Michelson and Morley proved Einstein was wrong - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd August 2010, 02:15 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
 
scott wurcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: cambridge ma
Quote:
Originally Posted by abraxalito View Post
In theory it should be easy to get to the bottom of this. Bryan G. Wallace in his 'Farce of Physics' (chapter 4) notes:

At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation.

So who's lying - Bryan Wallace or E. Myles Standish?
How many minor plants/moons/large asteroids have been discovered since 1974?
__________________
"The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important."
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 06:05 PM   #22
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
How many minor plants/moons/large asteroids have been discovered since 1974?
That happens to come from those "All science is wrong" hogwash websites that tends t misrepresent what was said. In that case, the misunderstanding comes from the fact that an inadequate amount of factors had been considered, and thus corrections needed to be included. If you look up his lifes work, you will find that all those "corrections" lead to the discovery of various gravitational effects that were not yet well understood. Everything from tidal effects to the gravity of black matter, etc. It didn't disprove SRT, it was just incomplete at the time. What he said was right, based on the then theoretical understanding, there was no way to explain the effects. Not having enough variables in a model doesn't disprove an entire mathematical or theoretical framework.

I may have been hit by some Muons, I have been losing weight lately.

I think the valid point here was my original point, Science doesn't disprove things from null results. Its an elementary mistake, no Phd physicist would ever do that, and those of us that know better ignore the ramblings of people who try do that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 06:22 PM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
I don't think they ever disproved the ether theory per sť, only what happened was that the experiment designed to prove the existence of an ether wind, came up with nothing.
Which would suggest that either Earth is at rest relative to the ether, which was previously thought to be dis-proven, and it also violates the Copernican Paradigm, or that something else was happening.

The Lorentz theory was a way to try and explain the result, but had no basis whatsoever.

Now you tell me what is the most likely answer? That the ether exists but due to some strange effect the MMX had a null result? An experiment that had 20x the needed resolution? (The difference in speed between earth moving one way and moving the other is 40 miles per second, and the experiment was sensitive enough to detect discrepancies of two M/s)
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 07:49 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutron7 View Post
I am glad Einstein was wrong, otherwise various countries on earth would have thousands of horrific weapons called "nuclear bombs"
There may be more than one model of reality that allows to produce the same KaBoom!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjpoes View Post
Mine took me off a bridge.
It depends on a brand of GPS, according to my observations. Garmin never suggested me to go off Bay Bridge even when traffic stops completely, while Magellan always does that. Why? The answer is simple: Magellan was a sailor. Do you know who was Garmin? I don't know, but I suspect he did not ride his horse through oceans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mace1337 View Post
I don't think they ever disproved the ether theory per sť, only what happened was that the experiment designed to prove the existence of an ether wind, came up with nothing.
What an experiment with observation of particles that go through the slot demonstrates? Right, that particles change their behaviour as soon as the way to observe it exists. Why other experiments that show "nothing" can be different?
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!

Last edited by Wavebourn; 23rd August 2010 at 07:51 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 09:11 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
What an experiment with observation of particles that go through the slot demonstrates? Right, that particles change their behaviour as soon as the way to observe it exists. Why other experiments that show "nothing" can be different?
What do you mean by this exactly?

In this case viewing the interference pattern collapses the wave-particle duality and light acts as a wave. Any shift in that interference pattern would suggest ether wind slowing down the light. This effect was not observed, that's what I mean by coming up with "nothing" (null result).
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 09:15 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by mace1337 View Post
What do you mean by this exactly?

In this case viewing the interference pattern collapses the wave-particle duality and light acts as a wave. Any shift in that interference pattern would suggest ether wind slowing down the light. This effect was not observed, that's what I mean by coming up with "nothing" (null result).
I mean, if the fact of potential observation has to be considered as the variable factor in the experiment coming up with "nothing" means undetermined result. Period.

Edit: At least, "In presence of potential observation, ..." has to be added to the conclusion.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 09:21 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
I mean, if the fact of potential observation has to be considered as the variable factor in the experiment coming up with "nothing" means undetermined result. Period.

Edit: At least, "In presence of potential observation, ..." has to be added to the conclusion.
Okay, so you mean that if there is a possibility that the experiment can be observed in two different ways given a different means of detecting (wave interferometer or particle detector) then the experiment is not valid because it could have different results if you observe the light as particles instead of as a wave?
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 09:26 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by mace1337 View Post
Okay, so you mean that if there is a possibility that the experiment can be observed in two different ways given a different means of detecting (wave interferometer or particle detector) then the experiment is not valid because it could have different results if you observe the light as particles instead of as a wave?
No. I mean, the conclusion has to be rephrased: instead of "There is no ether impact", it should be, "In case of possibility of observation ether impact did not show".
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 09:53 PM   #29
diyAudio Member
 
7n7is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by albertg View Post
I stumbled into a copy of "The Einstein Myth And The Ives Papers" at the local library years ago. What an eye opener! I highly recommend it. The best book on non-Einsteinien physics is "Einstein Plus Two" by Petr Beckmann(out of print but worth a look).

Some other points:
<rant>
1. There is no mass increase with velocity.
2. There is no length contraction with increasing velocity.
3. Ther is no 'time dilation'.
4. We're no closer to a physical understanding of matter than we were 100 years ago
Modern physics has become largely irrelevant today.
Electrical engineering is still in the stone age, and will stay there until Maxwell's original equations are restored. </rant>
I have copies of The Einstein Myth And The Ives Papers, Petr Beckman's book Einstein Plus 2, Relativity is Dead, Challanging Modern Physics by Al Kelly and a couple of other books.
Some more literature: Relativity skeptics and aether proponents

I believe in mass, length (ie. Lorentz contraction) and time (ie. time dilation) transformations, but also believe there must be a prefered electromagnetic frame of reference, ie. the aether, because of the twin paradox arguments. I also believe light bends in a gravitation field, the speed of light is slower and atomic clocks run slower at lower gravitational potentials, but believe its due to the properties of the aether varying with gravitational potential (Eric Baird calls it an aether density gradient) instead of curved space (general relativity).

Also, look up stellar (Bradley) aberration. Einstein fanatics believe it happens as a result of relative motion between a star and the earth, but when experiments are done with binary stars it appears to show that the earth is moving through a transmitting medium of light, because the tilt of the telescope depends completely on the motion of the earth (ie. the motion of the earth relative to the transmitting medium of light).

Last edited by 7n7is; 23rd August 2010 at 10:01 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd August 2010, 10:07 PM   #30
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7n7is View Post
I have copies of The Einstein Myth And The Ives Papers, Petr Beckman's book Einstein Plus 2, Relativity is Dead, Challanging Modern Physics by Al Kelly and a couple of other books.
It might help to get some actual physics books. They're probably not as entertaining as the crank stuff, but they have the virtue of being correct.
__________________
The more you pay for it, the less inclined you are to doubt it.- George Smiley
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wrong Voltage / current on BoZ... or Wrong Measuring ? gionag Pass Labs 8 14th May 2008 11:24 AM
Where did I go wrong? Cup of coffee Solid State 31 26th June 2007 04:26 AM
My uncle could have been another Einstein keantoken The Lounge 16 15th October 2006 10:39 PM
Gemini proved crossovers? Hisatugo Multi-Way 2 7th March 2004 01:20 PM
What am I doing wrong???? Chuck Richey Everything Else 14 17th July 2003 08:42 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2