Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Shustaire is absolutely correct and you are wrong, like you get so much of this stuff. 

 

It was to detect a lumineforous aether in which the motion of the Earth could be detected moving through. Failure of detecting of this ''wind'' ruled out

ithis class of aether for relativity. Had nothing to do with stating the Earth was stationary.

 

 

It had everything to do with the earth being (non)stationary.  Sure, the prevailing view at the time was that there was an aether.  But the whole attempt to detect it was based on two premises: 1.  That the earth was orbiting the sun, and 2.  That the aether was absolutely stationary.  If the earth was not presumed to be moving, the the experiment could never has been conceived.  The idea was to measure the absolute speed of the earth through space (the aether). If the earth was not moving, then no movement through space could be detected.

 

Prevailing theories held that ether formed an absolute reference frame with respect to which the rest of the universe was stationary. It would therefore follow that it should appear to be moving from the perspective of an observer on the sun-orbiting Earth. As a result, light would sometimes travel in the same direction of the ether, and others times in the opposite direction. Thus, the idea was to measure the speed of light in different directions in order to measure speed of the ether relative to Earth...Although Michelson and Morley were expecting measuring different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernible fringes indicating a different speed in any orientation or at any position of the Earth in its annual orbit around the Sun.

 

 

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

 

Again, his own article says:

 

By analyzing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth...

 

 

The motion of the earth could not be detected, and, as I correctly said, the Lorentz transforms were invented for the purpose of explaining the null result in terms of time dilation and length contraction.

 

I think that's a big part of your problem on this topic, Dubbo.  You just look at conclusions, without ever analyzing or understanding the premises which necessarily underlie them.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The 

 

It was built on undisputed premises, THE EXPERIMENT was not about ruling out the motion of the Earth, but the motion of Earth through a lumineforous aether. But for some reason you cherry pick certain true statements and then bastardise the rest of the physics to suit your arguments.

 

Why am I bothering?

 

If all you're looking for is agreement with all of your notions, no matter how half-baked, then you shouldn't bother.  You seem to be unable to read even the articles you rely on to make your claims in the first place.

 

The METHOD of attempting to detect the earth's motion was the interferometer, based upon the speed of light.  Due to the motion of the earth, they expected to find a difference in the speed of light, depending on the direction it was travelling.  So, most directly, the LT were designed for the exact reason I said:  To explain why we measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, when it really isn't.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yeah, right, eh?  Rave on, fool.

[Moronium]

So, most directly, the LT were designed for the exact reason I said:  To explain why we measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, when it really isn't.

 

Another way to explain it would, of course, be to simply say that the earth wasn't actually moving.  This is sort of the way Einstein tried to explain it (in an ultimately incoherent way).  As I just quoted him as saying, Einstein's position was that we CANNOT properly say that the earth is orbiting the sun.

 

SR or no SR, however, all physicists continued to believe that, as a matter of absolute motion, the earth really does orbit the sun.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You're full of hot air, you can't even back anything you say with references supporting motion is ruled out.  This doesn't mean, in any way, that Earth is suggested as not moving... quite the contrary when Einstein says we must attribute to the rest system to the sun and it has been well known since only the earliest pioneers that the Earth had a rotation around the sun. This is motion, it's real, and lack of a lumineforous aether never ruled this out. Only in your crazed imagination could this

 

Learn.

To.

Read.

Dubbo.

 

 

I quoted this statement, from Einstein, a long way back in this thread:

 

[O]ne should not say the earth moves in an ellipse around the sun, because this statement assumes a coordinate system in which the sun is at rest....

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/32241-yes-you-can-go-faster-than-speed-of-light/?p=361777

 

Einstein clearly took the position that it is improper to say the earth is moving around the sun.

 

If you actually understood SR, you would know that.  As he says, to claim otherwise would be to posit a prohibited preferred frame:  "...because this statement assumes a coordinate system in which the sun is at rest...."  That would serve to acknowledge the existence of absolute motion--strictly prohibited in SR.

 

Nice try...ya talk about "crazed imagination?"  Like yours, ya mean?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Einstein says we must attribute to the rest system to the sun...This is motion, it's real, and lack of a lumineforous aether never ruled this out. Only in your crazed imagination could this rule out motion.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong.  I completely agree with the "real motion" part of this.  You're right about that! The earth's orbit is an example of absolute motion.

 

But Einstein didn't say it, or agree with it, as you claim.

 

Nonetheless,  congratulations--you have just repudiated SR.  Good work!

 

Now, instead of getting tired of being wrong, you can be right, for once!

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here, Dubbo, just for your convenience, I'll repaste the entire post which I just cited.  The comments I posted there must surely reflect your thoughts on the topic too, given your last post, eh?

 

Here's another excerpt from that Einstein same paper:

 

Strictly speaking, one should, for example, not say the earth moves in an ellipse around the sun, because this statement assumes a coordinate system in which the sun is at rest...Nobody would investigate our solar system in a coordinate system in which the earth is at rest—because this would be impractical ...But in principle, such a coordinate system would still be equivalent to any other one. The phenomenon that in such coordinate systems fixed stars would race around at tremendous velocities is no argument against its admissibility, but merely against the usefulness of this choice of coordinates.

 

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/89

 

There's that 'principle" again, eh?  But aren't the flaws in this argument rather self evident?  Yes, the idea of the fixed stars "racing around" the earth at speeds greatly exceeding that of light WOULD be inadmissible.  In all other cases superluminal speed is inadmissible under SR, so why should there be an exception here?  He's saying that we shouldn't say the earth is moving, but of course we do, and always have since Galileo and (especially) Newton.

 

So why is he advancing these specious arguments?  Why is he suggesting that Newton's entire concept of gravity can be completely jettisoned based on a dubious "principle?" Because he's desperately trying to kill the notion that the sun could be at rest, relative to the earth.  And he's doing that because then the earth would be moving if you took that view.  In that event it couldn't be "at rest" for SR purposes.  The ultimate effect of that would be to invalidate SR as a theory of relative motion and adopt the type of preferred frame that SR prohibits (strictly for purposes of satisfying the implications of SR's unproven postulates).  But he can't change the accepted physical facts.  He can only hope to persuade others to ignore the physical facts.

 

I can understand Einstein's motivations, but what puzzles me is how readily, and even eagerly, so many people accept these lame arguments as not only being acceptable, but as indisputable "scientific" propositions.  What's up with that?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

absolutely zero comprehension skills, my 13 year old graddaughter. (yes I am that old) understands SR better than you do.

 

The rest frame aspects on ratios have already been covered

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

The 

 

 

If all you're looking for is agreement with all of your notions, no matter how half-baked, then you shouldn't bother.  You seem to be unable to read even the articles you rely on to make your claims in the first place.

 

The METHOD of attempting to detect the earth's motion was the interferometer, based upon the speed of light.  Due to the motion of the earth, they expected to find a difference in the speed of light, depending on the direction it was travelling.  So, most directly, the LT were designed for the exact reason I said:  To explain why we measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, when it really isn't.

 

 

This is completely different from your previous claim that it tested the Earth was not in motion.

 

at least you finally got the part right that it is designed to test the 1 way and two way speed of light.

 

It is not to test the Earths motion or your previous claimed lack of.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

This is completely different from your previous claim that it tested the Earth was not in motion.

 

at least you finally got the part right that it is designed to test the 1 way and two way speed of light.

 

It is not to test the Earths motion or your previous claimed lack of.

 

Why don't you read what I said?  And then see if you can understand it?  The motion of the earth was assumed  If it could not be detected, that raised questions. 

 

Are you contesting the main point, even, to wit, Lorentz's purpose in inventing the LT and the basis of his hypothesis? 

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

No motion of the Earth was never assumed as at rest. Not under any SR test and certainly not in M$M experiments. There is a significant difference between setting one motion at rest for mathematical convenience than assuming a natural state of at rest.

 

You still don't get how ratios of change work,

 

Do I need to repeat it is mathematically accurate to set one value as a baseline when describing ratio of change between two objects. Or do you live up to your callsign once again and truly show everyone just how moronic you really are ?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

It is so typical here that the substance of my posts is almost entirely ignored.  Instead someone wants to latch on to one purely incidental point and turn it all into some tangential, semantical argument, devoid of significance.

[Moronium]

No motion of the Earth was never assumed as at rest. Not under any SR test and certainly not in M$M experiments.

 

This experiment was done LONG before SR.  And YES it was ALWAYS (post-Newton)  assumed, and still is, SR notwithstanding.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Don't play the victim here, you are just as good at ignoring others. 

 

Wrong.  I respond to any sincere criticism/argument made by others.

[Shustaire]

This experiment was done LONG before SR.  And YES it was ALWAYS (post-Newton)  assumed, and still is, SR notwithstanding.

 

The Earth being the center f the universe died long before SR ever came about. Like around Newtons time so irrelevant when discussing SR. It is not one of the postulates of SR.

[Shustaire]

Wrong.  I respond to any sincere criticism/argument made by others.

 

with absolute garbage

[Moronium]

No motion of the Earth was never assumed as at rest. Not under any SR test and certainly not in M$M experiments. There is a significant difference between setting one motion at rest for mathematical convenience than assuming a natural state of at rest.

 

You still don't get how ratios of change work,

 

Do I need to repeat it is mathematically accurate to set one value as a baseline when describing ratio of change between two objects. Or do you live up to your callsign once again and truly show everyone just how moronic you really are ?

 

 

Is it even remotely possible for you to stick to the subject rather responding with non-sequiturs and red herrings?

 

I'll repeat:  The motion of the earth was assumed.

 

Do you  continue to deny this?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium