On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

Joined: December 25th, 2016, 4:32 pm

September 13th, 2017, 3:36 am #21










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





























" no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest"

The problem with that statement is that it's 'almost' correct and works well in most cases. So no doubt Einstein was enthusiastic about it. This is how things often develops, even though it contradicts later theories, Einstein may have been reluctant to revise it since it was already out there. It would be easier to say that it is just a special case of later theories.

However, if you calculate the total energy of movements in the universe, that number clearly depends on your foothold; i.e. your frame of reference. As I implied before, using the wrong frame of reference for the universe will result in spurious energy. There is probably a minimum universe-movement-energy frame of reference, which we then could think of as the absolute frame of rest.
Quote
Like
Share

AAF
AAF

September 15th, 2017, 3:00 am #22










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































"Johannes Harder Andersen: "no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest" The problem with that statement is that it's 'almost' correct and works well in most cases. So no doubt Einstein was enthusiastic about it. This is how things often develops, even though it contradicts later theories, Einstein may have been reluctant to revise it since it was already out there. It would be easier to say that it is just a special case of later theories. However, if you calculate the total energy of movements in the universe, that number clearly depends on your foothold; i.e. your frame of reference. As I implied before, using the wrong frame of reference for the universe will result in spurious energy. There is probably a minimum universe-movement-energy frame of reference, which we then could think of as the absolute frame of rest."







That is, of course, one big problem.


The other big problem with Einstein's "no properties of observed facts correspond
to a concept of absolute rest"
is that the number of observed facts is, potentially,
infinite; and hence, there is, absolutely, no guarantee that none of them
would correspond, somehow, to the concept of absolute rest.


Anyway, the assertion that "no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept
of absolute rest"
indicates, very clearly, that Albert Einstein, mistakenly,
believed that Michelson & Morley were looking for the absolute speed of the earth
relative to the reference frame of absolute rest.


And so, now, let's assume, for a moment, that Michelson & Morley were looking for the
absolute speed of the earth relative to the reference frame of absolute rest; i.e.,
light medium, aether, absolute space . . . etc..


Does the null result of their experiment falsify, in any way, the notions of light
medium, aether, absolute space . . . etc.?


No.


The null result of their experiment cannot falsify the notions of light medium, aether,
absolute space . . . etc.; because the motion of the earth, relative to the light medium,
aether, absolute space . . . etc., can have many velocity components in various
directions; and at the same time, the velocity resultant of those components
can be equal to ZERO or very close to ZERO.


And it follows, therefore, that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is important
only with regard to the motion of Earth, around the Sun; because the motion of Earth, around
the Sun, is the only important component of Earth's space motion, which changes
its direction, in a fairly short interval of time.


In short, the Michelson-Morley experiment, in this regard, is very similar to Bradley's
stellar aberration, which works, only with Earth's rotation around
its axis & Earth's rotation around the Sun.































Last edited by AAF24 on September 17th, 2017, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

September 19th, 2017, 3:00 am #23










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





































Indeed, the requirement that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source,
is the one and the only requirement for predicting and calculating the exact numerical value of
Earth's orbital speed, around the gravitational center of the solar system,
on the basis of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation.


However, it should be pointed out, in this regard, that, within the framework of Maxwell's theory
of light, the idea that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source,
is not a direct axiom or assumption, but a direct consequence of one of its basic
axioms; i.e., the electromagnetic radiation is composed of electromagnetic waves.


In other words, if electromagnetic radiation is made of electromagnetic waves, as assumed within
the context of the Maxwellian theory, then the speed of light must be independent of the speed
of the light source; except in the special case, in which the light source and the light medium
are assumed to be traveling at the same speed in the same direction.


Only in this special case, can the speed of light, within the framework of Maxwell's theory,
become dependent upon the speed of the light source.
















Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

September 21st, 2017, 3:00 am #24










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





































As mentioned earlier, only in the special case in which the light source and the light medium
are assumed to be traveling at the same speed in the same direction, the speed of light is
dependent on the speed of the light source, in accordance with Maxwell's theory
about electromagnetic radiation.


Since the Maxwellian theory of light, explicitly, assumes its aether to be universal and filling
the entire universe, it's deemed highly unlikely for the aether and the earth to be traveling
at the same speed in the same direction.


And so, as far as Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is concerned, the earth is always moving
relative to the aether; but the aether, itself, has no speed of its own relative to the earth.


And as a result, Maxwell, himself, and Michelson and Morley and others, after him, based
their calculations of the above theoretical prediction, entirely, upon the explicit
assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.











Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

September 25th, 2017, 3:00 am #25










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































Given the basic assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed
of the light source, there is nothing, in physics, much easier than visualizing,
working out, and calculating to the last decimal the speed of the earth relative
to light waves, emitted by a light source moving with the same speed in the same
direction as that of the moving observer.


This is how Michelson & his pal (Morley) visualized, worked out, and computed
the orbital speed of the earth relative to light emitted
by light sources, here on Earth:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/M%26M.html


As you can see, the entire calculations, by Michelson & Morley, for their experiment,
is based on nothing else beside the basic axiom of Maxwell theory, which states that
"light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent
of the nature of motion of the emitting body"
.


In short, the assumption that, the speed of light is independent of the speed
of the light source, leads, directly, to the notion of relative speed of light
and to the possibility of finding out the numerical value of the orbital speed
of Earth through the use of the speed of light relative to the light source,
such as (c + v_s) & (c – v_s), and the speed of light relative to the observer
such as (c + v_o) & (c – v_o), as well.




















Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

September 27th, 2017, 3:00 am #26










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21



































As pointed out earlier, the whole calculations, by Michelson & Morley, for their experiment,
use nothing else beside the speed of light relative to the light source,
such as (c + v_s) & (c – v_s), and the speed of light relative
to the observer such as (c + v_o) & (c – v_o).


Let's take a closer look at the Michelson-Morley calculations of the sum
of the light-flight time in the direction of the earth's motion and the
light-flight time in the opposite direction to that of the earth's motion.



The math, here, is quite simple:


If the light beam travels with a speed, c, in the same direction,
in which the earth is traveling at a speed, v, then it takes an amount
of time, T_1, to reach a mirror at a distance, L, away:


<font size="4">T_1 = [L + vT_1] / c = L / (c – v)</font>


And since, according to Maxwell's theory, the mirror reflects the incident beam back
at the same speed c, the reflected beam takes an amount of time, T_2,
to reach a detector at a distance, L, away:


<font size="4">T_1 = [L - vT_1] / c = L / (c + v)</font>


And so, the total travel time of the light beam, in its entire trip in
the longitudinal direction, is T:


<font size="4">T = T_1 + T_2 = 2L*{c / (c2 – v2)}</font>.


And that is the final result of the calculations, by Michelson & Morley,
in the case of all light beams traveling in the longitudinal direction.




















Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 1st, 2017, 3:01 am #27










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































According to the assumption, on the basis of which the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source, therefore,
the Michelson-Morley beam of light takes an interval of time
T_1 to travel a distance L from the light source
to the horizontal mirror:


T_1 = [L + vT_1] / c = L / (c – v).


Now, if it's assumed that Earth is at rest, then the same light beam
takes an interval of time T_0 to travel a distance L
from the light source to the horizontal mirror:


T_0 = L / c.


And so, the time interval T_1 is longer than
the time interval T_0:


T_1 > T_0.


But why is T_1 greater than T_0?


It's, clearly, because the speed of light relative to
the moving mirror, (c - v)
is less than c; i.e.,


(c - v) < c.


It's as simple as that.


















Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 3rd, 2017, 3:00 am #28










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21





































So, the amount of time, T_1, is greater than the amount of time,T_0,
because the speed of light relative to the moving mirror,
(c - v) is less than c.


Now, if the moving mirror is replaced with a moving observer,
will, in this case, the moving observer measure (c – v),
as the speed of light relative to him/her; OR will he/she find out
that the relative speed of light is equal to c?


According to the Maxwellian theory of electromagnetic radiation, the moving observer,
in this case, must always find out that the speed of light relative to him/her
is always equal to (c – v).


Does that contradict, in any way, directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption
that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source?


No.


The speed of light, (c – v), relative to the receding observer does not contradict,
directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source.


On the contrary, the relative speed of light, (c - v) is a direct and necessary
consequence of the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the light source.
















Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 17th, 2017, 3:00 am #29










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21




































So, the speed of light, (c – v), relative to the receding observer is,
perfectly consistent with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation,
according to which the speed of light is assumed to be, completely,
independent of the speed of the light source.


And consequently, whenever an observer receding with the speed, v
measures the speed of light, he/she must always obtains a speed value
equal to (c – v).


Is the relative speed of light, (c – v), as measured by receding observers,
equivalent, in all respects, to light speed, in vacuum,
equal to (c – v)?


Absolutely!


As far as receding observers are concerned, a relative speed of light equal
to (c - v) is equivalent, in every respect, to a speed of light,
in vacuum, equal to (c – v).


Does that equivalence contradict, in any shape or form, the Maxwellian assumption
that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source?


No.


The exact opposite is true.


The equivalence between a relative speed of light equal to (c - v)
and a speed of light, in vacuum, equal to (c – v) is, simply,
a consequence of the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the light source.












Quote
Share

AAF
AAF

October 19th, 2017, 3:00 am #30










<font size="5">On the Motion
of the Earth Relative to the Aether
</font>





"Examples of a similar kind such as the unsuccessful attempt to substantiate the motion of the earth relative to the "Light-medium" lead us to the supposition that not only in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, no properties of observed facts correspond to a concept of absolute rest; but that for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations hold, the equivalent electrodynamical and optical equations hold also, as has already been shown for magnitudes of the first order. In the following we make these assumptions (which we shall subsequently call the Principle of Relativity) and introduce the further assumption, —an assumption which is at the first sight quite irreconcilable with the former one— that light is propagated in vacant space, with a velocity c which is independent of the nature of motion of the emitting body. These two assumptions are quite sufficient to give us a simple and consistent theory of electrodynamics of moving bodies on the basis of the Maxwellian theory for bodies at rest. The introduction of a "Lightäther" will be proved to be superfluous, for according to the conceptions which will be developed, we shall introduce neither a space absolutely at rest, and endowed with special properties, nor shall we associate a velocity-vector with a point in which electro-magnetic processes take place":

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_E ... ing_Bodies_(1920_edition)









Yep . . .


Back to Einstein!










And that is because Colleague Ufonaut99; after 15 consecutive
months of defending Einstein's false notion of relative axial rotation and,
rigorously & vigorously, arguing for it, apparently, his case has, at last
& finally, run out of gas, completely:


http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/t ... instein%21



































Once again, according to the assumption that, the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the light source, the Michelson-Morley beam of light takes
an interval of time T_2 to travel a distance L from the receding
horizontal mirror to the approaching detector; i.e.,


T_2 = [L - vT_2] / c = L / (c + v).


However, if it's assumed that Earth is at rest, then the same light beam takes
an interval of time T_0 to travel a distance L from the stationary
mirror to the stationary detector; i.e.,


T_0 = L / c.


And therefore, the time interval T_2 is shorter than
the time interval T_0; i.e.,


T_2 < T_0.


But why is T_2 is smaller
than T_0?


That is, obviously, because the speed of light relative to
the approaching detector, (c + v)
is greater than c; i.e.,


(c + v) > c.


It's very clear and quite simple.


















Last edited by AAF24 on October 19th, 2017, 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share