michelson morley experiment construction

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,024
638
On the dance floor, baby!
Great if anyone can prove me wrong you are just the man for the job

Since we are vying for credibility, assuming it is even relevant (https://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html) I have a degree in engineering with honours , a degree in law and was on the Vice Chancellor list for academic excellent at university and was top of the state in chemistry in my final school exams. I have been studying many aspects of just SR for 20+ years.
Good! That matches with my 20+ years as well!

I have just posted a response in your other thread. Quickly speaking I have gone through my second reading and I ask a question there.

-Dan
 
Jun 2016
1,253
598
England
The key point in determining Vu is "relative to what?"

Velocity is change in Position
But how do you define your Position?
It is impossible to describe a position without placing it relative to something else.

Similarly it is impossible to describe a velocity, except as being relative to something else.

Unless you are defining some special fixed point in the universe, then you cannot define Vu.
If you can define Vu, then this immediately implies there is a special fixed point in the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2019
74
1
Consider this

Say I have 2 of these closed spaces both identical. We have 3 ppl. 1 in closed space 1, 1 in closed space 2 and me standing outside the closed spaces.

Person 1 and person 2 fall asleep.

I then push closed space 1 in a northerly direction at 100 kph constant velocity. Immediately after I push the other closed space south at 100 kph constant velocity.

I then call them on the phone and wake them up. They have no idea they are now moving.

If they could see outside the space. Space 1 would see space 2 moving away from it . Space 2 would see space 1 moving away. Space 1 could assert it is stationary and space 2 is moving. Space 2 could assert it is stationary and space 1 is moving. They cold both assert they are both moving.

But no one can assert both are stationary. Is one space now moving in an absolute sense ie does it have a Vu?

If one was to assert Vu = 0 is that person asserting the space is absolutely stationary?
If one was to assert Vu <> 0 is that person asserting the space is absolutely moving?

Lest say the closed spaces are on an ice lake which is connected to the earth, which is rotating on its axis and rotating about the sun. Our solar system is rotating about the galaxy centre, and the galaxy may or may not have its own Vu . So the closed space is subject to many Vu.

Im standing at the edge of the lake and assert Vu is wrt the lake , patently that is very unlikely to be correct

Vu will be relative to the centre of a strobe wave front, which has no Vu
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
74
1
if u conduct this experiment u end up with a single vector pointing in one direction with a known magnitude, which should give you your absolute movement, direction and velocity

An object would be absolutely stationary if it were moving at Vu in the opposite direction to Vu and all measurements would be relative to that point/object?

This is just a guess I would have to do the math to see if this actually works
 
Last edited:

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,024
638
On the dance floor, baby!
I haven't been feeling well over the last few days (weeks, actually) and I multi-task badly so I haven't been able to get back to you the way I had wanted to.

We can certainly look out from a "stationary" frame and use our intellects (or information from an experimental setup) and conclude that it is you that is moving. That's why we always assume that the experiment is done in very deep space without anything like stars in the background...There can be no visual clues aside from the other two people to show any kind of motion.

I still don't quite understand your strobelights yet (my apologies) but once again it looks like you are getting information from a so-called stationary source to get your vu. That means you have already set a stationary reference frame to do your calculations with. Thus you can indeed find a vu but this vu is fixed only by the frame you consider stationary.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Dan
 
Jul 2019
74
1
a closed space can only have 1 Vu which is the summation of every vector acting on that closed space . if you find Vu u have found every vector acting on that space, not just the vector peculiar to that space.

Vu is not a function of just that frame it is a function of every frame that is in effect a supra frame of that frame

U sit in your office. Yr office is connect to the earth which is spinning on its axis. The earths spin is Vu1 acting on yr office. The earth rotates about the sun. there is another Vu (Vu2) acting on yr office. Our solar system is rotating about our galaxy center Vu3 acting on yr office and so on and so forth.

All those Vus will resolve to just one Vu on yr office. Measure your office Vu in one foul swoop you measure every velocity vector and acceleration acting on your office from every source capable of having an influence on the velocity of yr office

if there are millions of velocity vectors acting on a closed space they will all just resolve into a single Vu. That Vu is not a function of just that frame, that Vu is a function of every Vu acting on that frame, from every source
 
Last edited:

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,024
638
On the dance floor, baby!
a closed space can only have 1 Vu which is the summation of every vector acting on that closed space . if you find Vu u have found every vector acting on that space, not just the vector peculiar to that space.

Vu is not a function of just that frame it is a function of every frame that is in effect a supra frame of that frame

U sit in your office. Yr office is connect to the earth which is spinning on its axis. The earths spin is Vu1 acting on yr office. The earth rotates about the sun. there is another Vu (Vu2) acting on yr office. Our solar system is rotating about our galaxy center Vu3 acting on yr office and so on and so forth.

All those Vus will resolve to just one Vu on yr office. Measure your office Vu in one foul swoop you measure every velocity vector and acceleration acting on your office from every source capable of having an influence on the velocity of yr office

if there are millions of velocity vectors acting on a closed space they will all just resolve into a single Vu. That Vu is not a function of just that frame, that Vu is a function of every Vu acting on that frame, from every source
Okay, but how can you find that vu? We would have to have some reference frame that we can all agree on is stationary. This is the same thing as the luminiferous aether, which has been shown not to exist.

-Dan
 
Jul 2019
74
1
Okay, but how can you find that vu?

-Dan
you would find Vu using the experiment I propose!!

We dont need to agree a frame simply get a couple of trains, some collimators, stop watches and a strobe. Start propelling one train in various directions, trigger the strobe and read the stop watches

Just keep trying different directions and different speeds until u strike gold

In fact just get multiple trains collimators , stop watches and a strobe and propel the trains in all different directions at different speeds , trigger the strobe, read the stop watches and when time difference on one train converges to a min the speed and direction of that train is exactly opposite to Vu
 
Last edited:
Jul 2019
74
1
In fact I suspect if you tweak the MM experiment it can be done using the MM, which would be way simpler than using trains and the whole arrangement I dreamt up

You cannot ref an external frame otherwise you are referencing external phenomena which is not allowed

you are stuck in a box with no windows all u have is trains, collimators, stop watches and a strobe...that is it

1 start sending trains off in random directions at random invariant velocities,
2 look at the stop watches
3 if no convergence ; repeat (go back to 1) using different random direction and speed
4 if convergence then you are moving towards Vu

By convergence I mean the time difference on the stop watches gets smaller and smaller, the faster the train goes in that direction. At some point though, when Vk > Vu the time will begin to diverge again

You would send a train in one direction at velocity x and note the times. Send it again at velocity Y (with Y > x) and note the time. If the time decreases then that is a live prospect.

The velocity of the train is simply measured relative to the track which is fastened to the floor of the room.The direction is also relative to the room. No reference to external phenomena

U would have train tracks running in all different directions in 3D, all fastened to the box

. That is counter intuitive as the faster a train goes the greater the time difference should be, but Im saying the faster it goes the smaller the time difference will be up until Vk = -Vu
 
Last edited: