Morley/Michelson Inferometer

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />Lorentzian relativity seems to be based on the idea that an absolute reference frame is needed to derive the Lorentz transform.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The original Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) was based on an absolute frame. Lorentzian relativity (LR) has no absolute frame. The local gravitational potential field serves as a local preferred frame with no significance to the universe at large.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Einstein relativity is based on the speed of light being constant for all observers and that there is no absolute rest frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The "principle of relativity" was formulated in the 19th century and is incorporated into many theories, including LET and Poincare's ideas, both of which preceded Einstein. The Lorentz transformations also (obviously from their name) preceded Einstein. The only thing new in SR (1905) was eliminating the aether.

Yet even Einstein later hedged on that point, admitting in <i>Ether and the theory of relativity</i>, Springer, Berlin (1920), reprinted Dover (1983), p. 23: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

It is unfortunate for historical accuracy that the unqualified word "relativity" has come to mean Einstein relativity because other theories were based on the relativity principle too.

Certainly, it would do a greater harm to suggest that LR is not a theory of relativity. It merely recognizes the obvious fact that the laboratory frame will always play a special role in experiments, even though it has no significance to the universe at large. -|Tom|-

I think the question here is to ask: What would happen if NASA were to place a Michaelson-Morely interferrometer into orbit on the space shuttle? Would there be a null result? Would it detect the motion of the space shuttle? If it detects the space shuttle motion then doesn't that refute relativity? If not, then why not?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
<br />I think the question here is to ask: What would happen if NASA were to place a Michaelson-Morely interferrometer into orbit on the space shuttle? Would there be a null result? Would it detect the motion of the space shuttle?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It would be a null result for orbital motion of Earth around the Sun. SR explains this by length contraction and time dilation. LR explains it as elysium entrainment by the local gravity field. It's the same result as on Earth's surface.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If it detects the space shuttle motion then doesn't that refute relativity? If not, then why not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It should indeed detect space shuttle motion. SR explains this as the effect of accelerated motion being absolute, not relative. LR explains this as motion with respect to the local gravity field -- the kind that can be detected.

Why doesn't this refute SR? Why didn't the Sagnac effect (a non-null Michelson-Morley experiment that detects Earth's rotation) refute SR? Why didn't the Michelson-Gale experiment, the deSitter double-star experiment, or the Ives-Stilwell experiment, all of which detected non-relative motion in some way, refute SR? My (biased) answer is that incumbent theories bias scientists so that, if an explanation can be thought up to save the incumbent theory, that is adopted in preference to a change of theory. The trouble is that some manner of explanation can almost always be thought up. There is no requirement that it be especially plausible. -|Tom|-

Brent

The MMX was designed to measure the speed of the Earth as it passed through the ether on its journey around the Sun. It took place in air, because there is very little difference between the speed of light in a vacuum and in air.
Nobody expected a zero "null" result and the result shocked the world of physics, and after Einstein published his special relativity, it was used as evidence that the ether did not exist.

But this experiment does not prove the ether does not exist. If the motion of the Earth agitates the ether near its surface causing light to slow down, a null result can occur. Dayton Miller carried out a similar test on top of a mountain and detected the ether flow - as there is less agitation or "jiggle" at altitude.
Also the MMX result was not exactly zero and it was not designed to detect an ether flow of galactic origin.

The effect of the MMX and Einstein's SR has damaged the credibility of ether theorists. But things are changing now and people are challenging the credibility of SR and perhaps the ether may exist after all!

wisp

- particles of nothingness

Wisp,

Yes, the MMX did not have a null result. That is the greatest lie told by physicists and text book in support of Relativity.

The fact actually are that the result was minor but still indicative of an aether but of an ether that is entrained and moves with massive objects in the local frame (simular to air around a fast moving baseball.

Miller continued experiments clearly show the affect of moving away from the earth (higher altitude - less gravity) as producing stronger results.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kc3mx</i>
The problem is not to suppose that the correct explaination involves the ether, but to define what one means by the term ether. Today the ether is a joke to physicists. They reject the idea just as chemists reject phlogiston.They think that the ether is an old
fashioned outdated concept that has been disproved. This is really a hard misconception to remove. That's why it is best to use a different term in place of ether. The term most used today is an absolute space-time. So we don't talk about an ether we refer to an absolute space-time. It gives the relativists nothing to make into a joke.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Still looking for the aether, eh?
Folks, the only place that space exists is in the mind. It is a concept, not a reality. All "Space" is "occupied", starting with the background radiation and increasing in energy and/or mass from that point.

The misconception that there is some unique quantity know as the aether or void-space keeps reappearing because of the curved-space pundits; those who state that the existence of [say] a planet forces space to curve around it. They say that since light has no rest mass and therefore no gravity, this is the only explanation for the observation that light curves towards a planet as though being drawn by gravity. An optical illusion, they say. The light is actually travelling in a straight line. It is the space that is curved.

In order for curved space theory to be true, some property know as "Space" [the aether] must exist and energy must not contain gravity.

1. No one has ever isolated the Aether. All space is occupied. The Aether does not exist.
2. Light curves towards a planet because it DOES have gravity. Gravity is not a property of mass, it is a property of energy.

Yes, statement 2 does fly in the face of mainstream science, which fails to recognize that the only way light cannot have gravity is if it is allowed to violate the Law of Conservation
<center>Ergo: E=MC^2</center>
If energy has no gravity, where did the gravity go?