Unlocking the Mystery of Light: FTL Travel

[turin]

Originally posted by Nudnik
Yes, they were trying to show movement through an electromagnetic medium. The specific movement in question was the Earth's orbit.

The motion of Earth in its orbit was known (or at least strongly suspected) long before Michelson was even born. Of course, if you go too far back into history, the notion becomes dangerously heretical. Anyway, the primary mechanism for showing the motion of the Earth with respect to its own orbit is parallax, not aberration. This was known at the time of Michelson. When they did the experiment near the turn of the century, they took the motion of the Earth for granted. Are you trying to say that the null result was evidence against the Earth's orbit? I don't understand what you're trying to convey.

Originally posted by Nudnik
... I know that Einstein fitted aberration into his scheme.

I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. It seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Nudnik
But he neglected that it shows a change of relativity between space and the Earth environment.

I don't understand.

 

[Nudnik]

Duh. Of course they were not trying to prove that the Earth was orbiting. They were trying to detect the Earth's motion in the experiment to show the presence of ether. Are you trying to be contrary or do you really not understand ordinary english?

The change of direction of light relative to the observer due to the orbital motion shows that the speed of light is not constant relative to the observer while it is in space but becomes constant relative to the observer on entering the Earth environment which is at rest relative to the observer.

 

[turin]

Well, I had just typed up a monster of a post, but then my session expired. Y'all probably didn't want to read all that crap anyway.

Nudnik,
My intention is certainly not to be contrary. I am thinking that one of us may be a bit confused about one of at least three relevant issues: 1) SR, 2) aberration, and/or 3) Michelson-Morley exp. Let's investigate, shall we.

1) SR declares that it is our cherished notions of absolute space and time that must be thrown out in order to accommodate the constancy of the speed of light. Really, this is a sub-postulate. The laws of physics must remain invariant under a transformation from one IF to any other, and therefore there must be an invariant speed, c. Of course, this is in hindsight, and, at the time, Einstein had to declare it as a postulate in order to preserve the sanctity of Maxwell's equations, which is now taken for granted (due to overwhelming exp. agreement). So, if light speed is seen to be a constant on Earth, and something must be thrown out in order for it to be constant in space, then this something is thrown out in SR. Do you argue against SR?

2) Aberration deals with a moving source, not a moving observation point. Granted, SR allows these two situations to be swapped, but in any case, isotropy is inherently obviated by relative motion.

3) The Michelson-Morley exp. does not involve aberration. They used a source (5900 Angstrom Na) that was stationary WRT the apparatus. The length and time scales involved (notwithstanding the extensive amplification by repeated reflections) were sufficiently small to allow for treatment of SR to a high fidelity.

Let me know where you disagree, or if you think I'm getting way off track here.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I wanted to elaborate a bit more on the "motion through the ether is the motion of the Earth's orbit" point. They were not trying to show motion through the ether as orbital motion. In fact, the exp. was performed at opposite times of the year in order to ensure that the Earth's orbital motion was not cancelling out the motion through the ether.

 

[Nudnik]

(1) Yes

(2) No, aberration of starlight does not involve a moving source but a moving observer. A telescope has to be aimed with an offset angle because of the Earth's orbital motion. Look it up. This shows clearly that light has at least two different speeds relative to the observer in the same frame of reference (the observer's rest frame).

(3) Your comment so misses the point that I won't comment further on it.

If there were an ether the Michelson-Morley experiment could never have detected it because it is logically flawed. The light in the experiment is isolated from space. An enclosed vacuum is not equivalent to space. Maxwell's equations suggest there could be a luminiferous ether but do not require it. That is, the electric and magnetic parameters (permitivity and permeability) could be properties of an ether or they could be properties of the fields and not exist in the absence of those fields.

 

[meddyn]

A telescope has to be aimed with an offset angle because of the Earth's orbital motion. Look it up

Don't want to get in the middle of this one but could you please give a reference on this?

Tks.

 

[turin]

Originally posted by Nudnik
(1) Yes

Oh. I was asking that as a rhetorical question. But since you argue against it, I don't think we will have very good discussions, you and I, and you obviously hold grievances against (2) and (3). No disrespect intended, but I won't be responding any more.

 

[David]

Originally posted by Nudnik

If there were an ether the Michelson-Morley experiment could never have detected it because it is logically flawed. The light in the experiment is isolated from space. An enclosed vacuum is not equivalent to space. Maxwell's equations suggest there could be a luminiferous ether but do not require it. That is, the electric and magnetic parameters (permitivity and permeability) could be properties of an ether or they could be properties of the fields and not exist in the absence of those fields.

The MM apparatus was resting in the earth’s local ether.

 

[Nudnik]

Originally posted by David
The MM apparatus was resting in the earth?s local ether.

Yes, that is another way of saying the same thing. But either way the MM experiment gives no evidence whatever of what happens to light in the extended rest frame of the observer far away from the observer and the Earth's local environment. Which is the idea on which SR is built.

Yes, the Earth has a local 'ether' in the form of the dielectric property of matter.

 

[Nudnik]

Originally posted by meddyn
Don't want to get in the middle of this one but could you please give a reference on this?

Tks.

I asked you to look it up. Do you not know how to use a search engine? Or maybe you want someone else to do your work for you.

 

[Phobos]

Tha manner of that statement shows, beyond any shadow of doubt, that you don't have a clue.
Duh.
Are you trying to be contrary or do you really not understand ordinary english?
I asked you to look it up. Do you not know how to use a search engine? Or maybe you want someone else to do your work for you.

Nudnik - This attitude is not welcome here. Discuss/debate ideas, don't flame.

 

[Nudnik]

You won't have to worry about it anymore.

{:>)]

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by theurinal
Firstly, just a high to everyone, (first post, aye).

Now, everyone has been saying that FTL Travel (Faster than Light) and even the speed of light is impossible. (dammit... ) than how is it that light can go at the speed of light.

Now, for some touching back on the SOL theory. As you approach the SOL time gets slower and the energy needed for the speed gets higher. AT the SOL energy is infinite and time is held. (e.g 12:00 forever: never even hitting 1 ms later)

Now, if the energy required is infinite than how can Light itself go that fast.

Is the secret hidden in Light??!

Now, everyone has been saying that FTL Travel is the speed of light.

 

[russ_watters]

The "vacuum" of space is not empty either.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The "vacuum" of space is not empty either.

Exactly!

The importance of 'Scale' cannot be ignored.

 

[Peterdevis]

Mans clumsy attempt at creating a genuine 2-Dimensional Flat Space from a 3-Dimensional spacetime (matter).

(how can I quote with the original poster as reference ?)

Holy Poly! Do you know what scientist mean with a flat space ? It is independent of the dimensions! A 4 dimensional space can be as flat as a 1- dimensional.