If your reasoning were true, the travel times for the light beams would be different in the z and x components of the Michelson-Morley apparatus, and you'd see a corresponding fringe shift in the interference pattern at the detector. That was never seen.
Everything we perceive is in the past due to finite speed of light
- Thread starter Fork
- Start date
If your reasoning were true, the travel times for the light beams would be different in the z and x components of the Michelson-Morley apparatus, and you'd see a corresponding fringe shift in the interference pattern at the detector. That was never seen.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
They did NOT measure the speed of light in the proper direction in the MMX. I know for a FACT that they did NOT measure the speed of light in the proper direction! You can see in my diagram that the speed of light is different in the same frame depending on which direction (axis) you measure it. They did NOT measure the speed of light properly!
Because they are totally different experiments, wacko.
What do you mean, they didn't measure it in the proper direction? They measured it in every direction imaginable. At every time of day. At every time of the year. All over different locations on the Earth. With all kinds of other variables taken into account. The whole apparatus was balanced on a smooth rotating platform so they could rotate it 360 degrees and check every possible angle. They didn't find a damn thing. What did they not measure?
Edit: Actually another advantage to mounting "MMX" on the rotating platform is that it allowed for even higher precision than the setup described on Wikipedia, but that's not important.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
They didn't measure shit! The measure of the speed of light is the length of the path that light travels in SPACE. They didn't measure that! If you think they did then how did they determine how far light traveled in SPACE?
Mr. Motor Daddy, you have severely impressed me with that insight!
That, and what you posted in Post #322 :
"Am I allowed to have a couple drinks every now and then? My judgement is not at question, I figured this stuff out LONG AGO! This is second hand to me. I can do it in my sleep now."
I have no choice but to fully concur with your Post #326 - it is something that I have come to fully understand in my near six decades of doing time on this rocky blue-green planet.
I also, have, on too many occasions, had to stand the stead for the masses of "sheople/sheeple", you are indeed one of only a very few other people that I have personally witnessed doing the same. I applaud your actions.
As to your statement from Post #322....how can I state my feelings...
I cannot attempt to attest to the validity of that statement, and please, let me explain.
I have had to watch alcohol overtake too many friends, family members, loved ones and acquaintances.
After losing some family and friends to the immediate affects of alcohol, and exposing myself to those same affects - I decided on the morning of my 19th birthday to attempt become a recovering alcoholic.
On a few occasions, since then, I have drank a shot to toast a new year or celebrate an event with friends. After nearly 40 years I still consider myself "recovering" because I know Alcohol's power.
That being said, and if you have witnessed the progression of alcoholism in any friends, family or associates - you would probably concur that no one aspires or strives to become a victim of alcoholism as their primary goal in life!
When I began witnessing the frustrations and name calling and abuse you suffered on people who would not (for whatever reason) totally accept your, let us call them, alternative, theories - I never thought of alcohol ( I try my darndest to not jump to conclusions or make assumptions), I merely was a witness to what I could only perceive as, seemingly a juvenile form of retaliation. I am sorry, but I have never honestly felt that Yelling or Name-Calling or Losing Ones Temper was part of a Knowledgeable Discussion.
I will use "techniques", in a calm and measured manner, to try to get some people to see their own actions, in a different light or from another perspective, however, at times!
I have no idea of the depths of your relationship with alcohol, and to be completely honest, I would prefer not to!
I call myself the dumbest man on earth because of how I must discipline my actions and restrain my abilities in response to the society/culture/times in which I currently live, and for no other reason.
At the same time, I do not consider myself to be of more than what I truly consider average intelligence. The understanding of "theories", or the "sciences", or any of the myriad of things that the "sheople" of the united states, consider "Rocket Science", are largely understood by junior high students in most of the rest of the world. I expect you know this, already.
I would prefer not to be referred to as a "moron", by you or anybody else, but part of my "Dumbest", is not allowing names or words to "draw my blood", so to speak.
If you have indeed taken the time to suffer through this posting, then I hope you understand that even if it is only a .000000000000001 % chance that I am, indeed in any way, in any form, being an enabler to a person even slightly struggling with alcohol - that I must in all good conscience, refrain from participating.
Again, I applaud you for your Post #326, and wish you continued enjoyment of life.
Goodbye, dmoe
If the apparatus had been "moving through space" in the way you describe, along the x-axis, it would have altered the path lengths in the z and x-directions and the interference pattern would have shifted as a result, the fringes would have spread out. Yet the angle along which the x-axis of the apparatus was aligned never made any difference to the interference pattern.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
DMOE, Fear not, I do not have an alcohol problem. I too have witnessed severe alcohol stages up to death. My uncle for one. I do not have a problem. I can drink a few drinks and think not about another drink for months! Believe it or not. I have friends that are alcoholics. I noticed differences at a young age between alcoholics and non-alcoholics. Some people have it and some people will never have it. I am not an alcoholic and never will be, no matter how much I drink (not that I drink a lot.) I am also educated in alcohol and drugs, and I was also a certified unit drug and alcohol coordinator, so fear not, I am well versed in the area. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not the dmoe either. 
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Do you see that in my pic the .65 seconds of light travel time to get to the z receiver is along the hypotenuse? The light did NOT travel from the source to the z receiver along the z axis, it traveled the HYPOTENUSE!
Light travels along the z-axis as seen in the MMX frame, otherwise it wouldn't hit the mirror/detector at z. The fact is that the travel time along z is the same along x, otherwise the interference pattern would shift as the apparatus rotates.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You're full of shit! Light travels the hypotenuse from coordinate (0,0,0) to coordinate (.41533,0,.5) which is a radius of .65 light seconds. You're not that stupid, are you?
I don't give a shit about your 3D scenario, it's wrong. Tell me what Michelson did wrong with his measurements. Tell me why he saw no interference fringe shifts.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Bwahahahahahaha! That's all you got? I already told you, they did NOT measure shit! Light travels the hypotenuse, as indicated by my .65 seconds to the z receiver from coordinate (0,0,0) to coordinate (.41533,0,.5). When you wrap your brain around that then let me know! Until then I'm going to sleep now. I'm tired and you're wasting my time because you haven't done your homework! Good Night Sweetie Pie! Muah! Sweet Dreams!
Go look at the article I sent you. It accounts for horizontal motion along the hypotenuse as light travels towards the mirror at z, as seen in the "rest" frame. Makes no difference, the light takes the same time to reach the mirrors at x and z. Go sleep on it and sober up.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No it doesn't take the same time to reach the x and z receivers. I clearly show that in my diagram that it takes .65 seconds to reach the z receiver and it takes 1.384930 seconds to reach the x receiver. That is because the radius of the light sphere had two different path lengths to reach the respective receivers. You made the mistake before saying that those receivers were velocity detectors, and I will correct you once again, they are TIME DETECTORS. The light sphere has two different length radius hence two different times!
From the "rest" frame, or the "static ether" frame as Michelson would have called it, i.e. if I had a clock at rest measuring the times of arrival at Z and X, I would get the same times you already calculated. If the clock were instead taken onboard the train so it's up to speed with the train, it would measure 0.5s in both directions, which is the result of Relativistic simultaneity and time dilation. The distances the light beams travel to each point would also be different as measured by meter sticks in either frame. It's a very well-established fact that time runs faster for atomic clocks in GPS satellite orbits amongst many other situations where Relativity has been tested, and if this effect weren't taken into account (as well as the effects of gravity on time), or if the attempted corrections weren't based on the exact details of Relativity, the system wouldn't be able to stay synchronized and the accuracy would break down over time.
If you place a velocity detector at Z, we know how far the light traveled to Z in the train frame, so we can automatically calculate the arrival time by dividing 0.5 light-seconds by the detected velocity at Z. Likewise for X. And vice-versa, time detectors are automatically velocity detectors as well- simply divide the length of train covered by the time detected by clocks at Z and X, all done in the train frame with no knowledge of what the ground measures.
But you don't seem to understand that the Michelson interferometer measures neither velocities nor times. It measures differences in velocity and time. If you put a Michelson interferometer on the train, it would easily pick up a difference along Z and X if there were any difference in the arrival times as measured in the train's reference frame. It would easily do this even if the train were only moving at 0.0001c, and that was with the instrument they were using more than 100 years ago, never mind the degree of electronic precision people use today when repeating the experiment.
Until you can explain the measured results of that experiment, let alone the countless other methods of disproving your concept of universal time and universal length, you have no business saying anyone's stupid for believing the evidence or that Einstein was wrong. When I said this issue was already beaten to death, I meant like more than a century tied to a spiked wheel beaten to death.
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Again, for the umpteenth time, the meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second! There is only one light sphere in reality, not two, or twelve, or 3,984, there is ONE path length that is the radius. Do you understand what a path length is? Before we continue this discussion you need to understand what a path length is!
We are not talking about how many meter sticks are lined up in the box frame from the center of the box to the z receiver. We are talking about the LENGTH OF THE PATH THAT LIGHT TRAVELS IN SPACE. You can CLEARLY see in my diagram in frame 2 that the radius of the light sphere at t=.65 seconds is a line that runs from coordinate (0,0,0) to coordinate (.41533,0,.5), which is a path length of .65 light seconds. $$.41533^2+.5^2=0.4224990089.$$ $$sqrt{.4224990089}=.65$$, so you're simply blowing smoke if you think the length of the path (that is the radius of the light sphere) is anything other than .65 light seconds at t=.65 seconds. This is simple geometry as defined and has NOTHING to do with how much time an atomic clock measures. NOTHING! Throw the damn clock away, because it's worthless! This is defined geometry, which is a rock solid fact. You trying to say that the radius and time is some other number is BS! Pythagorean Theorem says you're full of shit! The coordinate system says you're full of shit! The light sphere says you're full of shit, and the definition of the meter says you're full of shit! Me? I agree with the four of them, you're full of shit!
Moderator comment : Infraction given for inappropriate language and repeatedly spewing out the same debunked nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your patience with motor daddy is most impressive. At some point you will realize that it just may be there is no motor daddy [dun da dun daaaaaaa]. Motor daddy may well be a low level robotic program that is designed to simply take the counter argument with any idea that has merit. Clearly the program is not very sophisticated as seen by the childishly silly counter arguments it puts forth, but the program will continue to churn out its mindless nonsense as long as the code stays intact.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I'm done!