacement 95% greater than what he got. As in Arago's, Fizeau's, and Airy's experiments, observable, repeatable, measurable physical evidence clearly indicated a stationary Earth. In 1881, Michelson reported his findings in the American Journal of Science, stating that "this conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

Subsequent Retesting: Michelson determined to build a more sensitive interferometer; and, in his experimental protocols, he took extreme precautions against any outside disturbances that may have affected the results of the first experiment. He consulted with Hendrik Lorentz and Lord Kelvin, and took on Edward Morley as his partner. Alexander Graham Bell financed this project. The new experiment took place in 1887, and the results were even more devastating for heliocentrists: no calculable displacement was measured. They had not a shred of evidence that the Earth is in motion.

Implications of the Results: No one could fault Michelson's experimental protocols, as his hypothesis was developed using meticulous calculations based on the undisputed properties of light waves. Unable to reconcile his own results, Michelson sought the assistance of the top physicists in the world. In response, Hendrik Lorentz investigated both the 1881 and 1887 experiments. He wrote to Lord Rayleigh in 1892, and expressed his exasperation over Michelson’s experiment: "Fresnel’s hypothesis . . . would serve admirably to account for all the observed phenomena, were it not for the interferential experiment of Mr. Michelson which has, as you know, been repeated . . . and which seems decidedly to contradict Fresnel's view. I am totally at a loss how to solve the contradiction . . . if Fresnel’s wave theory is abandoned we should have no adequate aberration theory at all . . ."

Lorentz's admission that Fresnel’s drag theory cannot be used to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment simultaneously weakens Fresnel's credibility in attempting to interpret Arago's results, since Fresnel's equation is entirely hypothetical and supported by not a shred of empirical evidence. Many physicists have commented on the negative results of Michelson's experiment. Scene VI contains a sampling of astonishing quotes which admit the clear implications of the evidence.

Lorentz's Attempt to Save Heliocentrism: This crisis for heliocentrism caused Lorentz to posit a new theory. He supposed that a material body somehow changes as it travels through space and against the aether; and he found in Irish physicist, George Fitzgerald, a scientist who co-opined that the length of a body depends on how it is moving through the ether. Fitzgerald hypothesized that the light beams returned at what amounted to the same time because the pressure of the aether actually shortened the west-directed arm of the interferometer. It must be noted that prior to this "contraction hypothesis," aether was understood to be a perfect fluid that produced no pressure or friction against matter. The theorized contraction or shortening of the west-pointing arm, would shorten the distance of the slower moving light beam, thus making up for the difference in speed, and allowing for both beams to return to the detector at the same time. This heliocentrism-saving hypothesis was claimed to be demonstrated by a mathematical equation invented by Lorentz. The upshot is that 1) a moving object will have an old length and a new length, the new length invariably shorter by the equation's proposed ratio; and 2) the faster the object moves, the shorter the new length will become. Thus Lorentz's equation can be employed to change or “transform” the results of any experiment designed to test the motion of the Earth. His equation is, however, entirely theoretical; it has never been physically demonstrated to be true - no “contraction of matter having ever been demonstrated or measured.


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 07-14-2015 10:25 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 07-14-2015 10:38 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
Suzanne Romano
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 06-17-2015


Message 48 of 54 (762633)
07-14-2015 9:06 AM


EINSTEIN AND MICHELSON-MORLEY
Scene VII: Einstein’s Answer to Michelson-Morley

Part I:

Raison d'etre for the Theory of Special Relativity: Albert Einstein was yet another Copernican determined to introduce a scientific explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that would save the heliocentric thesis - another Copernican unwilling to follow the evidence where it actually led. He admitted as much in 1924: “Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.” Einstein would not allow for the possibility of an immobile Earth. He would retain the heliocentric thesis, and simply dispense with proof.

Because all previous experiments failed to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether, Einstein was forced to choose between three possible scenarios: (1) the Earth is not moving through the aether; or (2) the Earth is moving and carrying the aether with it; or (3) the aether does not exist and the Earth is moving through empty space. Choice 1 was unthinkable to Einstein and his colleagues, because they were unwilling to posit an explanation for the Michelson experiment that demonstrated a motionless Earth. Yet the solution offered by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was no more than a contradiction; for it held simultaneously that the aether is a perfect fluid with no friction; and that the aether exerts enough pressure on matter to contract it.

A Novel Approach: Einstein's mind turned to the problem of getting rid of the smoking gun. If he simply eliminated the aether, he would eliminate the contradiction and the alarming implications of the growing body of empirical evidence. But doing away with the aether meant doing away with the concept of fixed or absolute space, and, consequently, the nullification of much of the established principles of physics, based as they are on the certitude that the aether, or "light medium," actually exists. In Einstein's mediumless universe, all motion is relative. Celestial bodies move with respect to one another but not with respect to a fixed or absolute space. In this universe there is no immobile center of mass about which everything revolves; there can be no body at rest. Einstein's universe - acentric, in omni-motion, without an absolute frame of reference, and devoid of the indispensable light medium - is a virtual construct of enshrined disorder. Einstein is, in essence, a progenitor of chaos.

Nothing is Solved: Einstein's nagging problem was one of cold, hard, reality: Each and every time, Michelson's perpendicular light beams arrived back at the detection plate simultaneously. How could this be if the Earth is moving through empty, frictionless, aetherless space? Furthermore, if all bodies move, and nothing is at rest, then detection of absolute motion is impossible; for a fixed frame of reference is necessary for such measurement. If all motion is relative and there is no fixed frame of reference, whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun and stars revolve around the Earth, cannot be determined. Indeed Einstein and many other prominent physicists have admitted as much. The only absolute in the theory of relativity is its categorical incapacity to prove the heliocentric thesis.

Specifics in the Einsteinian Novelty: Einstein posited an aetherless model of the universe; thus he could not rely on the Lorentz-Fitzgerald "aether causes moving bodies to contract" theory. Nevertheless he did maintain that the west-directed arm of Michelson’s interferometer had contracted, and that this contraction made it impossible to detect the movement of the Earth. In keeping with the overarching theme of enshrined disorder, Einstein attributed the phenomenon of contraction, not to aether pressure, but to some mysterious principle of nature. Coining the term "coordinate system," Einstein offered to the physics establishment an explanation for his proposition: "contraction without aether." He needed this contraction of quantitative extension to serve as his measuring stick (or principle of fixity), by which to distinguish between motion and non-motion, in a universe where all motion is relative and where no bodies are at rest.

By Einstein's own admission, a coordinate system does not conform to anything real. He said, "there is no such thing as a ‘specially favoured’ co-ordinate system . . . the contraction of moving bodies follows from the . . . theory, without the introduction of particular hypotheses . . . the prime factor involved in this contraction is not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun."

Essentially Einstein is hoisted by his own petard: In order to contradict the reasonable inferences to be drawn from Michelson's and others' experiments, he a) constructs a universe without an absolute reference frame, wherein it is impossible to detect absolute motion; and b) dreams up a purely imaginary device he calls "relative coordinate system," to serve as the fixed reference frame he just eliminated. This is a violation of the Law of Contradiction, one of the First Principles of Reason: A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Intending to contradict physical evidence, Einstein contradicts himself. In his entire career, he never offered a direct scientific cause for the presumed contraction; he only returned again and again to the mantra that it is a consequence of “relative motion.”


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminPhat, posted 07-14-2015 10:21 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 07-14-2015 12:16 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2015 5:24 PM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1781
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 49 of 54 (762652)
07-14-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:06 AM


Re: EINSTEIN AND MICHELSON-MORLEY
OK, Suzanne you know the drill. Spamming is discouraged. Granted you may have written these lengthy pieces, and granted you may be passionate about spreading the good word (hopefully as opposed to thinking commercially about it) but we here at EvC wish to interact with you...not just your body of work.
Forum Guidelines

You have been warned before. 1 day suspension.

All I want is to hear you in your own words. We could care less about your work at this point.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9259
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 54 (762653)
07-14-2015 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


Re: SCENE SYNOPSIS: MICHELSON-MORLEY
removed by author

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:03 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 51 of 54 (762656)
07-14-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:03 AM


Re: SCENE SYNOPSIS: MICHELSON-MORLEY
Suzanne Romano writes:

In order to prove the motion of the Earth,...

The motion of the Earth had already been proven by the 1880's. The Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the velocity of motion of the Earth through the luminiferous ether. You supposedly researched this. Wherever did you get such a strange idea that Michelson-Morley was an attempt to prove that the Earth moves?

The new experiment took place in 1887, and the results were even more devastating for heliocentrists: no calculable displacement was measured. They had not a shred of evidence that the Earth is in motion.

The Michelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with proving heliocentrism. Your statement that there's no evidence for the Earth's motion reflects great ignorance.

...since Fresnel's equation is entirely hypothetical and supported by not a shred of empirical evidence.

This, too, reflects great ignorance. Fresnel's equations are still in use today.

Scene VI contains a sampling of astonishing quotes which admit the clear implications of the evidence.

Translation: "Scene VI contains quotes taken out of context to make it seem that the speakers were making points they never actually made."

Lorentz's Attempt to Save Heliocentrism: This crisis for heliocentrism caused Lorentz to posit a new theory.

You're writing historical fiction. Neither Lorentz nor any other involved scientists of the day ever doubted heliocentrism.

Thus Lorentz's equation can be employed to change or “transform” the results of any experiment designed to test the motion of the Earth. His equation is, however, entirely theoretical; it has never been physically demonstrated to be true - no “contraction of matter having ever been demonstrated or measured."

This would be incorrect, and who are you quoting anyway? See the section of Experimental Verifications in the Wikipedia article on Length Contraction.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Wordsmith first para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:03 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15486
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 52 of 54 (762672)
07-14-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:06 AM


Re: EINSTEIN AND MICHELSON-MORLEY
Suzanne Romano writes:

Raison d'etre for the Theory of Special Relativity: Albert Einstein was yet another Copernican determined to introduce a scientific explanation for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that would save the heliocentric thesis - another Copernican unwilling to follow the evidence where it actually led.

You're again writing historical fiction. Heliocentrism, or more accurately and generally, elliptical orbits around a common center of gravity, has been confirmed nine ways from Sunday. What Michelson-Morley sought was evidence of a hypothesized luminiferous ether and the behavior of light relative to it. The experiment's failure brought into question their ideas of how light behaved relative to the luminiferous ether. It should have also brought into question the existence of the luminiferous ether itself, but apparently it did not, believing as they did that light traveling as waves required a medium.

He admitted as much in 1924: “Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.”

You've somehow managed to ignore the context to completely misinterpret Einstein. He's talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, and he says so right in your quote where he refers to "Michelson's null result." When he says he believes that "the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment" he's referring to experiments like Michelson-Morley. He's not saying we can't look off into the heavens and figure out the motions of suns, planets and moons. You can find the full text of Einstein's article here: How I created the theory of relativity

Einstein would not allow for the possibility of an immobile Earth. He would retain the heliocentric thesis,...

This is certainly true, given the copious evidence that nothing anywhere is immobile and that the planets orbit the sun.

...and simply dispense with proof.

And this is certainly false, again given the copious evidence that nothing anywhere is immobile and that the planets orbit the sun.

Because all previous experiments failed to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether, Einstein was forced to choose between three possible scenarios: (1) the Earth is not moving through the aether; or (2) the Earth is moving and carrying the aether with it; or (3) the aether does not exist and the Earth is moving through empty space. Choice 1 was unthinkable to Einstein and his colleagues, because they were unwilling to posit an explanation for the Michelson experiment that demonstrated a motionless Earth.

It is obviously untrue that Einstein considered it unthinkable that "the Earth is not moving through the aether" since in your previous paragraph you just quoted him saying, "Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect..."

Yet the solution offered by Fitzgerald and Lorentz was no more than a contradiction; for it held simultaneously that the aether is a perfect fluid with no friction; and that the aether exerts enough pressure on matter to contract it.

The ideas put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz were based upon electromagnetism. Friction played no role.

The only absolute in the theory of relativity is its categorical incapacity to prove the heliocentric thesis.

This is a very strangely wrong thing to say. In improving upon the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics, relativity provided the ability to more accurately calculate the motions of celestial bodies. Mercury is a notable example. Relativity is why we can do incredibly accurate things like send the Messenger probe to Mercury to map its surface and finally to crash into Mercury on April 30th of this year.

Specifics in the Einsteinian Novelty: Einstein posited an aetherless model of the universe; thus he could not rely on the Lorentz-Fitzgerald "aether causes moving bodies to contract" theory. Nevertheless he did maintain that the west-directed arm of Michelson’s interferometer had contracted, and that this contraction made it impossible to detect the movement of the Earth.

No, this is dead wrong. Einstein never postulated that either arm of the Michelson-Morley experiment contracted. Both arms being motionless with respect to the measurement apparatus (the interferometer), neither would experience any relative contraction. Any perceived contraction could only be apparent to an observer in motion relative to the arms.

I won't comment on the rest of this particular paragraph as it builds upon your misunderstanding to become hopelessly confused.

But concerning what you botched earlier you later quote Einstein clarifying the point: "Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun." In other words, for a co-ordinate system at rest with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment (e.g., the Earth), it is not shortened. And for a co-ordinate system in motion with respect to the Michelson-Morley experiment (e.g., the sun), it is shortened.

...and b) dreams up a purely imaginary device he calls "relative coordinate system," to serve as the fixed reference frame he just eliminated. This is a violation of the Law of Contradiction...

The contradiction is an artifact of your own confusion. Relativity holds that there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. There are only relative reference frames. Relative reference frames are not fixed. They can't be fixed because there is nothing for them to be fixed relative to.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing my next to last para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 07-14-2015 5:56 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9317
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 53 of 54 (762703)
07-14-2015 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Suzanne Romano
07-14-2015 9:06 AM


Re: EINSTEIN AND MICHELSON-MORLEY
Essentially Einstein is hoisted by his own petard: In order to contradict the reasonable inferences to be drawn from Michelson's and others' experiments, he a) constructs a universe without an absolute reference frame, wherein it is impossible to detect absolute motion;

This is pathetic. If I thought that you were the author of these ideas, I'd likely use stronger language.

At the time of the Michelson-Morley experiment the idea of a geocentric universe had already dismissed. Instead people were exploring the notion that light traveled in a medium that filled all of space.

Accordingly, if we accept the possibility that the experiment was correct, there were several possibilities postulated or that could have been postulated.

1) Stationary earth!
2) No aether or other medium is needed to propagate light
3) Aether drag
4) Length contraction with aether

To pretend that there were fewer possibilities than above is to either be a fool or a liar. Of course you are free to pretend to have greater wisdom that Einstein and that you know which result to pick. The main problem for you though is that Einstein's choice of 2 leads to all of special relativity and to matter energy equivalence each of which is verifiable by experiment.

Since the time of the experiment, the speed of light and the ramifications of special relativity have been verified in situations that have nothing to do with the earth moving, and as such cannot be explained by a stationary earth. If Einstein gave little to no consideration for the idea that you now claim is correct, it was apparently for the best.

In fact, no length contraction is needed to explain Michelson-Morley-s null result. Contraction was postulated to save the aether as a viable option. But there is no aether.

b) dreams up a purely imaginary device he calls "relative coordinate system,"

Is it purely imaginary?

Can you imagine the situation where you are juggling or playing billiards on a moving train? Why do such things work? Why is it that juggling on a steady moving train work exactly the same as juggling in the train station?

Again, your wish is to substitute a scheme in which science does not work and cannot work for science that makes accurate predictions. There is no compelling reason to join you out on that limb.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Suzanne Romano, posted 07-14-2015 9:06 AM Suzanne Romano has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9317
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 54 of 54 (762710)
07-14-2015 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
07-14-2015 12:16 PM


Re: EINSTEIN AND MICHELSON-MORLEY
The ideas put forward by Fitzgerald and Lorentz were based upon electromagnetism. Friction played no role.

There were a number of physical properties postulated for the aether. I have provided a list below lifted from wikipedia and attributed to Maxwell. One requirement was that the aether could not interfere with the motion of the planets (be without viscosity, i.e. frictionless. Whether or not F-L came up with the list is another thing entirely, but surely they were aware that the aether had to be some pretty strange stuff.

quote:
By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale. Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica

Eventually it turned out that all light was a self propagating wave that was a product of the fact that a changing magnetic field generated a changing electric field and vice versa. No medium necessary.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 07-14-2015 12:16 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017