PDA

View Full Version : The Michelson-Morley Experiment revisited



Xiamnoblu
2007-Jul-24, 08:15 AM
Hello X:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/michelson.html
It looks like you like to jump into any thread and preach to gospel according to Paul Marmet. I find his work both comic and tragic. From the above URL:

>"When these overlooked phenomena are taken into account, we see that a null result, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is the natural consequence, resulting from the assumption of an absolute frame of reference and Galilean transformations. On the contrary, a shift of the interference fringes would be required in order to support Einstein’s relativity."
That takes some imagination. One of the cool things about the Michelson-Morley experiment is that it is often done on a turntable. The null data was found at every possible angle.

Quite the switch! The null result means special relativity is wrong.

Wrong the results were not null -something was measured-(Marmet precise that also in the paper)

Peer rewieved paper
re-analysis of the original results
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0311576

If only you have read Marmet's paper
Marmet say
a positive shift of interference fringes with the amplitude compatible with the Michelson-Morley predictions is required in order to be compatible with Einstein’s relativity. Such a shift of interference fringes due to a rotation has never been observed.






Marmet is arguing that the light does not enter at a 90 degree angle. That argument sounds silly to me. The angle of the light is determined by a beam splitter, a good old mechanical device. The light, the table, the beam splitter, they are all moving, which makes his claims empty.

doug
Again that demonstrate you have not read the detailed demonstration made by Marmet.

2 - Reflection of Light on a Moving Mirror.
" We show here that there are at least two crucial physical phenomena, which have been ignored in the Michelson-Morley calculation. The importance of these phenomena changes radically the Michelson-Morley prediction. One of these phenomenon takes place on the reflected light on the semi transparent mirror M of the interferometer.
In the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is considered that light is reflected at 90o because the mirror is at 45o. However, we show here that it cannot be so, because of the proper velocity of the mirror."
..........
See demonstration
..........
"Therefore, light is reflected at (90o+q), when the static angle of the mirror at 45 degrees is moving at velocity v. "

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/michelson/michelson.html

......
"It is important to recall that the overlooked phenomena described here also have important implications in other fundamental experiments(19) in relativity. For example, in the Lorentz transformation(19),
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz/lorentz.html
which usually predicts length contraction along the velocity axis of moving matter with respect to the transverse axis, it has been shown that the predictions are also in error, due to a secondary phenomenon explained in this present paper. We know also that the Brillet and Hall experiment (20) is also a test for the anisotropy of space. The Brillet and Hall experiment (20) has also been carefully studied and similarly, it has been shown (21),
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/brillet-hall/index.html
that a corresponding phenomenon is changing the light path inside a Fabry-Pérot etalon. Consequently, in that case again, the null change of frequency observed experimentally, corresponds to an absolute frame of reference, while an anisotropic relativist space would require an observed shift of frequency. "

Tensor
2007-Jul-24, 05:43 PM
Instead of going through this all again, Here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/14854-overlooked-phenomena-michelson-morley-experiment.html) is a link to a thread where Marmet was discussed. Within that thread, are more links to other threads where it was discussed, in addition to sites that specifically refute Marmet. While his site and book may well sound reasonable, if you would actually take the time to examine some of the sites within those threads, you will see where he makes most of his mistakes.

John Mendenhall
2007-Jul-24, 06:54 PM
Instead of going through this all again, Here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/14854-overlooked-phenomena-michelson-morley-experiment.html) is a link to a thread where Marmet was discussed.



Thank you, Tensor. May I add your comments and links to a debunker collection for use in replying to repeated (and repeated, and repeated . . . maybe we should send the guy with the infinities question in Q&A to here) ATM ideas?

Regards, John M.

Tensor
2007-Jul-24, 07:02 PM
Thank you, Tensor. May I add your comments and links to a debunker collection for use in replying to repeated (and repeated, and repeated . . . maybe we should send the guy with the infinities question in Q&A to here) ATM ideas?

Regards, John M.

By all means, feel free. :)

Tensor
2007-Jul-24, 09:09 PM
ToSeek,
I was wondering about X, but didn't have anything tangible to go on. Feel free to lock this thread.