[Bored chemist]

Really? Was Cavendish funny?

Yes, it's really pointless to pretend that you have the expertise to judge your own ability.
Whether Cavendish was funny or not doesn't matter.
Why post dross like that?

[alright1234 (OP)]

Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion

Please provide a link to a reputable source supporting this claim.

The same method was used by scientists or more like philosophers to justify that the earth was the center of the Universe. I will give supporting evidence next time.

[evan_au]

Was Cavendish funny?

This probably belongs more in the thread on Cavendish's experiment, rather than in a discussion of LIGO?

Note that Cavendish's personality isn't a primary criterion for assessing the quality of his science.
- And in fact, his science is severely underrated, because other people had published discoveries (and put their name on it) before he died.
- Many of his discoveries were never published, and only seen when his notes were reviewed after his death.

From what I have heard and read, Cavendish was excruciatingly shy.

I heard that one scientist who wanted advice from Cavendish was advised to:
- attend a meeting where Cavendish would be present
- to maneuver himself within earshot of Cavendish
- all the while without looking directly at Cavendish, as this would scare him off
- Then to speak his problem into the air
- If it was a problem that interested Cavendish, he would investigate and reply with a note

This may be a case of someone who was a high-functioning autistic savant. 
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Personality_and_legacy

[Kryptid]

I will give supporting evidence next time.

When you do, make sure you provide an actual link instead of just saying something without backing it up.

[Bored chemist]

The same method was used by scientists or more like philosophers to justify that the earth was the center of the Universe.

Not really.
At that time tehe way to have a "reputation" was to be old.
Now, to be reputable you need to have evidence.

So, please provide some.

[alright1234 (OP)]

I will give supporting evidence next time.

When you do, make sure you provide an actual link instead of just saying something without backing it up.

..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).


"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2  have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).


 "the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).

Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.

[Kryptid]

..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).


"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2  have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).


 "the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).

Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.

I don't see a link.

I also think you might be confusing Lorentz ether theory with Einsteinian relativity.

[alright1234 (OP)]

..In most applications p would be the velocity of the earth in its yearly motion." (Lorentz, § 3).


"§ 9. Hitherto all quantities of the order p2x /V2  have been neglected. As is well known, these must be taken into account in the discussion of Michelson's experiment,........... in consequence of the translation, the dimensions of the solid bodies serving to support the optical apparatus, are altered in a certain ratio." (Lorentz, § 9).


 "the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).

Lorentz's term px represents the tangential components of the earth's daily and yearly motions.

I don't see a link.

I also think you might be confusing Lorentz ether theory with Einsteinian relativity.

 "the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).

Einstein's relativity is originates form Lorentz's ether theory. What do you think physicists were grabbing with in around 1900.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion

For a start, Einsteins work was based on Lorentz; but it wasn't the same.
That's kind of the point.

Also, neither Einstein nor Lorentz  supports this statement you made
"Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion".

So, once again, please supply some evidence to back up your claim.

[Kryptid]

 "the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity." (Einstein2, § 9).

Einstein's relativity is originates form Lorentz's ether theory. What do you think physicists were grabbing with in around 1900.

I still don't see a link.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[Kryptid]

Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

So where in that link does it say, "Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion"?

[alright1234 (OP)]

Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

So where in that link does it say, "Einstein's time space is based on the earth's daily and yearly motion"?

"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).


Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether


What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?

[Bored chemist]

What do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?

I don't.
There is no ether.
If there had been then the MM experiment would have had a different outcome.
That's the point.

M and M were expecting a different result- because they thought that there was an ether. For what it's worth, they thought that the Earth's spin and (solar) orbital motions would give rise to an ether wind. They didn't consider the galactic orbit.
They were mistaken; they learned better. they published the result.
The world moved on.
And now you are pretending it didn't happen.

[Kryptid]

"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).


Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether


What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?

There is no aether in Einstein's relativity, which only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lorentz ether theory is not the same thing.

[alright1234 (OP)]

"Assuming then that the ether is at rest, the earth moving through it, the time required for light to pass from one point to another on the earth's surface, would depend on the direction in which it travels." (Michelson, p. 120).


Michelson, Albert. The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether. American Journal of Science. 22:120-129, 1881.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether


What motion of the earth do you think forms the ether wind at the surface of the earth?

There is no aether in Einstein's relativity, which only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Lorentz ether theory is not the same thing.

"On the other hand, all coordinate systems moving relatively were to be regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion against the æther ("æther-drift") were attributed more complicated laws which were supposed to hold relative to. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above." (Einstein6, § 16).

Einstein6, Albert. Relativity: Special and General Theory. Brauschweig. 1917. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory

Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.

[Kryptid]

Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.

You are quote mining. If you had read further, you would have found this statement:

But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.

So he's saying that relativity does not presume an aether.

[Bored chemist]

Do you realise that this

Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the earth's surface....Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result

could be summed up as "we looked for the ether but couldn't find it" ?

That's what "Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result " means.

It really would be better if you tried to learn a bit about a subject before  getting all shouty about it.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Einstein is justifying the existence of Fresnel's ether, composed of matter, based on Lorentz's theory, if I am not misstaken.

You are quote mining. If you had read further, you would have found this statement:

But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.

So he's saying that relativity does not presume an aether.

Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?

[Kryptid]

Then why is Fresnel's diffraction mechanism used currently in college text books?

(1) Fresnel diffraction does not require an aether.
(2) That has nothing to do with the fact that relativity doesn't assume an aether.