<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return
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.
AAF

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

September 21 2017, 12:00 AM
 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.
AAF

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

September 25 2017, 12:00 AM
 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.
AAF

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

September 27 2017, 12:00 AM
 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: T_1 = [L + vT_1] / c = L / (c – v) 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: T_1 = [L - vT_1] / c = L / (c + v) And so, the total travel time of the light beam, in its entire trip in the longitudinal direction, is T: T = T_1 + T_2 = 2L*{c / (c2 – v2)}. And that is the final result of the calculations, by Michelson & Morley, in the case of all light beams traveling in the longitudinal direction.
AAF

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

October 1 2017, 12:01 AM
 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.
AAF

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

October 3 2017, 12:00 AM
 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.
AAF

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

October 17 2017, 12:00 AM
 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.
AAF

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

October 19 2017, 12:00 AM

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.

 This message has been edited by AAF24 on Oct 19, 2017 12:03 AM

Bill Geist

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

October 19 2017, 5:57 AM
 The aether is NOT at absolute rest. http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm
AAF

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

October 21 2017, 12:00 AM

"The aether is NOT at absolute rest.".
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm

That is right; Bill Geist.

The immobile three-dimensional space is the only reference frame,
in the entire universe, entitled to be at absolute rest.

However, in Maxwell's theory, the aether is the frame of reference,
relative to which electromagnetic waves are, always,
traveling at the speed, c.

And so, the reference frame of the aether, within the framework of that theory,
is very important in three respects:

A. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
it's possible to obtain the correct numerical value of c, theoretically,
and without doing any actual measurements at all.

B. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
Maxwell's Equations can make perfect sense.

C. Only in the reference frame of the aether,
can electromagnetic waves have speeds, such as (c + v) & (c – v) relative to
the moving light source. And of course, without the relative speeds,
(c + v) & (c – v), very important optical formulas like those
of Doppler effect and stellar aberration and Fresnel's coefficient,
& so on . . . & so on, cannot be derived, in any conceivable way,
within the framework of any wave theory of light.

 This message has been edited by AAF24 on Oct 21, 2017 12:04 AM

Bill Geist

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

October 22 2017, 9:03 AM
AAF

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

October 25 2017, 12:00 AM
 "The biggest brain fart in the history of science": http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1501153647/last-1501585550/The+biggest+brain+fart+in+the+history+of+science I agree with Bill Geist. Einstein's special theory is a 'brain fart', indeed. But it is NOT the BIGGEST one in the history of science! . Surely, Einstein's general relativity is much bigger: http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/generalRT . N. Bohr's wave-particle duality is, also, bigger: http://physics.bgsu.edu/~stoner/P202/quantum2/sld008.htm . Georges Lemaître's big bang theory, too, is bigger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory . However, the BIGGEST of all is, certainly, Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory: http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory is a record holder; not only because it is as faraway from the truth as it can get; but, also, because it had remained on the very top of mainstream science for more than two millennia. And so, if Einstein's general relativity, for example, stays on the very top of mainstream science for about 2000 or more years, it will, probably, dethrone Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory, knock it down, and smash its impressive record. But, most likely, it won't stay on the top that long. I presume!
Bill Geist

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

October 25 2017, 2:28 PM
 Get it before its gone. http://sciliterature.50webs.com/AetherBooks.htm
Bill Geist

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

October 25 2017, 6:23 PM
 Planetary Motions and the Einstein Theories by Charles Lane Poor https://od.lk/s/OV8xMjg1OTgzMTZf/SciamJune1921-Poor.pdf
AAF

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

October 27 2017, 12:00 AM
 Thank you, Bill Geist, for that great link. I hope, everybody can read, someday, the BOOK of the Doppler Ensemble Theory, for free: http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7105 ................................................................................................... Certainly, the amount of time, T_2, is less than the amount of time,T_0, because the speed of light relative to the moving detector, (c + v) is greater than c. But, now, if the moving detector 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 the relative speed of light is equal to c? In accordance with the Maxwell's 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, directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source? No. absolutely not. The speed of light, (c + v), relative to the approaching observer does not contradict, directly or indirectly, the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. And not only that, but also, the relative speed of light, (c + v) is a necessary consequence of the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. In other words, if the approaching observer does not obtain a numerical value, for the speed of light relative to him/her equal to (c + v), THEN the basic assumption of Maxwell's theory, which states that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, must be false.
AAF

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

October 29 2017, 12:00 AM
 So it's true that the speed of light, (c + v), relative to the approaching observer is, perfectly consistent with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation, according to which the speed of light is assumed to be, totally independent of the speed of the light source. And consequently, whenever an approaching observer 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 approaching observers, equivalent, in all respects, to light speed, in vacuum, equal to (c + v)? Certainly . . . As far as approaching 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 the above equivalence contradict, in any conceivable way, the Maxwellian assumption that, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source? No. Not all. As a matter of fact, 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, quite simply, a consequence of the Maxwellian assumption, which states that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

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

October 29 2017, 8:12 AM
 One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum of light in vacuum is constant (c=1) Another postulate of SRT says: all movements (including the constant speed of quantum of light) are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether medium T=0K. It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and quantum of light can have speed faster than minimal (c>1). (tachyon solution). Third postulate says: the speed of quantum of light is independent of its source. It is possible only if the source of its speed is self-quantum action (h or h/2pi). ==========================================
AAF

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

October 31 2017, 12:00 AM
 "One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum of light in vacuum is constant (c=1). Another postulate of SRT says: all movements (including the constant speed of quantum of light) are relative motions in the respect to an absolute aether medium T=0K. It is possible if constant speed of quantum of light is minimal and quantum of light can have speed faster than minimal (c>1). (tachyon solution). Third postulate says: the speed of quantum of light is independent of its source. It is possible only if the source of its speed is self-quantum action (h or h/2pi).” Thank you, SADOVNIK SOCRATUS, very much for your comment. Why do atoms, ions, electrons, . . . etc., emit their photons at the same speed, c? I would assume that no satisfactory answer to the above question can be found in any physics textbook. But I could be wrong! It's true that, according to one postulate of special relativity, the speed of photons, in vacuum, is constant. However, the above relativistic assumption of constant speed of light is way more sweeping & generalized than the assumption of constant speed of light, as defined within the framework of the classical wave theory: I. According to special relativity, the speed of light, as measured by moving observers, is, always, equal to c, in vacuum. II. According to the classical wave theory, the speed of light, as measured by moving observers, is, equal to the magnitude of the velocity resultant of the velocity of light and the velocity of the observer. III. According to special relativity, the speed of light, in vacuum, c, is the upper limit for all kinds of speeds. IV. According to the classical wave theory, there is, absolutely, no upper speed limit, whatsoever. But, of course, Einstein's special relativity & Maxwell's wave theory agree that the speed of light, relative to its source, is, always, equal to c, in vacuum.

 < Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 6 Next > Respond to this message
 << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return