On Jul 27, 5:45 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Accoding to John Norton, Divine Albert did not lie about the
> Michelson-Morley experiment; only "later writers" did:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity,

Einstein was a nitwit. Voigt has already shown the null results of
the MMX prove the principle of relativity wrong. See the Voigt
transform. In doing so, the absolute frame of reference must exist
and thus the Aether. <shrug>

> whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......

Later writers had a sip of Einstein’s fermented diarrhea, and the rest
is history.

> THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."

Yes, that is true, but the emission theory does not agree with
electromagnetism. <shrug>

> Yet Divine Albert seems to be the original liar:

Yes, Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>

> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...113FEE3ABC4152....
> The New York Times, April 19, 1921
>
> "Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
> the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
> contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
> Professor Einstein asked."

Voigt answered it in 1887. That is 18 years before Einstein’s
plagiarized work of 1905 papers.

> "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc�l�rateurs qu'au
> repos"
>
> I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and
> claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me:


At first approximation, yes, this is the same kind of effect that the
muon one. But much stronger : when we measure thinks in the particles
accelerators, EVERYTHINK is Lorentz-deformed. Not only the half-live,
but also the cross-sections, the electromagnetic waves (accelerated
charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase
with speed) and so on.



I did not had a big experimental particle physics course, so I cannot
give you tons of equations and links. I'm more a theorist : I know
better spin and covariance of Maxwell (http://student.ulb.ac.be/
~lclaesse/lectures.pdf). I also saw the computation of the hydrogen
rays using relativistic corrections.

Anyway ... the point is not to give you a course. As I said before,
the facts I was refering to are difficult, need math and time to
analyse.
I can explain them with simplifications in order to be simple. But the
level of knowledge that you can get just by reading the forum or
reading easy books (like the Einstein one that you always quote) is
not enough to draw conclusions about the truth of such or such theory.

The point is to make you more humble : we are in 2008, and there are
1000 reasons to believe in Lorentz. You only know something about
Michelson ... in the scientific backgroud of 1905. In that situation,
how can you pretend to know what is the good choice between Lorentz
and Gallilée ?

Have a good night
Laurent

> "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc�l�rateurs qu'au
> repos"
>
> I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and
> claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me:


At first approximation, yes, this is the same kind of effect that the
muon one. But much stronger : when we measure thinks in the particles
accelerators, EVERYTHINK is Lorentz-deformed. Not only the half-live,
but also the cross-sections, the electromagnetic waves (accelerated
charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase
with speed) and so on.



I did not had a big experimental particle physics course, so I cannot
give you tons of equations and links. I'm more a theorist : I know
better spin and covariance of Maxwell (http://student.ulb.ac.be/
~lclaesse/lectures.pdf). I also saw the computation of the hydrogen
rays using relativistic corrections.

Anyway ... the point is not to give you a course. As I said before,
the facts I was refering to are difficult, need math and time to
analyse.
I can explain them with simplifications in order to be simple. But the
level of knowledge that you can get just by reading the forum or
reading easy books (like the Einstein one that you always quote) is
not enough to draw conclusions about the truth of such or such theory.

The point is to make you more humble : we are in 2008, and there are
1000 reasons to believe in Lorentz. You only know something about
Michelson ... in the scientific backgroud of 1905. In that situation,
how can you pretend to know what is the good choice between Lorentz
and Gallilée ?

Have a good night
Laurent

> "Le temps de vie plus long des particules dans les acc�l�rateurs qu'au
> repos"
>
> I don't know the details of this experiment but you know them and
> claim it confirms Lorentz so you are going to tell me:


At first approximation, yes, this is the same kind of effect that the
muon one. But much stronger : when we measure thinks in the particles
accelerators, EVERYTHINK is Lorentz-deformed. Not only the half-live,
but also the cross-sections, the electromagnetic waves (accelerated
charged particles), the difficulty to accelerate more (~ mass increase
with speed) and so on.



I did not had a big experimental particle physics course, so I cannot
give you tons of equations and links. I'm more a theorist : I know
better spin and covariance of Maxwell (http://student.ulb.ac.be/
~lclaesse/lectures.pdf). I also saw the computation of the hydrogen
rays using relativistic corrections.

Anyway ... the point is not to give you a course. As I said before,
the facts I was refering to are difficult, need math and time to
analyse.
I can explain them with simplifications in order to be simple. But the
level of knowledge that you can get just by reading the forum or
reading easy books (like the Einstein one that you always quote) is
not enough to draw conclusions about the truth of such or such theory.

The point is to make you more humble : we are in 2008, and there are
1000 reasons to believe in Lorentz. You only know something about
Michelson ... in the scientific backgroud of 1905. In that situation,
how can you pretend to know what is the good choice between Lorentz
and Gallilée ?

Have a good night
Laurent