cos

Einstein stated - "As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Having been unable to 'see' his work in Maxwell's mathematical interpretation Faraday wrote to Maxwell asking if would be possible for him to be able to express his conclusions in common language - "...would it not be a good thing if mathematicians...were to give us the results in this popular, useful, working state, as well as that which is their own and proper to them?" Mathematics is obviously an extremely important tool however it should not be allowed to take precedence over everyday language.

The de Sitter binary star experiment was initially accepted as showing the constancy of light speed until it was realized that the system is surrounded by a gas cloud which, on the basis of QM's absorption/emission factor, invalidated such 'proofs'. The only way to accurately determine the speed of light emitted by that star is to determine its one way speed however it seems that our ability to do so is still contentious. I'm afraid that I'm adamant that experiments that are carried out in a gravitational field and which also involve various rates of acceleration in several different directions cannot be claimed to be evidence of SR's inertial RF claims. Whilst I fully appreciate that acceleration/gravity can be 'written into' SR we end up with GR so there seems to be little point in that exercise. One or two, possibly three, extracts may have been adequate however I am of the opinion that nothing exhibits greater support for the application of the MMX as 'evidence' for SR than my previously (twice) referred to Michelson's appearance on tape wherein he proudly proclaims same.

Assuming that was addressed to me - whilst I appreciate your having gone to the trouble of providing same I neither have the time nor the inclination to read every link supplied in response to my messages. If there is any relevant matter raised in said links it would be preferable from my point of view for responders to specify such material in order that it can be discussed directly.

On the basis that there are no relevant responses to which I should reply I have no further comment to make.

Any of my comments that are deemed to be grossly argumentative and rude are inevitably the result of my having been submitted to that form of treatment from those to whom I am responding. I see no reason for responders to post such material in the first instance.

You are adamant that this discussion should continue sans any physics content aren't you? I shall respond in kind. The 'windmill' to which I referred was ignorant (as in seemingly not having read/understood the OP) responses to my messages. I have received many responses in several groups purporting to be directed toward 'helping' but, in reality, being heavily veiled attempts to discredit/besmirch ideas. It is that deplorable and cowardly action which I see as being analogous to windmills placed in strategic locations.

On the basis that this particular windmill has seemingly been toppled I wonder if it might be possible to discuss the topic rather than continuing to inappropriately allocate space and time to philosophical debate?

Then woe betide those you seek to denigrate and confuse. You have had ample opportunity to contribute to the single issue raised by the OP and my response to same. That is the gist of the suggestion in my last message.

And what is the possibility of that other word also having multiple definitions? On the basis of your not having responded to that question am I to assume that there is no such technical resource? The original poster of this thread was not asking for examples of the measurement of the speed of light per se but was inquiring about an experiment which showed that the speed of light is a constant. No-one posted that opinion! Conversely, the MMX ‘measured’ (determined) that the speed of light in an inertial reference frame appears to be isotropic. This does not involve determinations of the speed of respective beams per se but shows that beams which are projected in various directions do not end up being fringe shifted. In #6 TonyMcC responded that the MMX tried to prove that the speed of light was not a constant no doubt (I believe correctly) assuming that this was ‘the’ experiment to which the OP referred. You obviously have misunderstood the intent of the OP. Further discussion of the MMX is in direct response to the OP! Your assumption and dismissive suggestion are inappropriate ergo off-topic.

Again we have alternate meanings of a word e.g. 'show'. Oxford Dictionary - 'show'; cause to be visible/exhibit for scrutiny/put on display/present for public viewing/indicate (a particular measurement). If I open a book that contains (extracts/quotations from) special theory that page shows/exhibits/displays/presents the words "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c...." which Einstein had previously stated was a postulate. Oxford Dictionary - 'postulate'; a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief. It is my understanding that the concept of a constant speed of light was officially accepted by the international scientific community before SR was published. In his introduction to the General Theory of Relativity Einstein wrote: "The PRINCIPLE of the constancy of the vacuum speed of light..." Oxford Dictionary - 'principle'; a general scientific theorem or law. 'Theorem'; a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths. In his book 'Relativity, the Special and General Theory' Einstein wrote: "...our result shows that..the law of the constancy of light..." It seems that Einstein believed that the so-called constancy of light speed as indicated in SR is a law which to my way of thinking is a much stronger, positive term than 'conjecture' or 'assumption' or 'postulate'. Perhaps you could let me know the title of the technical resource from which physicists make their determinations as to which 'acceptable', 'applicable', 'official', 'unique' translation of a particular word is the 'real' version? I am not discussing Maxwell’s theoretical ideas but specifically SR and the MMX. It is my understanding that whilst a theory may appear to have been ratified by, for example, a plethora of experiments it is a primary tenet of physics that it only takes one negative (repeatable) experiment to invalidate any theory.

The MMX did NOT give a null result with respect to SR's light postulate! The null result of the MMX was that it endeavored to show that the speed of light in the planet's direction of spin in an aether would be affected by that medium, which it was not! Ergo null result! As previously posted...I have a copy of a science documentary in which Michelson himself proudly declares that his experiment validated the veracity of SR's constancy of light postulate. It is noted that there have been no responses to that comment. It is claimed, in many books by academically relevantly qualified authors, that the MMX validated/ratified/confirmed/'proved'/suggested/implied [choose whichever word you believe is appropriate] the veracity of SR's constancy of light postulate. I have seen no book written by an academically relevantly qualified author wherein they suggest that the MMX did not validate/ratify/confirm/'prove'/suggest/imply [choose whichever word you believe is appropriate] the veracity of SR's constancy of light postulate. I pointed out in a previous post that I WHOLEHEARTEDLY, UNRESERVEDLY, BELIEVE THAT THE MMX DID NOT PROVE OR SHOW THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT RELATIVE TO ALL (INERTIAL) REFERENCE FRAMES. The previously referred to documentary features a cartoon showing Einstein as a passenger on a train that it traveling past the (MMX) light source however whilst such a vehicle may have been moving past Michelson's basement there appears to be no record of measurements made by any of of its passengers or crew. It is, in my opinion, ludicrous for anyone to suggest, as do some, that the MMX supported SR from the point of view of an observer located on the sun! I find it particularly galling that people attempt to denigrate my ideas without the courtesy of responding to my comments such as that one.

I understand that it is a primary tenet of physics that no theory can be proven by experiment - only disproven. I don't think it matters which word is used; people will tend to apply their own interpretation of same. My comments, and interest, are specifically in relation to SR and the MMX. I reiterate - my comments are specifically in relation to SR and the MMX neither of which make any reference to an impossible rate of travel of a vacuum. I prefer to restrict my comments to the subject on hand. Isn't that what SR shows? Doesn't SR show that one will 'always' calculate c irrespective of one's rate of travel relative to anything - including the light source? In order to eliminate any potential confusion on my behalf it would be appreciated if you would quote the specific comments of mine to which you are referring.

So to which 'technical resource' should one refer? My Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary does not include definitions of 'ratify'. You write that ratify has multiple definitions - apparently according to some technical resource; is 'agree to or with' not one of those definitions?

According to the Oxford dictionary one of the definitions of 'ratifies' is 'agrees to [or with]' i.e. is consistent with. I agree with the Oxford dictionary - 'ratify' - agree (i.e. be consistent) with.

"A number of books on relativity?" I venture to suggest that all books which support relativity (including physics textbooks) and which make reference to the MMX, insist that it ratifies SR - albeit not its intention. It was the null result of the MMX which led Fitzgerald and Lorentz to introduce the length contraction concept which, along with time dilation, is an absolutely indispensable aspect of SR and it is, for example, the length contraction factor applied by a sun located observer that is claimed to 'prove' the MMX 'ratification' of SR. I agree that the MMX does not ratify SR however arguing against such 'logic' is a waste of time.

They were done on a rotatable table but I don't think it was rotating when the respective tests were actually carried out as this would involve aberration of the beams and would not ratify special theory as has been claimed (albeit not intended) on the basis of a non-inertial reference frame. Furthermore - the results of the experiments were not determined by observations of the actions of the beams made by an observer but by the evidence provided by the interferometer i.e. a determination, or otherwise, of a frequency shift. His observations of the interferometer determinations would be unaffected by the table's rotation.

I have a copy of a science documentary from some years ago in which Michelson himself refers to his pride in the fact that his experiment ratified special theory. I have been informed that the fact that the experiment was repeated six months later, when the Earth was orbiting the sun in the opposite direction, provides another frame of reference and that when the MMX is viewed by a sun located observer he applies the Lorentz contraction factor to the EW leg of same thus comes up with c however I shall reserve my judgment on that claim until such time as I read a paper written by same. It was then realized that because binary star systems are enshrouded by gas clouds that the quantum absorption-emission factor invalidated their application.