Question on Michelson Morley experiment

roosh

Just wondering if anyone knows if there is any truth to the claim below?

Paul Marmet wrote:

[SIZE=+1] the velocity of the mirror must be taken into account to calculate the angle of reflection of light. Using the Huygens principle, we see that the angle of reflection of light on a moving mirror is a function of the velocity of the mirror. This has been ignored in the Michelson-Morley calculation. Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame, light does not enter in the instrument at 90 degrees as assumed in the Michelson-Morley experiment[/SIZE]

Newton Physics

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone knows if there is any truth to the claim below?


Newton Physics

He does not apply the correction terms properly. In equation (1) he derives the correction term (1-v^2/c^2)^-1 for a mirror moving parallel to the beam of light (call it c1 or "correction term 1"). In equation (4) he derives the correction term for light bouncing off a mirror moving transverse to the beam of light (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. He correctly points out that the latter correction is about half of the former correction (c2 = c1/2). But where he goes wrong is he derives the latter correction a second time for no reason. I.e. He gets c2 = c1/2 + c1/2 = c1. His moving mirror calculation simply explains why the light moves in a triangular trajectory, rather than just straight up and down. It is already dealt with in equation (4) and does not need to be dealt with a second time.

It should also be pointed out that the absence of an aether and lorentz invariance has been explored in more accurate and sophisticated experiments. Two examples are below.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.1284
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0504109v1

The absence of an aether has also been incorporated into particle physics with accurate predictions up to one part in a trillion.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

He does not apply the correction terms properly. In equation (1) he derives the correction term (1-v^2/c^2)^-1 for a mirror moving parallel to the beam of light (call it c1 or "correction term 1"). In equation (4) he derives the correction term for light bouncing off a mirror moving transverse to the beam of light (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2. He correctly points out that the latter correction is about half of the former correction (c2 = c1/2). But where he goes wrong is he derives the latter correction a second time for no reason. I.e. He gets c2 = c1/2 + c1/2 = c1. His moving mirror calculation simply explains why the light moves in a triangular trajectory, rather than just straight up and down. It is already dealt with in equation (4) and does not need to be dealt with a second time.

It should also be pointed out that the absence of an aether and lorentz invariance has been explored in more accurate and sophisticated experiments. Two examples are below.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.1284
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0504109v1

The absence of an aether has also been incorporated into particle physics with accurate predictions up to one part in a trillion.

cheers

Jack_Bauer

Hi guys, i'm looking for an essay for michelson morley experiment overview and results. It's for college night course and under pressure with so much more, any help on this would be greatly appreciated.