cristo said:
Have you actually read this paper, Pete?
Of course. I also said I'd make it available to anyone who'd want to read it too.
If so, then it should be quite clear that the paper is not talking about the Michelson-Morely experiment, ...
Who said it was? People are reading too much into what I wrote. Please pay attention to
what I write rather than what you think I was trying to imply.
...but is only talking about classes of experiments "in which light sources were in motion with respect to the measuring equipment." In fact, this is stated not only in the first paragraph of the introduction, but also the first paragraph of the conclusion.
Yes. I understand that. Seems that Doc Al didn't even make this connection either. Oh well. It wasn't the purpose of my quote to do so anyway. I mentioned that paper because of the comment in the abstract. In fact I stated that in no uncertain terms too! In fact I stated that more than once as I recall yet people keep on ignorinh that
fact. I wonder why is that? Hmmmmm...
I referred to that paper because find it
very hard to believe that someone would say
It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity if they actually believed that the MMX results were valid. Are you telling me that this was lost on you?
I
never never never said that the author was addressing the MMX in either the text or the paper. Why are you ignoring that fact too? I had
strongly emphasized that I might be wrong because of the fact that its quite possible that when the author of that article, i.e. Fox, said "It is concluded that there may not exist any sure evidence..." he may just have been knowingly ignoring the MMX. I find that hard to believe, hence my quoting on that comment and that comment
only.
Let me remind you of a fact that you are ignoring for some odd reason. Russ Watters wrote
Pete, I'd just like to clarify that that passage was actually referring to the MM experiment. It doesn't actually say that in the passage. Is the "this result" it is referring to (from the previous sentence?) a reference to the MM experiment? And if so, how, exactly does it point to a flaw in the experiment?
Notice that Russ stated that this was to
clarify something. He didn't post it as his personal opinion. I'm curious as to why nobody is jumping down Russ's throat about this too? Is it because he's one of the "gang" and you don't contradict your fellow mentors? Now recall my response
The reason that I quoted it was because it seemed apparent to me that the author was indeed referring to experiments such as the Michelson Morley experiment. I wouldn't have posted it otherwise.
Please tell me that you understood what the term
seemed means when I said that it
seemed apparent. I made every effort to clarify that whether or not this was the authors intent was unknown to me and that my interpretation of the authors writing was my
motivation for referring to this. But I merely referred to French because he mentions the extinction theorem. If he didn't write the following
Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of 10-8cm of glass or 0.1 mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source.
Then I might never have quoted the book in the first place.
This conversation all stems from you stating to a new member that there was a problem relating to the MM experiment, and suggesting that people here at PF were trying to avoid answering the question.
I found it very irritating that the OP got flak for not asking his question in a "politically correct way" (or however you'd like to phrase it). Just because a person doesn't know how to ask for what he is looking for should never be used to prohibit them from asking a question. Responses will almost always help the OP reformulate their question better. Several regular posters here have sent me PMs of about this explaining to me that they don't appreciate the way moderators handle these things. So don't get the impression that all the moderators are error free and innocent as angels. In fact I criticized (
not insulted) a moderator here which resulted in a rash of flames in PM. And there's no way to block flames from moderators.
However, it has since transpired that neither the text you quoted, nor the paper that you cited had anything to do with the original question. As Doc Al has said above, it is on you to provide a valid reference that agrees with your position on this matter.
Your claim that this is my
personal theory is bogus. You're confusing a
personal theory with a possible
incorrect application of a theorem.
The OP has his question answered and that's all I care about. I can't help if people read into what I said something that I never said, implied nor meant. I said that the MMX experiment was inconclusive because of the extinction theorem and I quoted French because of that theorem. Mostly to show that it only takes a very short distance for the light to travel.
If you cannot, then it is a personal theory and, as such, not permitted here at PF.
Doc was off base. He was not focusing on the extinction theorem. He was too focused on the text which I quoted the extinction theorem from.
By the way, if you have a problem with me personally then why didn't you send this to me in a PM? I'm getting tired of people trying to force somethning into something I never said nor held to be true. Its very irritating.
Now
please stop trying to imply that I was saying that French was using the extinction theorem to discuss the MMX. I wrote
The flaw has to do with what is known as the extinction theorem. This is mentioned in Special Relativity, by A.P. French, Norton Press, (1968). pages 127-128.
Now stop trying to make that into something its not! Sheesh!
Pete
