LAUGHED OUT OF COURT

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
123...,

If I understand your post, I think you are in agreement. Relativity is based upon mis-intrepretation of the null result.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, but I think you have also misinterpreted the null result, imo. Since the light beams traveled different path lengths, the null result can only mean the speed of light was not constant, i.e. one beam traveled faster than the other.

So, any theory that holds as its premise the constancy of the speed of light (such as SR), is already falsified. Thus, the null result of this experiment cannot logically be used as basis for the formulation of SR (even without considering the fact that the beams
were not moving in a uniform rectilinear motion and were under a gravitational field- both conditions of which are outside of the domain of SR).

An illustration of the above fallacy goes something like this: Michelson and Morley throw some pigs off a tall building to test if they can fly. The result of the experiment came back null. Albert Einstein looks at the null result and formulates a theory that "if pigs flew, they would not fall to the ground".

What's wrong with that theory? Well, nothing, if you overlooked the fact that pigs can't fly.

123...

No. I think we are in complete agreement I have used the fact that "Constant Velocity of Light" is a misnomer many time. It is proclaimed to be constant to the observer but that fact means it must be variable to account for relative velocity of the observer to the xource. i.e. vc = c+/-vo

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
123...

No. I think we are in complete agreement I have used the fact that "Constant Velocity of Light" is a misnomer many time. It is proclaimed to be constant to the observer but that fact means it must be variable to account for relative velocity of the observer to the xource. i.e. vc = c+/-vo


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, I don't think we are in agreement yet. An observer who is not in physical contact with the light beam, no matter his velocity, cannot physically affect the velocity of the light. So, if light travels at 3E8 m/s, it doesn't matter if you are going a 100 mph, 1000mph, etc., once you subtract your velocity, you will always get 3E8 m/s for the speed of light. In this sense, the speed of light can be called a constant. My stance rather is that the speed
of light was not constant, in the absolute sense, i.e, one beam of light traveled at a different absolute speed than the other beam in the MMX. My claim is that if we considered the two beams individually, and you are acting as the observer for both beams, you will actually measure a different speed for each beam, even though your velocity remained constant.

Under your viewpoint, the two light beams are still traveling at the same "absolute" speed so that the different lengths in path of the two beams in the MMX should have resulted in a phase shift once the apparatus was rotated. Since there was no phase shift observed, the only logical conclusion I can see is that the two beams traveled at two different "absolute" (as defined by the illustration above) speeds (the cause of which is debatable).

123...

I think we are in agreement. My response was in regard to the vc=c+/-vo and was not specifically addressing the M-M Experiment.

If you are saying that the beams in the vector of motion have an absolute velocity c+/-vo and the traverse beams have a velocity of c.


We are in complete agreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
123...

I think we are in agreement. My response was in regard to the vc=c+/-vo and was not specifically addressing the M-M Experiment.

If you are saying that the beams in the vector of motion have an absolute velocity c+/-vo and the traverse beams have a velocity of c.


We are in complete agreement.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, I don't think we are in agreement yet.
Let's say you are driving in the x direction at velocity v. You observe two light beams both traveling in the same direction. Your definition of the absolute speed of light is the constant c after +/- v. My definition is the variable c, after +/- v. In your definition, once we account for the v of the observer, we get a constant c as the "absolute" speed of light for the observer, regardless of which direction the light is traveling. In my definition, after we account for the observer's velocity, the speed of light is still a variable.

That is, it is still possible in my definition that those two light beams traveling in the same direction as you can have two different "absolute" velocities, resulting in, for example, a relative speed for one light beam of a-v, and a different relative speed for the other light beam of b-v. Once we subtract the velocity of the observer, we get two different "absolute" speeds for light: a and b.

In the MMX, the "absolute" speed of light, relative to one observer frame, was already assumed to be a constant c- that is my objection to the analysis of the experiment- it doesn't allow for the possibility for the "absolute" speed of the two light beams to be different. So before the possibility of an interpretation of the speed of light being dependent on the velocity of the source is considered for example, it is already eliminated by this unwarranted assertion that the speed of light is a constant.

"if pigs flew, they would not fall to the ground"."

This is not a valid statement to use as a basis for a theory.

If pigs are known to fall to the ground by experiment then in the implication:

(p implies q)

q is false, which makes the implication (p implies q) a false statement irrespectively of the value of p.

Therefore, this is not a way to claim a theory and if done it is a false theory by implication since q is proved already to be false.

Implication is a fundamental logical operation and has some peculiar nature that often causes confusion. The truth table is:

p q P --->q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

"If Bill is God then Bill eats food" is a true statement.

Maybe the above is analysis is simple but sometimes we must go back to simple things and look at them carefully. Big mistakes sometimes result of very simple misunderstandigs.

Obviously, the theory you propose Einstein could make about bigs would be immediately refuted based on experimental evidence. Then, why could anyone claim that such theory could be developed in the first place?

Are there any logical conflicts in our perception of reality and its connection to physical laws?