Xgen said:
Before to make an experiment we should postulate limitations and goals of this experiment.
I totally agree. This was in fact done in the case of the MM experiment, among countless others.
Xgen said:
Can you please put some diagrams for it. Why
t = (2L/c)[1-(v/c)2cos2θ] ?
I would show diagrams, except that, from some of the quotes that follow, I think you have a good idea of of basic diagram for the apparatus. This is basically the generalization to an arbitrary angle from the plane of motion, as you have requested (in your previous post). There is actually a slight difference, though. In the most popular version of these formulae, the perpendicular beam is actually <i>not perpendicular</i>. My formulae assume that the beams <i>are perpendicular</i>. This makes the equations slightly different, but, I am not going to waist any more time discussing the MM experiment until we get something else straight (see some of the following responses).
Xgen said:
There is something that I dont understand for MM and related experiments. The source of light S that enters the beamsplitter, is this continual source of light or it is impulse source (like laser)?
I don't know all of the hairy detials about the MM exp. (and frankly, I don't really care all that much), but I'm almost positive that the source was continuous <i>and</i> like a laser. I don't understand why you think a laser is not continuous. What is an "impulse source?"
Xgen said:
Because if it is continual it is very bad. They had blurred the time-shifts.
Can you explain this further? If you mean what I think you mean, then you are correct to say that the time shifts were blurred in the sense that they could only resolve their measurements to some fraction of a light fringe. However, this "blur" was far less than the amount of discrepancy that they found with the prediction of the ether theory. The first time Michelson ran the experiment on his own, he concluded that his resolution was in fact "too blurry" to make any conclusion. But, when he reran the experiment with Morley, they made drastic improvements to the apparatus and to their technique, which eliminated this ambiguity. Later, up until the 1930's this was somewhat of a popular experiment to improve upon and then run, with a trend of increasing confidence in the results.
Xgen said:
Also it is very bad if the source is isotropic (i.e irradiates light in all directions).
Again, I'm not sure about this detail, but I'm pretty sure the light source was collimated and highly directive. Otherwise, it would not make any since at all. Regardless of how they have done it, when I ran the experiment, I used a HeNe source (which emits a coherent laser). In principle, I'm almost positive that the source should be this type.
Xgen said:
... I found an article about the Miller experiment that show that MM experiment have at least two serious flaws ...
I'll have to read this after I'm done posting.
<i>EDIT:
Right off the bat, I did not recognize the journal: APEIRON. Also, most of the citations were from journals that I did not recognize. Furthermore, call me a bigot if you like, but APEIRON seems to have a somewhat questionable review board, with most members being from the Balkans or Mexico. I didn't see one member from the US, Germany, England, or Japan, for instance, though I did notice one from Russia.
In light of these things, I did not read the article in detail. But it did bring to light a certain issue that I should investigate further, I suppose: I did not see reference to the small-time-scale rotation of the apparatus in the MM exp. The article seems to focus on systematic errors induced by large-time-scale averaging, which I don't think should even be an issue in the MM exp. Like I said, I'll have to look into this, perhaps, when I have spare time.</i>
Xgen said:
The idea for absolute space is not with contradiction to relativity.
Say WA--! Are you talking about Galilean relativity then? When I say relativity, I mean "Einsteinian" or "modern" relativity.
Xgen said:
I will demonstrate you how the null-result of MM can be explained.
...
... because lenght is contracted in the direction of movement d1 becomes:
...
... it turns out that d1 and d2 are equal.
This is exactly the Lorentz contraction to which I alluded. I absolutely do not wish to discuss this. It demonstrates that you should probably re-study you late 19th centuray science history and also (modern) relativity from the basics (i.e. the fundamental postulates and the motivation from the inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws).
Xgen said:
... both photons are with opposite directions and relativity is same for them.
What do you mean? Can you please try to rephrase this?
Xgen said:
I think that relativity effects are frequently perceived incorectly, and this principle for simultaneity (or whatever it is called) is not interpreted correctly.
Maybe you should consider this complaint reflexively.
Xgen said:
... I just can not believe that such absurd thing had been widely accepted and that it is based on so poorly realized ezperiment as MM.
Of what absurd thing do you speak. Keep in mind that scientists did not simply stop performing experiments over 100 years ago.
Xgen said:
I think that the general conclusions in SR can be received without the principle for simultaneity.
I think that we probably have different ideas about what is the "principle of simultaneity." Would you care to elaborate?
Xgen said:
If space and time are discretized the speed becomes quantum quantity ...
Well, OK, I can't argue with this. I don't know anything about quantizing space and time, though I am suspicious that this is not legitimate. At any rate, there seem to be other more pressing issues than this. But, if you would like to explain the mechanism for this discretization, I'm all ears.
Xgen said:
When photons move with c in all reference frames, they moves with c and in what I had defined as absolute space. Just because they move with c events can not hapen at the same time. If for example photons moves with c-v against v and with c+v in the direction of v, it would be fullfiled what you claim - that both events are simultaneous in the moving frame of reference. How you will explain that photons are absorbed at the same times but still are moving with c.
Wow, I didn't understand any of that. Please rephrase.
Xgen said:
... you must show me where I am wrong.
All right, now I'm going to have to assume that you do not mean exactly what you say with this. But, just out of curiousity, how much do you think that you are paying us? If it's more than nothing, I would sure like to know when I'm going to get my cut.