Relativity mythology

Historians showed that both the 1887 MichelsonMorley experiment on light travel and Arthur Stanley Eddington's 1919 eclipse observations, both said to provide key empirical support for Einstein's theories, were actually open to a variety of interpretations, even though the textbooks continued to offer myth-like accounts of the experiments' decisiveness.
From Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/full/458030a.html

Neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor Eddington's observations are myths.
******************************

They are after the relativists get their hands on them.

Re: Cincirob, Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 5 2009, 5:53 PM

Cinci,
"Neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor Eddington's observations are myths."

"myth-like accounts of the experiments' decisiveness."
Does not mean that the experiments were myths Cinci, it means that the "accounts" of the "experiments" were "myth-like". It is your innate compulsion to misstate what people say that prevents those people from wanting to exchange their ideas with you. Your claim that we call you stupid because we are out of ideas is unfounded, you are call stupid because your replies are stupid.

Well Bob, you can get Michelson's orginal 1887 paper on line and read it. This is 28 years before Einstein wrote OEMB when Albert was 8 years old. So Michelson's decission that the result wa null wasn't a relativists myth. Lorentz and Fitzgerald interpretted the results as length contraciton years before OEMB was written and neither of them were relativists. So the only myth-like accounts are those of anti-relativists like yourself. For instance your beliefe that Eisntein mentioned the MMX in OEMB.

Re: Cincirob, Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 6 2009, 12:48 AM

Cincirob,
"For instance your beliefe that Eisntein mentioned the MMX in OEMB."

He did mention it and I showed you where he mentioned it, must have been one of those (no ideas) you missed.

Bob S: He did mention it and I showed you where he mentioned it, must have been one of those (no ideas) you missed.

cinci: I missed you showing me where it is. Try again. Here's the paper: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/100/elecmovbodeng.pdf
********************

Re: Cincirob, Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 6 2009, 10:56 AM

Bob S: "He did mention it and I showed you where he mentioned it, must have been one of those (no ideas) you missed."

cinci: "I missed you showing me where it is. Try again."

Go here first. Re: Is fundamentalism as thread for science in the US? March 4 2009, 9:56 AM

Einstein refers to Lorentz's theory, and Lorentz derived his transformation equations based on MMX. Einstein would be quite incomponent if he did not know what Lorentz's theory was dealing with when he talked about Lorentz's theory.

Anon: Einstein refers to Lorentz's theory, and Lorentz derived his transformation equations based on MMX. Einstein would be quite incomponent if he did not know what Lorentz's theory was dealing with when he talked about Lorentz's theory.

cinci: Well no, that's not the csae at all. Lorentz was working on his theroy about the time Eisntein was in school. They weren't teaching it anywhere. It's difficult to even find anything he wrote on the theory. Most of what remains from that period are from letters he wrote. Other people included them in some of their books. His theory was not general knowledge and wasn't mainstream physics in Eisntein's day. If you think otherwise then search the net and your local library and see how much you can find that was actually written by Lorentz before 1905. I know an antirelativists who's been searching for this kind of material for years and there is very little out there.
************************************************

Einstein knew about it, because he wrote about it in 1905.

Einstein (1905): "... these equations are the electromagnetic basis of
the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies."

Re: Cincirob, Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 6 2009, 7:00 PM

Good ole Cinci, he missed it again!!!

(Re: Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 6 2009, 2:45 PM)
(Re: Cincirob, Relativity based on myth according to Nature March 6 2009, 10:56 AM
Bob S: "He did mention it and I showed you where he mentioned it, must have been one of those (no ideas) you missed."
cinci: "I missed you showing me where it is. Try again."

Go here first. Re: Is fundamentalism as thread for science in the US? March 4 2009, 9:56 AM")

Michelson Morley's data was not null, and Eddington exaggerated the anomaly of Mercury. (His instruments were not capable of the accuracy he claimed, under the prevailing conditions.)

Curt: Michelson Morley's data was not null, and Eddington exaggerated the anomaly of Mercury. (His instruments were not capable of the accuracy he claimed, under the prevailing conditions.)


cinci: Eddington didn't measure the anomaly of Mercury. That was done by a gentleman named LeVerrier who died about 5 years before Eddington was born. I may make few typos, but I check my facts...you should try it some time. Maybe then somebody would take you seriously.

And while you critique Eddington's equipment, you seem to thnk Michelson's was dead on. You do realize the experiment has been repeated in modern, highly accurate equipment and the findings are null to an accuracy meaured in parts per billion. Or do you just choose to use only the facts that fit you preconcieved notions.
*************************

You are a joke Cinci. Dayton Miller's work was more accurate than Michelson-Morly's, and Morley helps Dayton with the experiments for a time. He proved that where they are done and how they are done affects the data. Modern experiments ignore the evidence that he documented.

So, maybe people will take you seriously, some day when you get up to date with the latest evidence.

You don't even understand why short powerful pulses of light are necessary to measure the speed of light.

Jose: You are a joke Cinci. Dayton Miller's work was more accurate than Michelson-Morly's, and Morley helps Dayton with the experiments for a time. He proved that where they are done and how they are done affects the data. Modern experiments ignore the evidence that he documented.

cinci: Yes, Miller probably was more accurate than Michelson. But what Michelson correctly identified as experimental variation, Miller assumed was a real effect. Modern experiments are thousands of times more accurate than either and continue to show the null result. Try reading about experiments that have been carried our since WWII.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#round-trip_tests
*************************

Jose: So, maybe people will take you seriously, some day when you get up to date with the latest evidence.

cinci: Miller died in 1942 and you're telling me to getup to date? Give me a break.
*************************************

Jose: You don't even understand why short powerful pulses of light are necessary to measure the speed of light.

cinci: No, I don't. Do you? And since there are experiments on the site above done with gamma rays and lasers, I think they've got it covered anyway. But they didn't have lasers when Miller did his work and he didn't use short bursts either.
******************************
************************

Interference fringes are indirect measurements. Timing can affect the phase, but so can frequency changes. The timing of a short pulse over a known distance is the direct measurement.

Gravity affects the speed of light, and it is the gravity potential of the source that determines the speed of the emitted light.

Jose: Interference fringes are indirect measurements. Timing can affect the phase, but so can frequency changes. The timing of a short pulse over a known distance is the direct measurement.

Gravity affects the speed of light, and it is the gravity potential of the source that determines the speed of the emitted light.

cinci: Got a reference or do we just take your word for it?
******************************

Take my word for it sweetypie. Some day you may wise up. Until then you are just a smoke ring. A mobius smoke ring.

Do some research. Do some logical critical thinking. I'm not going to rub your nose in it, especially since it is your religion.

Jose: Take my word for it sweetypie. Some day you may wise up. Until then you are just a smoke ring. A mobius smoke ring.

Do some research. Do some logical critical thinking. I'm not going to rub your nose in it, especially since it is your religion.


cinci: Two days on the site and already you can't back up anything you say.

Take your word for it? You mean on faith...like a religion? No, that's apparently your bag.
******************************