Light & Space: Investigating the Unknown

[john-of-the-divine]

The explanation for the null result (not a failure) is already consistent with considering the mirrors and beam-splitter as sources. This is an application of Huygens' Principle.

it's like looking at the sun when your under water. the sun appears to be on the surface of the water.

 

[Dale]

what if the Michelson Morley experiment failed because the spliter and mirrors each technically became a new "source" of light.

That is considered and investigated experimentally. It is called the ballistic model and is ruled out by observations of binary stars

 

[Herman Trivilino]

if you can't explain without numbers, then what makes the math so infallible?

It works! That's all there is to it. The math works. Engineers, scientists, and technicians use it to build stuff and do stuff.

Explanations are simply descriptions of what the math does for us.

 

[john-of-the-divine]

It works! That's all there is to it. The math works. Engineers, scientists, and technicians use it to build stuff and do stuff.

Explanations are simply descriptions of what the math does for us.

math is a form of explanation. it can tell us how to build something, but it doesn't build it for us.

 

[john-of-the-divine]

That is considered and investigated experimentally. It is called the ballistic model and is ruled out by observations of binary stars

can you point me to a source on that by any chance. I can't find one.

 

[Drakkith]

math is a form of explanation. it can tell us how to build something, but it doesn't build it for us.

Which is why math is integrated into scientific theories which are then verified through observations and experiments.

If you're asking why math itself is logical and self-consistent (IE why it works), that's not a question that anyone can answer.

 

[john-of-the-divine]

Which is why math is integrated into scientific theories which are then verified through observations and experiments.

If you're asking why math itself is logical and self-consistent (IE why it works), that's not a question that anyone can answer.

no, that's not my question.

 

[Dale]

can you point me to a source on that by any chance. I can't find one.

Certainly! The go-to reference is:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

[john-of-the-divine]

math is like a road map. there are many roads that can take you to get to many destinations, and you can get from any destination to any destination. from point a to point b there are many routes you can take to get you there. problem is, we are learning the routes and the stops and the destination as we go, as well as all the laws and regulations. the the routes are only straight till they hit a stop, destination, law or regulation, the routes constently swerving in and out, up and down, side to side. it all started with the first concept of numbers. from there it went, 2+2=4. adding, subtracting, multiplication, division...you get the point. we didn't know these routes till we started exploring by thinking of destinations that we can think of. we can't see the destination through the tangled mess of routes, but we know they are there. from our previous expereanc and knowledge of the routes we know, we can have a general idea of what road to take. then the next one and the next but, the deeper we go, the routes get more dense and tangled with more routes, new and different regulations. eventually, we make it to our destination. so, we look back, and we can retrace or route and we know it now. from there, there are many other roads to many other destination, or look back and say "hey, wait. looks like a different road that looks like it goes back to our last stop we just came from. let's see if it takes us back". and eventually, you make it back. a new route. two different routes between different points. and it's sometimes shorter. so now we find different routes here and there. between different stops and destinations. over time, we became so good at traversing this map of math, we start to be able to make predictions. if we went this way to get over there, then this way might take us over here. sometimes we're right, sometimes wrong. But the experience gained from the wrong path makes us better at predicting. we start to become right more often. now we are getting so deep in this map that we have to imagine new destinations. and we've gotten so in that area that it seems like we've made it to the imagined destination, when it only appears to be the destination we are looking for (previous theories). till we noticed a few key "attractions" are missing. so we go back and look for what wrong turn we made, and look for the "corrected" route from there to make it to the destination we were looking for (new theory). sometimes a route is proven and that theory becomes fact. But the route should never be looked at as the route to the destination till it's proven a fact and not just a theory because it can blind us from the real destination, and we are stuck in the apparent destintation. this is why I question the math.

 

[john-of-the-divine]

Certainly! The go-to reference is:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

thank you so very much.

 

[john-of-the-divine]

Certainly! The go-to reference is:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

electrodynamics, I herd that alongside aether. is that more of a subatomic particle reaction?

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[Drakkith]

math is like a road map. there are many roads that can take you to get to many destinations, and you can get from any destination to any destination...

[snip]

... sometimes a route is proven and that theory becomes fact. But the route should never be looked at as the route to the destination till it's proven a fact and not just a theory because it can blind us from the real destination, and we are stuck in the apparent destintation. this is why I question the math.

By your own admission in this thread you know next to nothing about mathematics, especially the foundations of math and the methods and manners by which mathematical progress is made. Before making sweeping statements like the quote above it would be greatly beneficial for you to take some time and look into what math actually is and how it works. I assure you there is far more to math than what you've written here. I'm sure the folks in the Math forums would gladly help you out if you tell them you're interested in learning about the underlying logic and such of math.

In addition, the phrase "proven a fact and not just a theory" demonstrates that you also know very little about science. Scientific theories are never, ever proven in an absolute sense. Every theory, every single one, is subject to change or falsification at any time. Every scientific law, rule, theory, and hypothesis could come crashing down tomorrow or next Tuesday or ten billion years from now.

I applaud your interest in math and science, and I hope all of this hasn't rubbed you the wrong way, but you need to understand that questioning is simply the first step in learning. You must put in the necessary time and effort if you want to actually learn things. And unfortunately this means learning at least a little bit of math. Not necessarily a lot. Much of special relativity can be understood with just basic algebra and perhaps vectors. But you'll have to learn at least a little bit.

It's your choice.

Thread will remain locked.