Personal Topic

[Moronium]

The Lorentz transformation means that ALL of the M&M postulates are correct!

 

 

There's several aspects of this post that I don't follow.  That is one of them.

 

Here's another:

 

But more importantly, LT only explains the NULL result of M&M if you keep their postulate that a moving observer will measure light speed + or – his own speed.

 

 

I would put it this way: A moving observer will be expected to measure light speed + or - his own speed depending on it's direction.

 

M-M showed that this expectation was not fulfilled.  We measure the speed to be the same in all directions.

 

LT explains this as follows:  The speed of light does in fact vary, depending on it's direction, but we don't measure it that way.   Why not?  Because our instruments become distorted with speed.

 

Are you  saying something different?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

There's several aspects of this post that I don't follow.  That is one of them.

 

Here's another:

 

 

I would put it this way: A moving observer will be expected to measure light speed + or - his own speed depending on it's direction.

 

M-M showed that this expectation was not fulfilled.  We measure the speed to be the same in all directions.

 

LT explains this as follows:  The speed of light does in fact vary, depending on it's direction, but we don't measure it that way.   Why not?  Because our instruments become distorted with speed.

 

Are you  saying something different?

In my round about way, I'm saying something similar to you, I think anyway.

But there is one thing we disagree on.

 

First, I think you are saying that Lorentz agrees with M&M  that light speed will be measured as plus or minus the observers speed. This is opposite to what Einstein's SR is claiming.

I agree with Lorentz and M&M on this point.

 

But, now here's where we disagree.  Lorentz's explanation as to why the NULL result. He thinks is because rulers and time shrink. He invented a formula that if applied to the apparatus used by M&M, would allow it to provide the correct results, namely showing that the Earth is moving relative to some stationary medium through which light propagates.

 

I don't think the excuse that objects and concepts shrink when they move is possible or even rational to suggest.  Apparently you do. (despite the rationality of your other statements)

 

I think therefore that some other reason is behind the null result, and I listed several possibilities in the earlier post.  Probably one or more of the postulates of M&M must be in error.

Lorentz immediately jumped to a math's based fudge to fix the M&M problem, but I don't think he needed to. Better to find where the problem lies, not invent a fudge for it.

 

I don't think Lorentz has a sensible solution to the null result.  Its more like quack science than real physics. Shrinking rulers and time and increasing mass create more problems than they are supposed to solve.

 

Personally, I think the most likely reason why the M&M result was almost null, is simply that the apparatus, the interferometer is NOT DOING WHAT THEY IMAGINE IT IS.

Light is poorly understood, and all those mirrors and lenses are not making it easier.

 

That's one possible reason why the null result, no need to shrink anything. There could be a reason that no one has yet imagined, its possible, and more believable than shrinking stuff.

Edited February 10, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

First, I think you are saying that Lorentz agrees with M&M  that light speed will be measured as plus or minus the observers speed. 

 

I have several comments on this post, but I'll start here, because this is an important point.

 

Taking what you say literally, no, Lorentz does not agree with that.  And that's the whole point of his LT.

 

He accepts the MM result which shows that light speed is NOT measured to be different in different directions. That was the expectation, but that's not what happened.

 

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'll wait for your response before I go on.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I have several comments on this post, but I'll start here, because this is an important point.

 

Taking what you say literally, no, Lorentz does not agree with that.  And that's the whole point of his LT.

 

He accepts the MM result which shows that light speed is NOT measured to be different in different directions. That was the expectation, but that's not what happened.

 

Do you see what I'm saying?  I'll wait for your response before I go on.

So now I'm confused, more than normal.

If as you say, Lorentz agreed with the null result, that light speed is NOT measured different in different directions, (which is correct if one is not moving), then he has no reason to develop his transformation equation does he? The null result supported his belief, but not the belief of M&M.

 

However, light speed being measured in different directions as being the same, does actually require that the observers, (M&M on a stationary earth) are measuring relative to some absolute stationary aspect of light, aka the aether or spacetime or "virtual particles that pop in and out of existence" .  Or if M&M and the earth ARE moving, then the only reason why they get no results can ONLY be shrinking of matter and time..... really? that's the best reason?

 

If the null result proved for Lorentz that light is always measured the same in any direction, regardless of any motion or lack of, then he cant have it both ways, one way is that light is constant in every direction, but not when observer is moving, the other way is that it IS constant in every direction even when moving. The two are not compatible.

 

Now because the Earth is really moving, he accepted the null result only after he devised a fudge to make that result still work. Its a mathematical fudge, not demonstrable in the real world, unless you are a Particle Physics illusionist.

Edited February 10, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

So now I'm confused, more than normal.

If as you say, Lorentz agreed with the null result, that light speed is NOT measured different in different directions, (which is correct if one is not moving), then he has no reason to develop his transformation equation does he? The null result supported his belief, but not the belief of M&M.

 

 

OK, let's stay here at step 1 for now.  I agree, it is correct if one is not moving.  The "one" here is the earth.

 

But Lorentz did not accept the proposition that the earth was motionless.  That's why he had a reason to develop the LT.  See the difference?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

If we are not going to measure any difference in light speed in any direction under any conditions, so that x direction velocity of light is 300, and Y velocity of light is also 300 units, then one cannot apply any transforming equation to the measurements can we? If we applied the LT to the measurements we would have light going different speeds...  but of course for no reason in particular the rulers and time in one direction are shrunk, so that  the reading of velocity is still going to be the same as the other axis... so what is the point of the LT again?

[marcospolo]

OK, let's stay here at step 1 for now.  I agree, it is correct if one is not moving.  The "one" here is the earth.

 

But Lorentz did not accept the proposition that the earth was motionless.  That's why he had a reason to develop the LT.  See the difference?

No one, not Lorentz or M&M thought that the earth was stationary, or they would not have bothered to do any experiment. No one proposed that the earth was stationary. So no, I can't see why the need for the LT.

[marcospolo]

It's almost 2 pm in Australia, which part of the world are you located?

[Moronium]

USA here.  Well, it's obvious that we're not on the same page.  Do you want to just drop it for now, so you can get some sleep?

[Moronium]

I think part of the problem is that you seem to think that "why" they did the experiment somehow changes the results.

 

Forget why.  Forget "the ether."  Just look at the data.  They could have somehow been trying to "prove" that the moon is made of green cheese, but that wouldn't change the implications of the results.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

USA here.  Well, it's obvious that we're not on the same page.  Do you want to just drop it for now, so you can get some sleep?

That 2 pm, not 2 am.   here.   middle of the afternoon, unless you apply LT and tine dilation

[marcospolo]

I think part of the problem is that you seem to think that "why" they did the experiment somehow changes the results.

 

Forget why.  Forget "the ether."  Just look at the data.  They could have somehow been trying to "prove" that the moon is made of green cheese, but that wouldn't change the implications of the results.

Ok, i wont bring up the aether or lack of again.  The results alone show that LT is not required. I cant find any way to justify the invention of any transformation to a result that is acceptable, and if applied would make the new result incorrect.

Edited February 10, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

Ok, i wont bring up the aether or lack of again.  The results alone show that LT is not required. I cant find any way to justify the invention of any transformation to a result that is acceptable, and if applied would make the new result incorrect.

 

 

OK, let me address a couple of your other posts now.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If we are not going to measure any difference in light speed in any direction under any conditions, so that x direction velocity of light is 300, and Y velocity of light is also 300 units, then one cannot apply any transforming equation to the measurements can we? If we applied the LT to the measurements we would have light going different speeds...  but of course for no reason in particular the rulers and time in one direction are shrunk, so that  the reading of velocity is still going to be the same as the other axis... so what is the point of the LT again?

 

You have this backwards, I think.

 

Here's the reasoning 

 

1.IF we were moving, then theoretically we SHOULD HAVE measured a difference in light speed, depending on direction

 

2.  But we didn't.

 

3.  So now what?

 

4.  Lorentz was not willing to conclude that we were not moving.

 

5.  Therefore, the failure to actually measure a difference requires some other explanation.

 

Do you agree with this, so far, Marco?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I dont agree exactly:----see blelow

You have this backwards, I think.

 

Here's the reasoning 

 

1.IF we were moving, then theoretically we SHOULD HAVE measured a difference in light speed, depending on direction

 

2.  But we didn't.  (nope, you said that Lorentz ACCEPTED that we SHOULD NOT have measured any difference, as light propagates at the same speed in every direction regardless of motion.)

 

3.  So now what?

 

4.  Lorentz was not willing to conclude that we were not moving.  (No one suggested for a split second that we were not moving, not M&M or Lorentz or Einstein.)

 

5.  Therefore, the failure to actually measure a difference requires some other explanation. (the explanation was already believed by Lorentz and later by Einstein... that light always goes the same speed regardless of the observer, so there is no need for any further explanation, the results were showing the same speed in every direction, as predicted by Lorentz and Einstein)

 

So there is nothing to fix here, no perplexing problem is there?

 

Simply put, IF Lorentz believed that light propagates the same in every direction, for every observer, regardless of motion, the the null result backed up this conviction.

 

Unless Lorentz and his transformation are based on the belief that speed of light must be measured by a moving observer as C + v, or C -v, then Lorentz had no reason to make up his transformation.

 

In that case, Einstein cant use the LT in SR because it requires that a moving observer measure light speed as c + or - v.  (this is forbidden in SR.

 

Do you agree with this, so far, Marco?

[Moronium]

(the explanation was already believed by Lorentz and later by Einstein... that light always goes the same speed regardless of the observer, so there is no need for any further explanation...

 

 

 

No, this is incorrect.  As I have said repeatedly, Lorentz did NOT believe that "light always goes the same speed regardless of the observer."

 

This misconception seems to be founded on the failure to make a distinction that I have addressed in the past, i.e., the failure to distinguish between what a thing "is measured to be" and "what it really is."

 

Einstein made the postulation you mentioned, yes.  But it did NOT agree with Lorentz's view, which was quite different.

 

Lorentz said we merely "measured" the speed to be the same, but that in fact it was NOT the same.

[marcospolo]

Moronium   ,

So clearly, Lorentz MUST have always (even after Einstein's SR theory was published) believed that light speed measurement MUST add or deduct the observer's own velocity, when moving in the same direction as the light.

 

Because this is the only reason for the LT.

 

My objection is simply that his remedy to overcome the null result for a moving earth, was not the best or even a sensible solution, despite the fact they he went on to invent a nifty equation.

 

May as well say the reason for the null result is the martians did it with mind tricks, and here's a fix up equation......