<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
Johannes Harder Andersen

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

September 13 2017, 12:36 AM 

" 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.

 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

September 15 2017, 12:00 AM 










"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.

































    
This message has been edited by AAF24 on Sep 17, 2017 12:02 AM


 
 
AAF

Re: On the Motion of the Earth Relative to the Aether

September 19 2017, 12:00 AM 











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.

















 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement