What is the correct explanation for the Null result of MM Experiment?
GSS
the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
experiment.
GSS
Dirk Van de moortel
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1133343378.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
According to Androcles, prominent member of the Scientific
SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation is that they
used the Wrong Mirror Orientation:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html
According to Henri Wilson, slightly more prominent member
of the Scientific SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation
is that there is Some Kind of Speed Unification at work:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedUni.html
According to Ken Seto, most prominent member of the
Scientific SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation
is the Isotropy of the Absolute Vertical Direction:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsoVert.html
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> of SR.
References please.
> I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> experiment.
Since I do not know to what you are referring to when you say 'more members
of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics of SR' I can not
really comment. However on sci.physics.relativity we have a contingent of
posters with zero understanding of error bars who incorrectly claim it did
not produce a null result.
Thanks
Bill
>
> GSS
>
tadchem
GSS wrote:
> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> of SR.
I know of a Ph.D. biologist who is skeptical of SR. He also is
mathematically unqualified to even follow the derivations.
> I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> experiment.
If there are any SR skeptics out there who are also mathematical
physicists and qualified to understand and explain analytical geometry
and tensor calculus in Minkowski space-time, I too would like to hear
their comments on MM.
I won't hold my breath waiting for them, however.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
jmfb...@aol.com
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote:
>
>GSS wrote:
>> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
>> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
>> and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
>> of SR.
>
>I know of a Ph.D. biologist who is skeptical of SR. He also is
>mathematically unqualified to even follow the derivations.
[stunned emoticon here] How in the world did he get through
the prerequisites for his biology degrees?
<snip>
/BAH
Peter
wrote:
I found the following papers very interesting.
===================
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
of Absolute Motion
Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide 5001, Australia
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts —the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8 km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30 km/s orbital speed of the Earth. A 2002 post
relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300 km/s. So this
experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
========================
From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window
for a preferred frame.
M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
Physics Letters A, Volume 333, Issues 5-6, 13 December 2004, Pages
355-363.)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
Historically, the Michelson-Morley experiment has played a crucial
role for abandoning the idea of a preferred reference frame, the
ether, and for replacing Lorentzian Relativity with Einstein’s Special
Relativity. However, our re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley original
data, consistently with the point of view already expressed by other
authors, shows that the experimental observations have been
misinterpreted. Namely, the fringe shifts point to a non-zero
observable Earth’s velocity v obs = 8 4 ±0 5 km s. Assuming the
existence of a preferred reference frame, and using Lorentz
transformations to extract the kinematical Earth’s velocity
that corresponds to this v obs , we obtain a real velocity, in the
plane of the interferometer, v earth = 201 ±12 km s. This value is in
excellent agreement with Miller’s calculated value v earth = 203 ±8
km/s and suggests that the magnitude of the fringe shifts is
determined by the typical velocity of the Solar System within our
galaxy. This conclusion, which is also consistent with the results of
all other classical experiments, leads to an alternative interpre-
tation of the Michelson-Morley type of experiments. Contrary to the
generally accepted ideas of last century, they provide experimental
evidence for the existence of a preferred reference
frame. This point of view is also consistent with the most recent data
for the anisotropy of the two-way speed of light in the vacuum.
====================
Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais supports the claim that Miller
detected absolute motion.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
=====================
Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating
cryogenic cavities
M. Consoli
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005
A new ether-drift experiment in Dusseldorf is currently measuring the
relative frequency shift of two cryogenic optical resonators upon
active rotations of the apparatus. I point out that the observed
fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in
February..... is entirely consistent with the expectations based on
Millers observations in the same epoch of the year. This leads to
predict that, with future data collected in August-September, the
observed sidereal variations should increase by .+70%.....
retaining the present normalization. This would represent clean
experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame.
====================
Cahill's home page at:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
====================
Sue...
A pitot type speed log will indicate 0 if it is locacted
at the rear of a submaine torpedo tube even it the
submarine is moving and even if both doors are open.
Charges, or the fields of moving charges have no way to
avoid interaction with matter. Neutral particles can avoid
interaction.
http://www.krellinst.org/CSGF/labpics/lbl/berk_neutrino.html
Sue...
Androcles
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1133358404.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You don't need analytical geometry or tensor calculus to understand an
invalid definition,
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
or why x'/(c+v) is not equal to x'/(c-v) to be unable to derive
the cuckoo transforms.
I doubt you can see that, I won't be holding my breath until or if
you ever do. I fully expect you to go on thinking nonsense for the rest
of your natural life, ignorant of the most simple of mathematics
and your biologist colleague's greater perception than your own.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message news:ikcro1hj4mbrjdio8...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Nov 2005 01:36:18 -0800, "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> >and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> >of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> >to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> >experiment.
> >
> I found the following papers very interesting.
>
> ===================
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
> of Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
> School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
> Adelaide 5001, Australia
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf
| "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has
| turned the scientific world on its ear by claiming he has
| found science's Holy Grail - the fabled Theory of
| Everything."
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/
| "Key responsibilities:
| Deputy Head of School
| School Courses and Curricula (Chairman)
| School Space Committee (Chairman)"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics...
| "A new paradigm for the modelling of reality is
| currently being developed called Process Physics.
| In Process Physics we start from the premise that
| the limits to logic, which are implied by Gödel's
| incompleteness theorems, mean that any attempt to
| model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure.
| Instead of formal systems we use a process system,
| which uses the notions of self-referential noise and
| self-organised criticality to create a new type of
| information-theoretic system that is realising both the
| current formal physical modelling of reality but is also
| exhibiting features such as the direction of time, the
| present moment effect and quantum state entanglement
| (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality),
| as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity
| and Quantum Mechanics. In particular a theory of
| Quantum Gravity has already emerged.
|
| In short, rather than the static 4-dimensional modelling
| of present day (non-process) physics, Process Physics is
| providing a dynamic model where space and matter are
| seen to emerge from a fundamentally random but self-
| organising system. The key insight is that to adequately
| model reality we must move on from the traditional non-
| process syntactical information modelling to a process
| semantic information modelling; such information is
| `internally meaningful'. "
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message news:6pjjf.34397$8G6....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
You don't even need to know how to properly handle a
single equation to gain the right to call yourself "an electronic
engineer, professionally"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
surrealis...@hotmail.com
GSS wrote:
> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> of SR.
Reveal your source, please.
> I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> experiment.
>
> GSS
There's no such thing as a "correct" explanation of anything in
physics. You adopt a formal point of view and then build a theory on
top of it. After that, it's the damn theory that interprets everything
you observe, including the null result of the MMX. So, feel free to
pick any explanation of it you want.
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Peter wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2005 01:36:18 -0800, "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> >and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> >of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> >to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> >experiment.
> >
> I found the following papers very interesting.
>
> ===================
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
> of Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
> School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
> Adelaide 5001, Australia
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
> was a null experiment.
Even if the fringe shifts had been detected, there is always more than
one explanation for them, or for anything else in physics, for that
matter. Explanations in physics are not unique.
> However this is incorrect.Their published data
> revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
> speed of some 8 km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
> the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
> less than the 30 km/s orbital speed of the Earth. A 2002 post
> relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
> gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300 km/s. So this
> experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
> Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
> first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
What is the absolute velocity of the earth relative to this frame,
then?
Peter
wrote:
>
>If there are any SR skeptics out there who are also mathematical
>physicists and qualified to understand and explain analytical geometry
>and tensor calculus in Minkowski space-time, I too would like to hear
>their comments on MM.
>
Minkowski space-time is mathematical model of space and time.
The MM experiment was done in real space and time.
What happens in real space and time happens.
What might happen in a mathematical model of space and time isn't
relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
jpolasek
therefore the naive assumption of arithmetic based on c+v and c-v is
invalid. You can see a diagram on my website http://www.dualspace.net,
the gravity paper #2 page 8. Both path lengths up or down become
identical in length. The vector sums are: c + Vup equals c + Vdown.
| Vup
|
------------------c---------------|
|
| Vdown
This might convey the idea.
John Polasek
GSS
> On 30 Nov 2005 01:36:18 -0800, "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> >and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> >of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
> >to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
> >experiment.
> >
> I found the following papers very interesting.
>
> ===================
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
> of Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
> School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
> Adelaide 5001, Australia
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
Thanks Peter
You have provided very significant references.
I think the observations and claims made therein need to be discussed
at length.
Could it be that the null result of MM experiment in 1887 was mainly
due to technological limitations? Is it that later versions of that
experiment, with advanced technology, have shown positive results?
GSS
Old Man
> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
GSS displays delusions of competence. SR is logically
self-consistent and hasn't been empirically falsified. SR
is also consistent with classical EM and with QED.
There is no "correct explanation"; no proofs nor necessary
conditions. The predictions of SR are completely sufficient
to that observed.
> GSS
[Old Man]
Peter
>
>What is the absolute velocity of the earth relative to this frame,
>then?
>
From the Introduction P2 of
"The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005
A Critical Review of the Evidence"
Reginald T. Cahill
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039
While the relativistic effects are well established experimentally
it is now belatedly understood, in 2002 [4,10], that numerous
experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] of
1887, have always shown that postulates (1) and (2) (excepting the 2nd
part) are false, namely that there is a detectable local frame of
reference or `space', and that the solar system has a large observed
galactic velocity of some 420ą30km/s in the direction (RA=5.2hr, Dec=
-67deg) through this space [2,3,5,8,10]. This is different
from the speed of 369km/s in the direction (RA=11.20hr, Dec= -7.22deg)
extracted from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy, and
which describes a motion relative to the distant universe, but not
relative to the local space.
tadchem
Peter wrote:
<snip repost>
> Minkowski space-time is mathematical model of space and time.
>
> The MM experiment was done in real space and time.
>
> What happens in real space and time happens.
>
> What might happen in a mathematical model of space and time isn't
> relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
The relevance is complete and perfect, because:
(1) The entire point of physics is to construct mathematical models
that, when manipulated, behave in the same manner as the observable
universe.
(2) When our models do not accurately depict what happens in the
experiment, we refine the old models or build new ones under the
guidance of our empirical results.
(3) The outcome of the experiment tells us whether or not our models
are working.
Minkowski space-time models the domain in which electromagnetism is
Lorentz-invariant, and in which gravitation is a scalar field with the
properties of 'curvature.'
The model is as "real" as numbers, and as accurate as our best
measurements.
Physicists are not in danger of confusing our models and reality, but
we are not going to separate them.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Dirk Van de moortel
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1133371539....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter wrote:
[snip]
> > ====================
> > Cahill's home page at:
> > http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
> >
> > ====================
>
> Thanks Peter
>
> You have provided very significant references.
Yes, our Peter has a special purpose on this newshroup:
promoting the Works of Reg Cahill from Flinders Universiry,
Adelaide. Our dear Peter is also posting from Adelaide,
so he is conveniently close the source.
> I think the observations and claims made therein need to be discussed
> at length.
>
> Could it be that the null result of MM experiment in 1887 was mainly
> due to technological limitations? Is it that later versions of that
> experiment, with advanced technology, have shown positive results?
Yes, but all these versions have been carfully destroyed by
the Conspirors of the Global Antiscientific Contra Scientific
SR Sceptics Community.
All the recently faked experiments confirming the null result
are listed at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
and ready to be ignored by the Scientific SR Sceptics
Community.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
> and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
> of SR.
You are wrong... SR is one of the most fruitful tools of the
scientific community. In fact, there has never been a prediction
of SR that was contradicted by an observation!
Gregory L. Hansen
GSS <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
>the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
>and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
>of SR.
They are? Are these members of the scientific community actively
publishing in the professional physics journals, or are they newsgroup and
web-published amateurs that call themselves members of the scientific
community?
>I would like to request these members to give their opinion as
>to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM
>experiment.
The null result is easy to understand on its own-- the aether moves with
the Earth. It's more difficult to understand in light of e.g. stellar
aberration. Lorentz's interpretation, reconciling both results, was that
things moving through the aether get shorter but just the right amount to
give a null result. I think that's still current with the aether crowd.
--
"There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scotsman!" --
Groundskeeper Willy
Helmut Wabnig
>From the Introduction P2 of
>"The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005
>A Critical Review of the Evidence"
>Reginald T. Cahill
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039
>
From that document page 2:
The Miller data and the DeWitte data are symmetrically balanced to
zero, they are symmetric. Why is this? Does the experimental setup
enforce symmetry of the resulting data swing?
Why not such a picture?
+ + +
+ +
+ + +
+ + +
0-------------------------+--------+---
+ +
w.
Helmut Wabnig
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Could it be that the null result of MM experiment in 1887 was mainly
>> due to technological limitations? Is it that later versions of that
>> experiment, with advanced technology, have shown positive results?
>
>Yes, but all these versions have been carfully destroyed by
>the Conspirors of the Global Antiscientific Contra Scientific
>SR Sceptics Community.
>All the recently faked experiments confirming the null result
>are listed at
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>and ready to be ignored by the Scientific SR Sceptics
>Community.
Cahill mentiones that vacuum MM experiments yield null results
while gas filled equipment does not, is that true?
(If above link answers this, bear with me)
w.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message news:e20so1l5njjbk0d40...@4ax.com...
Cahill in
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/V10N2CAH.pdf
| "A new information-theoretic physics has given rise to a
| quantum-foam description of space relative to which absolute
| motion is meaningful and measurable. In this new physics
| Michelson interferometers operating in gas mode are capable
| of revealing absolute motion. We analyse the old results
| from gas-mode Michelson interferometer experiments which
| always showed small but significant effects."
and a bit further
| "The presence of gases in these early experiments, rather
| than high vacuum, was of course an experimental expediency,
| but only because of this can we now realise the full
| implications of these long forgotten experiments."
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Peter
wrote:
>> observable Earth's velocity v obs = 8 4 ą0 5 km s. Assuming the
>> existence of a preferred reference frame, and using Lorentz
>> transformations to extract the kinematical Earth's velocity
>> that corresponds to this v obs , we obtain a real velocity, in the
>> plane of the interferometer, v earth = 201 ą12 km s. This value is in
>> excellent agreement with Miller's calculated value v earth = 203 ą8
Actually the reverse seems to be the case.
Cahill in Australia and Consoli in Italy independently came to the
conclusion that the interferometers that detected absolute motion were
able to do so because they operated in a gas (eg air or helium).
This was the case with the early experiments such as those by MM and
Miller.
The reason is that because light travels through a gas at a speed
slightly less than c, the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect is not
able to perfectly cancel the effects of absolute motion, so the device
demonstrates residual absolute motion effects. Cahill worked out some
new maths to describe this. Consoli did the same, but in a somewhat
different manner.
In contrast, as technology improved it became possible to do MM
experiments with vacuum interferometers. In these interferometers
light travels at speed c, but the effects of absolute motion are then
perfectly cancelled by the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect so no
absolute motion effects are seen.
When these "improved" interferometers showed no evidence for absolute
motion, everyone got locked into the idea that detection of absolute
motion was impossible.
So ironically, to get out of this trap people such as Cahill and
Consoli and Allais (all working independently) had to start looking at
the data from early experiments.
Several years ago Maurice Allais wrote a paper called:
EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S INTERFEROMETRIC
OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
This shows that even back in the 1920s Miller believed he had detected
absolute motion, and had data to demonstrate it.
But by that time Einsteins theory of relativity had become
influential.
Einsteins theory of relativity is based on the following postulates:
(1) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of
reference.
(2) Light propagates through space with speed c independent of the
speed of the observer (or source)
(3) In the limit of low speeds the gravity formalism should agree with
Newtonian gravity.
If it were possible to detect absolute motion, then the laws of
physics and the speed of light might be expected to differ depending
on the absolute speed of the frame of reference. This would undermine
the first and second postulates and hence the entire theory of
relativity.
Miller's results were published but Einstein and other influential
physicists were reluctant to believe them and I guess that when Null
results were obtained from newer vacuum interferometers, this was
taken as evidence that Miller must have been wrong.
However, according to Cahill and Consoli, absolute motion can only be
detected by gas filled interferometers, so it is results from such
interferometers (such as Miller's) that are the more interesting.
So it seems a very long story and one that is continuing.
I expect the matter will only eventually be settled when more
experiments are done with gas filled interferometers.
Peter
ken...@erinet.com
of the MMX apparatus within the plane of the light rays. If you aligned
the apparatus with the plane of the light rays vertically you will get
non-null result. This conclusion is supported by the Pound and Rebka
experiments.....these experiments show that there is frequency shift in
the vertical direction and thus the non-null result if the MMX is
aligned vertically.
All other explanations offered are irrelevant.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
<ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1133384467.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
From the very bottom of the pit :-)))
Dirk Vdm
Peter
wrote:
I think the data is a plot of deviations from the mean.
Here is a link to a detailed paper by Miller himself
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
An analysis by Maurice Allais
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
And some history here
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Peter
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <1133343378.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>GSS <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
>>the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
>>and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
>>of SR.
>
>They are? Are these members of the scientific community actively
>publishing in the professional physics journals, or are they newsgroup and
>web-published amateurs that call themselves members of the scientific
>community?
>
Here are some papers written by professionals.
From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window
for a preferred frame.
M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
Physics Letters A, Volume 333, Issues 5-6, 13 December 2004, Pages
355-363.)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
Historically, the Michelson-Morley experiment has played a crucial
role for abandoning the idea of a preferred reference frame, the
ether, and for replacing Lorentzian Relativity with Einstein’s Special
Relativity. However, our re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley original
data, consistently with the point of view already expressed by other
authors, shows that the experimental observations have been
misinterpreted. Namely, the fringe shifts point to a non-zero
observable Earth’s velocity v obs = 8 4 ±0 5 km s. Assuming the
existence of a preferred reference frame, and using Lorentz
transformations to extract the kinematical Earth’s velocity
that corresponds to this v obs , we obtain a real velocity, in the
plane of the interferometer, v earth = 201 ±12 km s. This value is in
excellent agreement with Miller’s calculated value v earth = 203 ±8
km/s and suggests that the magnitude of the fringe shifts is
determined by the typical velocity of the Solar System within our
galaxy. This conclusion, which is also consistent with the results of
all other classical experiments, leads to an alternative interpre-
tation of the Michelson-Morley type of experiments. Contrary to the
generally accepted ideas of last century, they provide experimental
evidence for the existence of a preferred reference
frame. This point of view is also consistent with the most recent data
for the anisotropy of the two-way speed of light in the vacuum.
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
of Absolute Motion
Reginald T. Cahill
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide 5001, Australia
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
rotation-induced fringe shifts —the signature of absolute motion; it
was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.Their published data
revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a
speed of some 8 km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30 km/s orbital speed of the Earth. A 2002 post
relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however
gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300 km/s. So this
experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of
Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this
first detection of absolute motion in 1887.
Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating
cryogenic cavities
M. Consoli
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005
A new ether-drift experiment in Dusseldorf is currently measuring the
relative frequency shift of two cryogenic optical resonators upon
active rotations of the apparatus. I point out that the observed
fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in
February..... is entirely consistent with the expectations based on
Millers observations in the same epoch of the year. This leads to
predict that, with future data collected in August-September, the
observed sidereal variations should increase by .+70%.....
retaining the present normalization. This would represent clean
experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame.
Copy of original 1933 paper by Dayton C Miller in
Reviews of Modern Physics
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf
Paper by Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais, supporting the claims that
Miller detected absolute motion
THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926
Bill Hobba
Here is a post by another professional refuting it:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/01a642d9b61b6968?dmode=source
> Namely, the fringe shifts point to a non-zero
> observable Earth's velocity v obs = 8 4 ą0 5 km s. Assuming the
> existence of a preferred reference frame, and using Lorentz
> transformations to extract the kinematical Earth's velocity
> that corresponds to this v obs , we obtain a real velocity, in the
> plane of the interferometer, v earth = 201 ą12 km s. This value is in
> excellent agreement with Miller's calculated value v earth = 203 ą8
> km/s and suggests that the magnitude of the fringe shifts is
> determined by the typical velocity of the Solar System within our
> galaxy. This conclusion, which is also consistent with the results of
> all other classical experiments, leads to an alternative interpre-
> tation of the Michelson-Morley type of experiments. Contrary to the
> generally accepted ideas of last century, they provide experimental
> evidence for the existence of a preferred reference
> frame. This point of view is also consistent with the most recent data
> for the anisotropy of the two-way speed of light in the vacuum.
>
>
> The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
> of Absolute Motion
> Reginald T. Cahill
> School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
> Adelaide 5001, Australia
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
> experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no
> rotation-induced fringe shifts -the signature of absolute motion; it
The same professional also refuted Miller.
http://groups.google.com/group/nl.wetenschap/msg/07029606e495f83b?dmode=source
The fact you refuse to present a balanced view is very revealing. Those
interested in genuine scholarship rarefy do it - cranks OTH do it all the
time.
Bill
THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY
--
Eugen Negut
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
historical importance but ***no more*** than this. By now the
accumulated weight of evidence for relativity is such that arguing
over it based on fine details of the MMX is akin to arguing over the
existance of America based on perceived inaccuracies in Columbus'
diaries. Not understanding this point, by itself, is the mark of a
crank.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Gregory L. Hansen
Peter <no_...@unknown.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC),
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>In article <1133343378.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>GSS <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for
>>>the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more
>>>and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics
>>>of SR.
>>
>>They are? Are these members of the scientific community actively
>>publishing in the professional physics journals, or are they newsgroup and
>>web-published amateurs that call themselves members of the scientific
>>community?
>>
>
>Here are some papers written by professionals.
Well, that's five, with two of them from eighty years ago and the other
three focusing on reanalyzing the 1887 experiment.
It's not surprising to find some diverging opinions. It takes all kinds
to make a scientific community, and some diversity is a good thing. But
how many does it take to be "more and more"?
>
>From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window
>for a preferred frame.
>M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
>Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
>Physics Letters A, Volume 333, Issues 5-6, 13 December 2004, Pages
>355-363.)
>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
What do these two gentlemen think of similar experiments performed in the
120 years since then, such as this experiment from 2003?
Muller, et al's limit of order 1e-15 seems inconsistent with this
reanalysis of Michelson and Morley's experiment of 1887.
I like the Cahill reference.
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
Especially the opening paragraph.
"The first detection of absolute motion... was actually by Michelson and
Morley in 1887. However they totally bungled the reporting of their own
data, an achievement that Michelson managed again and again throughout his
life-long search for experimental evidence of absolute motion."
How unfortunate for Michelson.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
Sam Wormley
> Yes. but the contraction of length was never proved!
>
You don't prove it, you measure it, silly. Verified in particle
accelerators and measurements of the CMB.
http://www.stkate.edu/physics/phys100/Chapt9.html
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffocal/chapter25.htm
Peter
wrote:
That is an article by Tom Roberts which is not particularly convincing
and does not provide any references.
>
>The fact you refuse to present a balanced view is very revealing.
>
So where is your balanced view?
>
>Those interested in genuine scholarship rarefy do it - cranks OTH do it all the
>time.
>
I think Miller, Consoli, Cahill and Allias have all demonstated
scholarship.
If you have read their papers and can see flaws, perhaps you could let
us know what the flaws are?
shuba
Bizarre. I assume that the inclusion of that second link did not
result from anything close to a careful reading of the page.
---Tim Shuba---
Peter
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>It's not surprising to find some diverging opinions. It takes all kinds
>to make a scientific community, and some diversity is a good thing. But
>how many does it take to be "more and more"?
>
I think its hard to say. That is not a term I would use myself.
>>
>>From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window
>>for a preferred frame.
>>M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
>>Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
>>Physics Letters A, Volume 333, Issues 5-6, 13 December 2004, Pages
>>355-363.)
>>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf
>
>What do these two gentlemen think of similar experiments performed in the
>120 years since then, such as this experiment from 2003?
>
>http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000091000002020401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
>
>Muller, et al's limit of order 1e-15 seems inconsistent with this
>reanalysis of Michelson and Morley's experiment of 1887.
>
They have written some new papers on the subject.
Old and new ether-drift experiments: a sharp test for a preferred
frame
M. Consoli, E. Costanzo
Journal-ref: Nuovo Cim. B119 (2004) 393-410
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406065
Motivated by the critical remarks of several authors, we have
re-analyzed the classical ether-drift experiments with the conclusion
that the small observed deviations should not be neglected. In fact,
within the framework of Lorentzian Relativity, they might indicate the
existence of a preferred frame relatively to which the Earth is moving
with a velocity v_earth\sim 200$ km/s (value projected in the plane of
the interferometer). We have checked this idea by comparing with the
modern ether-drift experiments, those where the observation of the
fringe shifts is replaced by the difference \Delta \nu in the relative
frequencies of two cavity-stabilized lasers, upon local rotations of
the apparatus or under the Earth's rotation. It turns out that, even
in this case, the most recent data are consistent with the same value
of the Earth's velocity, once the vacuum within the cavities is
considered a physical medium whose refractive index is fixed by
General Relativity. We thus propose a sharp experimental test that can
definitely resolve the issue. If the small deviations observed in the
classical ether-drift experiments were not mere instrumental
artifacts, by replacing the high vacuum in the resonating cavities
with a dielectric gaseous medium (e.g. air), the typical measured
\Delta\nu\sim 1 Hz should increase by orders of magnitude. This
expectation is consistent with the characteristic modulation of a few
kHz observed in the original experiment with He-Ne masers. However, if
such enhancement would not be confirmed by new and more precise data,
the existence of a preferred frame can be definitely ruled out.
And in 2005
Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating
cryogenic cavities
M. Consoli
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005
A new ether-drift experiment in Dusseldorf is currently measuring the
relative frequency shift of two cryogenic optical resonators upon
active rotations of the apparatus. I point out that the observed
fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in
February..... is entirely consistent with the expectations based on
Millers observations in the same epoch of the year. This leads to
predict that, with future data collected in August-September, the
observed sidereal variations should increase by .+70%.....
retaining the present normalization. This would represent clean
experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame.
>I like the Cahill reference.
Bill Hobba
Misdirection noted - I never claimed they did not.
>
> If you have read their papers and can see flaws, perhaps you could let
> us know what the flaws are?
>
Your attempt to suggest the references I gave did not detail those flaws is
also noted. You will be taken a lot more seriously if you actually
addressed the issues rather than engaging in misdirection.
Bill
Peter
>
> By now the accumulated weight of evidence for relativity is such that arguing
>over it based on fine details of the MMX is akin to arguing over the
>existance of America based on perceived inaccuracies in Columbus'
>diaries.
>
Isn't it the case that except for the MMX, the accumulated weight of
evidence equally supports both Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian
Relativity?
So a non Null result for the MMX would merely indicate that it is
Lorentzian relativity rather than Einsteinian relativity that better
models what happens in Nature.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:16:21 GMT, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> By now the accumulated weight of evidence for relativity is such that arguing
>>over it based on fine details of the MMX is akin to arguing over the
>>existance of America based on perceived inaccuracies in Columbus'
>>diaries.
>>
>
>Isn't it the case that except for the MMX, the accumulated weight of
>evidence equally supports both Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian
>Relativity?
>
1) The above is true if you consider EM processes alone. Not if you
consider all processes.
2) If I have two theories, one of which postulates A1,...An, and the
second, postulates the above as well as an additional postulate B
which has no consequences whatsoever, then I choose the first one.
You could create a new version of Euclidean geometry which, in
addition to the standard Euclidean axioms includes one extra axiom
stating "the preceding axioms were ordained by God", then there is no
reason to prefer this over the standard version.
Peter
wrote:
Peter wrote
>>
>> If you have read their papers and can see flaws, perhaps you could let
>> us know what the flaws are?
>>
>
>Your attempt to suggest the references I gave did not detail those flaws is
>also noted.
>
My apologies. I accidentally scrolled over the first reference you
gave and did not see it. I will check what it says about flaws and
then try and provide a proper response.
Regards,
Peter
Bill Hobba
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:16:21 GMT, mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>
>> By now the accumulated weight of evidence for relativity is such that
>> arguing
>>over it based on fine details of the MMX is akin to arguing over the
>>existance of America based on perceived inaccuracies in Columbus'
>>diaries.
>>
>
> Isn't it the case that except for the MMX, the accumulated weight of
> evidence equally supports both Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian
> Relativity?
Even including the MMX the accumulated weight of evidence equally supports
Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity (LET). LET however suffers
a serve problem - for every phenomena you seek to apply it to you need to
have a new hypothesis - it is not affected by motion though the aether eg
one can base QFT on LET but one needs to have the axiom QM is not affected
by motion though the aether. While not disproving LET it certainly makes it
look rather silly.
>
> So a non Null result for the MMX would merely indicate that it is
> Lorentzian relativity rather than Einsteinian relativity that better
> models what happens in Nature.
You are confused. Since LET and SR are mathematically equivalent a non null
result would be equally fatal for LET and SR.
Bill
Sam Wormley
Ooops... wrong URL, will find the coorect one in the morning...
Androcles
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:EqednTqy5fT...@prairiewave.com...
> GSS displays delusions of competence. SR is logically
> self-consistent and hasn't been empirically falsified. SR
> is also consistent with classical EM and with QED.
Old Fart displays delusions of competence. SR is logically
self-inconsistent and has been empirically falsified by Sagnac
and by me and by Henri Wilson and by Valdimir Sekerin.
SR is also inconsistent with classical EM and with QED.
Androcles.
hanson
news:5Lwjf.108591$375....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
IMO it's the interpretations and perhaps the use/application
of its axioms that is/may be questionable and hence making
SR logically not self-consistent but rather self-inconsistent.
However, the bare and abstract hyperbolic math it uses
(when not applied to SR) is an internally self consistent
construct/system. Or isn't it?
hanson
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Peter wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2005 08:28:25 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >What is the absolute velocity of the earth relative to this frame,
> >then?
> >
>
> From the Introduction P2 of
> "The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005
> A Critical Review of the Evidence"
> Reginald T. Cahill
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039
>
>
> it is now belatedly understood, in 2002 [4,10], that numerous
> experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] of
> 1887, have always shown that postulates (1) and (2) (excepting the 2nd
> part) are false, namely that there is a detectable local frame of
> reference or `space', and that the solar system has a large observed
> galactic velocity of some 420±30km/s in the direction (RA=5.2hr, Dec=
> -67deg) through this space [2,3,5,8,10]. This is different
> from the speed of 369km/s in the direction (RA=11.20hr, Dec= -7.22deg)
> extracted from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy, and
> which describes a motion relative to the distant universe, but not
> relative to the local space.
What does this velocity relative to the CMB have to do wtih ether or
absolute space?
frank...@yahoo.com
result wasn't null. I have reposted below links from very knowledgeable
people that the measured aether speed is not the result of reading
error bars incorrectly and that very recently perfomed expermiments
(2005) are producing mixed results:
I have done some recent research about recent attempts to detect the
aether with MMX type experiments. The most recent attempts use rotating
cyrogenic cavities. I have listed links to the relevant papers, some of
which show significant non-NULL results. Only one of the experiments
show genuine NULL results. In addition, there has been some analysis of
these non-NULL results indicating that they are consistent with Dayton
Miller's research which showed the aether did exist and the speed of
the aether they detect is consistent with the motion detected in the
cosmic background radiation from the NASA COBE mission.
This paper does genuinely produce results which are consistent with
zero ( The range -1.9 +-5.2 x 10^-15 does include zero). However, their
previous experiments and similar experiments are not consistent with
zero.
This is a previous experiment done by the same scientists as the
previous citation. This experiment returned non-NULL results as 2.6 +-
1.7 X 10^-15. I personally contacted Holger Mulller via email and asked
him about this result since the results were not consistent with zero.
He replied that he thought that the experiment returned a no-anistropy
result. He explained that if you divide the main number 2.6 by the
range value 1.7, you get only only 1.5 (one sigma error) which in
mathematical terms means that the result has a 23% chance of falling
outside of the range and could possibly include zero. A result would
need to have a 5 sigma error (like 2.6 +- .5) to claim the detection of
an effect. An experiment I cite below (0504109) does have the required
5 sigma error.
This paper indicates that an Feb 2005 experimental result is consistent
with Dayton Miller's results. It also goes on to predict new results.
This shows that although the results appear to be small, they are
consistent from what previous MMX experiments have produced.
This is the original paper cited as the Feb 2005 experiment. The
results are buried in Table I on page 3. The C2 value which represents
the correlation between frequency shift and the rotation of the
experiment is 11 +- 2 X 10-16. This has the required 5 sigma range to
be considered valid. This range is totally inconsistent with a zero
value. The experimenters do acknowlege and attempt to discredit this
result by attributing it to thermal causes, but do not elaborate.
Considering the rotation period was 10 minutes and that the experiment
is cooled to close to zero kelvin, I can hardly see how an external
labratory thermal gradient could cause a difference.
This paper (2005) indicates that the speed detected by MMX like
experiments match up with the motion detected by the cosmic background
radiation. This confirms the CMB represents the preferred reference
frame from which absolute motion should be detected. The experiment
references 2 similar cyrogenic rotator experiments.
This is another paper indicating that the old MMX experiments indicate
speeds which match up with the motion of the cosmic background
radiation as measured by the NASA COBE satellite.
See Table 2 - while the experimenters don't say they found anistropy -
their graph clearly shows a repeating variation in the data occuring
over a 24 hour period corresponding to the rotation rate of the
experiment. This is what one would expect if the aether exists. Their
reduction of the limit to 10^13 might sound impressive, but is larger
than the expected value that one would predict on Dayton Millers work.
In conclusion, it appears we have one recent result which points to
anisotropy and all the rest that don't. However, there is reason to
believe that the values coming out of these experiments are consistent
with the aether drift rates predicted by Dayton Miller and by the
observation of the cosmic background radiation. I would say that more
and better experiments need to be conducted to gain a consensus on what
is really happening. However, the question of anisotropy (aether drift)
is far from being answered.
>From what I can see, there is an extreme bias towards no-anisotropy (no
aether) - to the point where experimenters even don't believe their own
results. My challenge to anyone interested in this topic is to look a
the new references I have cited and suspend your bias long enough to
see if there is any merit in the claims rather than just grabbing hold
of the non-NULL results and ignoring the rest.
If you think about it, anisotropy exists, it could open up a whole new
avenue of physics, so it shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Some people
do currenty theorize that such ansiotropy may exist as the result of
string theory, etc. so even mainstream science continues to investigate
the question.
fhummx
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message news:dsaso19t43cuarf60...@4ax.com...
Interesting history on the author's homepage
http://www.orgonelab.org
| Welcome to James DeMeo's research web site, and home page for the
| Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory. DeMeo has been investigating
| the work of the late Dr. Wilhelm Reich since 1970, and founded OBRL
| in 1978. With cooperative assistance from a network of professionals
| and institutes supportive of Wilhelm Reich's original discoveries,
| OBRL has grown to become one of the world's primary centers for
| genuine and uncompromised research and educational programs focused
| upon Orgonomy, the science of orgone (life) energy functions in
| nature, as developed by Reich in the first half of the 20th Century.
And even more interesting:
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xpulse.htm
| Heretic's Notebook:
| Emotions, Protocells, Ether-Drift and Cosmic Life Energy:
| with New Research Supporting Wilhelm Reich
| Orgone Biophysics
| =================
| - "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look",
| by James DeMeo
| - "The Experiments of Dayton Miller and the Theory of Relativity",
| by Maurice Allais
| - "Reconciling Miller's Ether-Drift with Reich's Dynamic Orgone",
| by James DeMeo
| - "The Implications of Current Consciousness Research on Orgonomic Theory",
| by Richard Blasband
| - "Orgonometry: A New Detector",
| by Courtney Baker
| - "Orgone Field Observations Using Dowsing Rods",
| by Nikolas Nikolaidis
| - "Orgone Accumulator Stimulation of Sprouting Mung Beans",
| by James DeMeo
| - "West-East Asymmetry and Diurnal Effect of Cosmic Radiation",
| by Dave Marett
| - "Confirmation of an Oranur Anomaly",
| by Victor Milian, et al
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:_Uwjf.1105$fY3.131@trnddc01...
SR is not self-consistent. That has nothing to do with the geometry
of conics, which are self-consistent.
Statement A) "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
Statement B) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be
altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
If we apply statement B to the equation it was derived from:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
then we must replace the terms x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) with x'/c and x'/c.
The cuckoo transformations cannot then be derived.
The second most serious inconsistency is
"It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock
moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B
coincide.
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity
until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock
which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be
½tv²/c² second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator
must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
It is at once apparent that this result does NOT hold good if the clock
moves from A to B in a polygonal line, v is no longer a velocity in the x
direction. At some point we have a change of sign,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t-x'/(c+v)-x'/(c-v))] = tau(-x',0,0,t-x'/(c+v)),
not
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
Why the time of the outbound light ray (RHS of equation) should have
predominance over the time of the inbound ray is a mystery only a phuckwit
cannot explain.
This is the root cause of the twin paradox, the returning clock must run
faster
than the outbound clock and faster than the Earthbound clock.
Thence we conclude that a SUNDIAL's shadow at the equator must NOT go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar SUNDIAL's shadow
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
Heaven help us if it ever did, the poles would creep ahead of the equator
and
the Earth would become an accretion disk around the sun.
Relativists like Old Fart should join the Flat Earth Society and live on the
rings of Saturn.
I for one would not be sorry to see them go.
Minky math begins with the non-derivable cuckoo transformations that
Einstein
the huckster blamed Lorentz for.
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions,
the root of the problem is
" we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty space."
Let AB = x.
Then BA =-x.
c = (x+ (-x))/t'A-tA) = 0.
Einstein divides by zero.
a = b ---given
a² = ab --- multipy by a
a- b² = ab - b² ---subtract b²
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) --- factorize
(a+b) = b --- cancel ( DIVIDE BY ZERO)
a+a = a -- because a = b, given
2a = a -- a+a = 2a
2 = 1 -- divide by a.
Division by zero is undefined.
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v²/0²)
Einstein's math has more holes in than the Swiss cheese he ate
while preparing letters granting applications for patents for
Swiss cuckoo clocks while reading H.G. Well's "Time Machine"
People are persuaded by his rhetoric.
See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ for quotations by
Einstein.
Androcles.
Peter
wrote:
>
>Even including the MMX the accumulated weight of evidence equally supports
>Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity (LET). LET however suffers
>a serve problem - for every phenomena you seek to apply it to you need to
>have a new hypothesis - it is not affected by motion though the aether eg
>one can base QFT on LET but one needs to have the axiom QM is not affected
>by motion though the aether.
>
I am wondering if rather than having such an axiom, could one allow
for the effects of motion through the "aether" by adding appropriate
terms to the Schrodinger (and Dirac) equations as Cahill is proposing.
Pages 29~31 of:
Dynamical Fractal 3-Space and the Generalised Schrodinger Equation:
Equivalence Principle and Vorticity Effects
http://www.doaj.org/ftxt/www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-04-05.PDF
In situations where the motion would have negligible effects, these
extra terms could be omitted.
Could such an approach "save" LET from the above problem?
>
>You are confused. Since LET and SR are mathematically equivalent a non null
>result would be equally fatal for LET and SR.
>
Thanks for your patience :-)
Peter
GSS
What I make out from this response is
(a) The measured values of fringe shift in the MM experiment were
actually non-zero but were taken as null since these values were much
smaller than expected and were also masked within the limits of
experimental errors.
(b) Some Scientists are trying to re-interpret the measured non-zero
values as implying the existence of an absolute or preferred frame of
reference. However this is not being accepted by the supporters of SR.
Is it that in essence the MM experiment is equivalent to determining
the anisotropy of Two Way Light Speed?
Has the Two Way Light Speed been proved to be isotropic by some
different precision experiments?
GSS
Sue...
GSS wrote:
snip
> Has the Two Way Light Speed been proved to be isotropic by some
> different precision experiments?
Yes.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
Sue...
>
> GSS
Tom Roberts
>>The same professional also refuted Miller.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/nl.wetenschap/msg/07029606e495f83b?dmode=source
>
> That is an article by Tom Roberts which is not particularly convincing
> and does not provide any references.
Yes. Since then I have obtained a considerable amount of Miller's
original data. Modern DSP techniques and statistical analysis of that
data show conclusively that Miller's "signal" was really his systematic
error aliased into what he considered to be "signal". There is no
_significance_ to either his or other peoples' claims that he detected
"the absolute motion of the earth". In particular, Miller assumed his
sysematic error was linear, and a simple plot of it shows it is
ENORMOUSLY nonlinear -- it can be more than 1 fringe/turn and fluctuates
wildly; compare to his "signal" of 0.05 - 0.15 fringe when averaged over
20 turns.
I am preparing a paper on this, but have had difficulty finding
sufficient time to work on it. For example, apply the same error
analysis I outlined on the MMX in that earlier post[1] to his Figure 8
data, and one obtains errorbars that are several times larger than the
variation between points. So there is no _significant_ signal present.
Ditto for several dozens of other runs of his.
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/01a642d9b61b6968?dmode=source
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> So a non Null result for the MMX would merely indicate that it is
> Lorentzian relativity rather than Einsteinian relativity that better
> models what happens in Nature.
Lorentzian relativity is experimentally indistinguishable from SR,
within their common domain of applicability (EM phenomena in
locally-inertial frames).
So no, it would not indicate that.
A _significant_ non-null result for the MMX (or similar) would refute
both theories. But there have been no REPRODUCIBLY non-null results for
such experiments.
Consoli, Cahill, and others need to learn how to perform an error
analysis on experiments. Their conclusions are unwarranted; both the MMX
and Miller show no _significant_ non-null result.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:_Uwjf.1105$fY3.131@trnddc01...
>> "Androcles" <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
>> news:5Lwjf.108591$375....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:EqednTqy5fT...@prairiewave.com...
>>>> GSS displays delusions of competence. SR is logically
>>>> self-consistent and hasn't been empirically falsified. SR
>>>> is also consistent with classical EM and with QED.
>>>
>>> Old Fart displays delusions of competence. SR is logically
>>> self-inconsistent and has been empirically falsified by Sagnac
>>> and by me and by Henri Wilson and by Valdimir Sekerin.
>>> SR is also inconsistent with classical EM and with QED.
>>>
>> IMO it's the interpretations and perhaps the use/application
>> of its axioms that is/may be questionable and hence making
>> SR logically not self-consistent but rather self-inconsistent.
>> However, the bare and abstract hyperbolic math it uses
>> (when not applied to SR) is an internally self consistent
>> construct/system. Or isn't it?
>> hanson
>
> SR is not self-consistent. That has nothing to do with the geometry
> of conics, which are self-consistent.
>
I understand your beef. I just wanted you to be very expressed
in your critique (to be effective) and always include the statement
that you are not arguing against the self consistency of conics.
BTW, I repeat, that I find your other argument, of the preset
connivance of accuracy in the experiments, as a heavy duty indictment.
That and perhaps Seto's (?) "vertical to" issue, both verifyable by
furture experiment may turn out to the be the long sought for fatal flaw
in SR... .... Change WILL happen! ..... Carry on, Andro. ... Cool!
hanson
>
[Andro]
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Thanks everybody for excellent response.
>What I make out from this response is
>(a) The measured values of fringe shift in the MM experiment were
>actually non-zero but were taken as null since these values were much
>smaller than expected and were also masked within the limits of
>experimental errors.
It is not "masked by". You've to understand what measurements do. No
measurement yields an exact value, there are always experimental
inaccuracies. If you measure length which is supposed to be 1 m,
with a device which has an accuracy of +- 0.5 mm and you get a reading
of 999.8 mm, then your result is consistent with 1 m. You may give it
as 999.8 +- 0.5 mm, but you're *not* justified in saying that "no, it
is not 1 m". To the accuracy of your measurement, it is. This
doesn't mean that a future measurement, with higher accuracy, may not
find a meaningful deviation from 1 m, but your current deviation is
not meaningful and anybody thinking that it is doesn't understand the
first thing about measurement.
Try to go to a machine shop and ask them to make two steel cubes for
you, one with a side of 1.0" and the other with a side 0f 1.000".
Observe the difference in price.
ken...@erinet.com
confirm the existence of absolute motion in the vertical direction.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
They will fail.
Bill Hobba
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:37:27 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Even including the MMX the accumulated weight of evidence equally supports
>>Einsteinian Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity (LET). LET however
>>suffers
>>a serve problem - for every phenomena you seek to apply it to you need to
>>have a new hypothesis - it is not affected by motion though the aether eg
>>one can base QFT on LET but one needs to have the axiom QM is not affected
>>by motion though the aether.
>>
>
> I am wondering if rather than having such an axiom, could one allow
> for the effects of motion through the "aether" by adding appropriate
> terms to the Schrodinger (and Dirac) equations as Cahill is proposing.
>
> Pages 29~31 of:
> Dynamical Fractal 3-Space and the Generalised Schrodinger Equation:
> Equivalence Principle and Vorticity Effects
> http://www.doaj.org/ftxt/www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-04-05.PDF
>
> In situations where the motion would have negligible effects, these
> extra terms could be omitted.
>
> Could such an approach "save" LET from the above problem?
You are still confused. An aether has never been detected. An approach to
add in teems to model something no experiment has ever detected (which is
what you are proposing) would not solve the problem of if an aether was
detected then both SR and LET would be wrong.
Bill
tadchem
Quote: "the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential)
in the vertical direction." That gravitational potential is a direct
result of the presence of another body (presumably the earth, since
your ISP is based on this planet).
You cannot define 'vertical' as it would apply to motion *WITHOUT*
making a reference to another body. Not even if you were a space
alien...
Your 'motion' is thus referenced to earth, and is NOT 'absolute.'
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Bill Hobba
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:o0Mjf.8588$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I forgot to add that the use of such terms would be an assumption having
exactly the same logical status as the motion through the aether has no
affect on the laws of QM - ie since we have zero evidence for the existence
of such terms we have zero evidence for including them in the first place.
However if their inclusion led to phenomena that was experimentally
confirmed then such would be big news indeed. Unfortunately for those
proposing it such has not been found. It however has the advantage over LET
in that it probably would lead to phenomena at variance with current
theories.
Bill
Peter
wrote:
>Peter wrote:
>>>The same professional also refuted Miller.
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/nl.wetenschap/msg/07029606e495f83b?dmode=source
>>
>> That is an article by Tom Roberts which is not particularly convincing
>> and does not provide any references.
>
>Yes. Since then I have obtained a considerable amount of Miller's
>original data. Modern DSP techniques and statistical analysis of that
>data show conclusively that Miller's "signal" was really his systematic
>error aliased into what he considered to be "signal". There is no
>_significance_ to either his or other peoples' claims that he detected
>"the absolute motion of the earth". In particular, Miller assumed his
>sysematic error was linear, and a simple plot of it shows it is
>ENORMOUSLY nonlinear -- it can be more than 1 fringe/turn and fluctuates
>wildly; compare to his "signal" of 0.05 - 0.15 fringe when averaged over
>20 turns.
>
If this systematic error was aliased into what Miller considered to be
a "signal" then I would expect the values that Miller extracted to be
either uncorrelated, or to correlate with the way the systematic error
varied.
In the latter case, I would not be surprised to find a correlation
with solar time, because temperature effects would vary with solar
time.
But I have been reading,
"THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926" by Allais Maurice.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
From this, the picture I get is that Miller's observations for the
months April 1925, August 1925, September 1925 and February 1926
correlate with sideral time.
I cannot think of any kind of random or systematic error that could
correlate with sideral time.
This gives me the impression that Millers observations must be due to
"variations in the speed of light according to direction" as Allais
says.
>
>I am preparing a paper on this, but have had difficulty finding
>sufficient time to work on it. For example, apply the same error
>analysis I outlined on the MMX in that earlier post[1] to his Figure 8
>data, and one obtains errorbars that are several times larger than the
>variation between points. So there is no _significant_ signal present.
>Ditto for several dozens of other runs of his.
>
I think this is worth looking at.
But as you would know when signals are periodic, they can be very
effectively extracted from background noise with tuning circuits even
when the noise is thousands or millions of time larger.
In this case the expected signal would vary periodically with rotation
of the interferometer and with sideral day, so if Miller processed his
data in a way that mimiced the effect of tuning circuits, then he
should have been able to extract even a very small signal from much
larger noise.
This might apply even if significant signals were not observable in
individual runs.
Peter
Androcles
Conics are independent of time. One cannot treat time as though it were
a vector, it has no additive inverse. There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
In describing physical (i.e. real world) phenomena mathematically, the rules
of mathematics must be obeyed or the description is meaningless.
As Einstein says, "For velocities greater than that of light our
deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows,
that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."
His deliberations are meaningless, light's velocity is not infinite, and
since
his definition of c is 2AB/(t'A-tA), again meaningless since the light does
not travel from A to B twice, but from A to B and back to A, AB+BA = 0.
Violating mathematics cannot ever be a sensible description of physical
phenomena.
The velocity of light in Albert's deliberations is zero, all other
velocities are
either greater than or less than zero, his deliberations are as meaningless
as he states.
At least he go that right.
> BTW, I repeat, that I find your other argument, of the preset
> connivance of accuracy in the experiments, as a heavy duty indictment.
I'm not timid. I accuse Einstein and his accolytes of malicious and
deliberate
fraud.
gamma Desired velocity
1 0.000000000000000
10 0.994987437106620
100 0.999949998749938
1000 0.999999499999875
10000 0.999999995000000
100000 0.999999999950000
1000000 0.999999999999500
10000000 0.999999999999995
> That and perhaps Seto's (?) "vertical to" issue, both verifyable by
> furture experiment may turn out to the be the long sought for fatal flaw
> in SR... .... Change WILL happen! ..... Carry on, Andro. ... Cool!
Seto is an idiot. The direction of Earth's motion wrt his absolute
aether frame was what MMX was intended to discover. The apparatus
can be rotated 360 degrees wrt the plane defined by sea level, rotated
daily by the rotation of the Earth and performed at any latitude.
If there were a preferred direction for an aether wind it would have
been discovered. There is no aether, Seto belongs with the Flat Earth
Society.
Androcles
Timo Nieminen
> One cannot treat time as though it were
> a vector, it has no additive inverse. There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
--
T.
hanson
news:q6Ljf.592302$_o.590601@attbi_s71...
> They will fail.
>
[hanson]
.... so, that certain you are, Sam. Short and tart. Have you gone
into the religious or astrological prediction biz, Sam?... or are you
simply cranking Ken. In that your edict will not fail that. I am sure.
Thanks for the laugh, Sam..... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Peter
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Interesting history on the author's homepage
> http://www.orgonelab.org
> | Welcome to James DeMeo's research web site, and home page for the
> | Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory. DeMeo has been investigating
> | the work of the late Dr. Wilhelm Reich since 1970, and founded OBRL
> | in 1978. With cooperative assistance from a network of professionals
> | and institutes supportive of Wilhelm Reich's original discoveries,
> | OBRL has grown to become one of the world's primary centers for
> | genuine and uncompromised research and educational programs focused
> | upon Orgonomy, the science of orgone (life) energy functions in
> | nature, as developed by Reich in the first half of the 20th Century.
>
Newton also had some strange beliefs.
From:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newton_2060.shtml
Newton set 2060 as the end of the world
Newton: The Dark Heretic; Saturday 1 March, BBC TWO, 8.05-9.05pm
A BBC documentary uncovers, for the first time, the original
manuscript where Newton forecast the date of the end of the world.
Newton, the father of modern mathematics, dedicated a large part of
his life to a quest to decode the Bible which he believed to be the
word of God.
For over 50 years, he studied the Bible trying to unravel God's secret
laws of the Universe.
He was fanatical in his quest to discover the date for the Second
Coming of Christ and the end of the world.
Scholars have spent years trying to unravel Newton's writings on the
Book of Revelation to establish when he thought the apocalypse was
coming.
For the first time, Newton: The Dark Heretic reveals the date he
forecast is within many people's lifetimes - 2060.
The BBC was given rare access to Newton's original manuscripts in the
Hebrew National Library in Jerusalem.
Buried in his papers, Dr Stephen Snobelen, from the University of
King's College in Nova Scotia, found the original document where
Newton had written down his prediction.
In 2060, Newton believed the dramatic events forecast in the
apocalyptic Book of Revelation would occur: massive plagues and fires;
the terrible battle of Armageddon between good and evil and the
destruction and eternal damnation of the wicked.
Producer Malcolm Neaum says: "Newton prayed daily for the end of the
world which he believed would herald the Second Coming of Christ. This
would usher in the 1000 year rule of the Saints and Newton believed he
would then take his place as Chief Saint."
Peter
If the big bang had led to CMB radiation being uniformly created
thoughout a uniformly expanding space, then one would expect a body at
rest relative to the space to be evenly bathed in CMB radiation from
all directions and a body in motion to experience an equivalent CMB
anisotropy.
However, in the real universe perfect uniformity does not exist. So it
would make sense that the velocity of the solar system relative to
space would differ somewhat from the velocity extracted from the CMB
anisotropy.
Peter
Sam Wormley
You make me laugh (sometimes).... I make you laugh (sometimes).
Androcles
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0512021131080.3265-100000@localhost...
When London is 10,545 miles later than Sydney is 10,545 miles earlier than
London,
of course.
London is a coordinate in position. Sydney is a coordinate.
There is a vector London-> Sydney with an inverse vector Sydney-> London.
Yesterday is a coordinate in time.
Today is a coordinate.
Tomorrow is a coordinate.
You (have/will) get from Yesterday to Today to Tomorrow.
There is no inverse function Tomorrow -> Today or Today->Yesterday.
You hopelessly confuse coordinates with vectors.
One cannot treat time as though it were a vector, it has no additive
inverse.
There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
You can refer to yesterday just as you can refer to London.
You can't go to either one instantaneously, and you can never go to
yesterday.
You cannot avoid going to tomorrow.
For a Doctor of Philosophy you sure are dumb.
You didn't get your degree from Britain. Probably from some little out of
the way backwater called Queensland, where they are desperate.
Androcles.
Bilge
>Yes. but the contraction of length was never proved!
Then why is the angular distribution in a scattering experiment affected
by the change in targe density that corresponds to a length contraction
along the target thickness traversed by the incident particles?
Bill Hobba
And the point of this bit of irrelevant trivia is?
Bill;
Bill Hobba
A body at rest relative to space? Don't know that one - I know how a body
can be at rest relative to a coordinate system but not space.
Bill
ken...@erinet.com
ken...@erinet.com
whatever you want. The earth's gravitational potential got nothing to
do with it. If there is absolute motion of the apparatus within the
plane of its light rays then you will observe non-null result. If there
is no absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane of its light
rays then you will observe null result.
BTW gravitational potential is just different state of absolute motion
at different heights.
Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
apparatus wrt the plane of its light rays. The null result of the MMX
shows that there was no absolute motion of the apparatus within the
plane of its light rays. If the plane of the light rays is aligned
vertically you will get non-null result.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> From the Introduction P2 of
> "The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005
> A Critical Review of the Evidence"
> Reginald T. Cahill
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039
>
> While the relativistic effects are well established experimentally
> it is now belatedly understood, in 2002 [4,10], that numerous
> experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] of
> 1887, have always shown that postulates (1) and (2) (excepting the 2nd
> part) are false, namely that there is a detectable local frame of
Neither Cahill, Consoli, nor Allais understands error analysis.
Neither the Michelson-Morley experiment nor Dayton Miller's voluminous
measurements show a SIGNIFICANT non-null result, and it is most likely
that NONE of the similar ancient experiments do so either.
They are finding faces in clouds, and specifically the faces they want
to find. Admittedly, other people have found different faces in those
same clouds, according to their different desires. But in fact, no
_SIGNIFICANT_ faces are present at all.
Translating the metaphor: supporters of ether or "absolute
'space'" have proclaimed the MMX and Miller to be non-null.
Supporters of SR have proclaimed the MMX to be null and Miller's
results to be bogus. In fact, the errorbars for both are rather
large and the measurements don't say much of anything, but they
are both _consistent_ with SR, and are also _consistent_ with
various ether or "absolute 'space'" models. The notion that
Miller's results pick out a specific direction in space is
ludicrous.
As I have said before, experiments are no longer viewed as "measuring
physical parameters", but rather have become _tests_of_theories_.
Michelson, Morley, and Miller can be excused for not knowing about this
evolution that occurred after their deaths; the modern authors should be
ashamed.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> From that document [Cahill] page 2:
> The Miller data and the DeWitte data are symmetrically balanced to
> zero, they are symmetric. Why is this?
Miller's analysis algorithm forces that; it also forces his data to be
approximately sinusoidal with period 1/2 turn. This is easily shown
using modern DSP techniques and the spectrum of his systematic error.
This applies to lesser extent to the MMX data (their systematic error is
much smaller, but still important).
DeWitte is so incompetent nothing sensible can be said about his "data"
(I know this because I attempted to collaborate with him when he first
presented his "data" around here many years ago).
> Does the experimental setup
> enforce symmetry of the resulting data swing?
Miller's analysis algorithm does so.
Everyone who claims Miller's data are not null "conveniently" omits the
errorbars (which admittedly the original author did not supply). The
errorbars I obtained directly from Miller's data vary from ~2 to ~10
times the peak-to-peak height of the final plot for each run[#]; there
is no SIGNIFICANT variation here. The systematic error dominates the
errorbars (fortunately he took enough data so it can be characterized).
[#] Except for two runs with no signal and no significant
systematic error. Everyone who claims Miller's results
are not null ignores these runs for no reason other than
they are inconsistent with their personal desires. They
actually contain more turns than the entire MMX paper.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Cahill mentiones that vacuum MM experiments yield null results
> while gas filled equipment does not, is that true?
None of them that I have looked at yield a SIGNIFICANT non-null result.
Cahill does not understand error analysis.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Cahill in Australia and Consoli in Italy independently came to the
> conclusion that the interferometers that detected absolute motion were
> able to do so because they operated in a gas (eg air or helium).
> This was the case with the early experiments such as those by MM and
> Miller.
Neither Cahill not Consoli understand error analysis. Neither the MMX
nor Dayton Miller's data show any SIGNIFICANT non-null result.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message news:t4evo11c1rg0entrr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:13:40 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Interesting history on the author's homepage
> > http://www.orgonelab.org
> > | Welcome to James DeMeo's research web site, and home page for the
> > | Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory. DeMeo has been investigating
> > | the work of the late Dr. Wilhelm Reich since 1970, and founded OBRL
> > | in 1978. With cooperative assistance from a network of professionals
> > | and institutes supportive of Wilhelm Reich's original discoveries,
> > | OBRL has grown to become one of the world's primary centers for
> > | genuine and uncompromised research and educational programs focused
> > | upon Orgonomy, the science of orgone (life) energy functions in
> > | nature, as developed by Reich in the first half of the 20th Century.
> >
> Newton also had some strange beliefs.
Absolutely, but unlike you/Mountainman/Cahill/Demeo,
Newton had his daft beliefs 3 centuries ago.
Dirk Vdm
surrealis...@hotmail.com
There is nothing "absolute" about a frame defined by the happenstance
of the location of matter/energy in the universe.
What objects one might run into in a frame does indeed depend on the
"location" of matter in that frame, but the laws describing the
behavior of matter/energy do not depend on the chosen frame of
reference. The use of the CMBR rest frame does not aid us in the
formulation of the laws of physics. It certainly isn't required to
formulate or employ those laws. The best theory we have of the cosmos
is GR and it wasn't formulated in the CMBR "rest frame."
David Thomson
it just wasn't of the magnitude they expected. You can read the full
account of the MME in Dayton Miller's own words at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Aether_Dayton_Miller_Article.doc
Dave
David Thomson
> actually non-zero but were taken as null since these values were much
> smaller than expected and were also masked within the limits of
> experimental errors.
It is only masked within the limits of experimental error if one
compares to the initially assumed outcome of Michelson and Morley.
They expected a fixed Aether and the Earth moving through it at 200
kps. However, since the initial assumption is wrong, the actual Aether
drift is not within experimental error, but is merely solid data. It
is wrong to compare the actual measured Aether drift to the expected
Aether drift since the theory of a completely rigid Aether is clearly
wrong.
The Aether is fluid. In fact, in the December 2005 issue of Scientific
American, modern scientists are again proposing a fluid Aether. I have
even quantified the Aether, based upon empirical measurements:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
It is a falsehood to say that the measured Aether drift falls within
experimental error, because it does not. The Aether drift is 10 kps
and it is measured at 10 kps, regardless of what previous scientists
hypothesized.
Dave
Timo Nieminen
>
> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0512021131080.3265-100000@localhost...
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Androcles wrote:
>>
>>> One cannot treat time as though it were
>>> a vector, it has no additive inverse. There is no -t such that t+(-t) =
>>> 0.
>>
>> When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
>
>
> When London is 10,545 miles later than Sydney is 10,545 miles earlier than
> London,
> of course.
> London is a coordinate in position. Sydney is a coordinate.
> There is a vector London-> Sydney with an inverse vector Sydney-> London.
> Yesterday is a coordinate in time.
> Today is a coordinate.
> Tomorrow is a coordinate.
> You (have/will) get from Yesterday to Today to Tomorrow.
> There is no inverse function Tomorrow -> Today or Today->Yesterday.
> You hopelessly confuse coordinates with vectors.
> One cannot treat time as though it were a vector, it has no additive
> inverse.
> There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
> You can refer to yesterday just as you can refer to London.
> You can't go to either one instantaneously, and you can never go to
> yesterday.
> You cannot avoid going to tomorrow.
> For a Doctor of Philosophy you sure are dumb.
> You didn't get your degree from Britain. Probably from some little out of
> the way backwater called Queensland, where they are desperate.
> Androcles.
Such a simple question, and you couldn't answer it. Sad, very sad.
Let's try again:
When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
--
Timo
Dirk Van de moortel
"Timo Nieminen" <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:2005120306...@emu.uq.edu.au...
But so entertaining:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegTime.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegTime2.html
>
> Let's try again:
>
> When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
Keep it up, Timo, number 3 might be in the making ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dastardly Fiend
"David Thomson" <goo...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1133546937.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The transplant operation was successful, unfortunately the patient died on
the
operating table with a new kidney.
Mutley.
Dastardly Fiend
>> (a) The measured values of fringe shift in the MM experiment were
>> actually non-zero but were taken as null since these values were much
>> smaller than expected and were also masked within the limits of
>> experimental errors.
>
> It is only masked within the limits of experimental error if one
> compares to the initially assumed outcome of Michelson and Morley.
> They expected a fixed Aether and the Earth moving through it at 200
> kps.
LOL! 200/30 = ~7.
Looks like their signal to noise ratio was not as bad as all that after all.
> However, since the initial assumption is wrong, the actual Aether
> drift is not within experimental error, but is merely solid data. It
> is wrong to compare the actual measured Aether drift to the expected
> Aether drift since the theory of a completely rigid Aether is clearly
> wrong.
Hey buddy, it's not 1890, you can buy yourself a laser LED
http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/sunbeamlights/index.php?file=1
http://search.globalspec.com/productfinder/findproducts?query=ultra%20bright%20leds&se=ggka&setag=OPTS
complete with velcro or go to the hardware store and get all you need
to duplicate Michelson's experiment for under $20, so quit your griping
and start doing.
> The Aether is fluid. In fact, in the December 2005 issue of Scientific
> American, modern scientists are again proposing a fluid Aether. I have
> even quantified the Aether, based upon empirical measurements:
> http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
>
> It is a falsehood to say that the measured Aether drift falls within
> experimental error, because it does not. The Aether drift is 10 kps
> and it is measured at 10 kps, regardless of what previous scientists
> hypothesized.
>
> Dave
It is idiocy to say Michelson expected 200 kps... but you did.
Mutley.
Dastardly Fiend
Such a simple reply, and you couldn't understand it. Pathetic, very
pathetic.
Let's see... Now it's 22:30 in London, and dark outside.
Cloud cover, rain, no moon visible.
In Sydney it's broad daylight. Right NOW, as I write.
Maybe Australian sundials are upside down.
5 hours later than now it will 03:30 tomorrow, and five hours earlier it
will be now.
Let's try again:
When London is 10,545 miles later than Sydney is 10,545 miles earlier than
London, of course.
And of course Sydney is still 10,545 miles from London since my last reply,
and your head is still up your arse.
London is a coordinate in position. Sydney is a coordinate.
There is a vector London-> Sydney with an inverse vector Sydney-> London.
Yesterday is a coordinate in time.
Today is a coordinate.
Tomorrow is a coordinate.
You (have/will) get from Yesterday to Today to Tomorrow.
There is no inverse function Tomorrow -> Today or Today->Yesterday.
You hopelessly confuse coordinates with vectors.
One cannot treat time as though it were a vector, it has no additive
inverse.
There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
You can refer to yesterday just as you can refer to London.
You can't go to either one instantaneously, and you can never go to
yesterday.
You cannot avoid going to tomorrow.
For a Doctor of Philosophy you sure are dumb.
You didn't get your degree from Britain. Probably from some little out of
the way backwater called Queensland, where they are desperate.
Carry on ostriching.
Mutley.
Timo Nieminen
> "Timo Nieminen" <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:2005120306...@emu.uq.edu.au...
>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Androcles wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0512021131080.3265-100000@localhost...
>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Androcles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One cannot treat time as though it were
>>>>> a vector, it has no additive inverse. There is no -t such that t+(-t) =
>>>>> 0.
>>>>
>>>> When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
[cut]
>>
>> Such a simple question, and you couldn't answer it. Sad, very sad.
>>
>> Let's try again:
>>
>> When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
> 5 hours later than now it will 03:30 tomorrow, and five hours earlier it
> will be now.
"Now", eh? So, additive inverse exists. QED.
--
T.
Bill Hobba
> There was no null result in the MME.
That is simply not true. Tom Roberts for example has conclusively proved
otherwise. You simply wish to ignore it at least in part because your
understanding statistical analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
Bill
donsto...@hotmail.com
That is simply not true. Tom Roberts for example has conclusively
proved otherwise. You simply wish to ignore it at least in part
because your understanding statistical analysis leaves a lot to be
desired.
Bill
******************
MY GOD!!!!! You mean that Martin Gardner in his book "Relativity for
the Million" was wrong????????
Peter
wrote:
>
>"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message
>>>
>> Newton also had some strange beliefs.
>>
>> From:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newton_2060.shtml
>>
>
>And the point of this bit of irrelevant trivia is?
>
I was trying to illustrate that strange beliefs in one area of life
don't necessarily prevent a person doing good science in another.
So although DeMeo believes in "orgone", that does not rule out the
possibility that he has done a good job at having a second look at the
Miller experiment.
Tom Roberts
> There was no null result in the MME. They did measure an Aether drift,
> it just wasn't of the magnitude they expected.
But it is not _SIGNIFICANT_. Their errorbars are significantly greater
than the peak-to-peak value of the "signal".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Peter
wrote:
Cahill and Consoli have not provided an error analysis for the MMX and
Dayton Miller's experiment.
But lets assume the worst and suppose that errors in Miller's data
were so large that they completely swamped the effects he wished to
measure.
Then I would expect the values that Miller extracted to be
either uncorrelated, or to correlate with the way systematic errors
varied.
In the latter case, I would not be surprised to find a correlation
with solar time, because temperature effects would vary with solar
time.
But I have been reading,
"THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926" by Allais Maurice.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
From this, the picture I get is that Miller's observations for the
months April 1925, August 1925, September 1925 and February 1926
correlate with sideral time.
I cannot think of any kind of systematic error on planet earth that
would correlate with sideral time over a period of a year.
This gives me the impression that Millers observations must be due to
"variations in the speed of light according to direction" as Allais
says.
Note however that the light in Miller's experiment was travelling
through air and was therefore travelling at a speed less than c due to
interactions with air molecules.
So the variations in speed might be due to variations in the way light
interacts with molecules of gases according to direction.
It seems to me that this would be a quantum phenomenon rather than an
classical EM phenomenon, so are these observations necessarily a
threat to relativity theory?
Relativity theory coexists with quantum non-locality which involves
faster than light communication.
So could it not also coexist with a quantum phenomenon which causes
the speed of light through gases to vary with direction?
The following is a quotation from Basil Hiley
http://www.meta-religion.com/Physics/Quantum_physics/on_qm_and_the_implicate_order.htm
"It looks as if the vacuum state is not empty, but that it is a medium
of some kind. Einstein said: "I did not ban the 'quantum ether', but I
do not want it to have mechanical properties." Now, if you remove the
mechanical notion, then I see no harm in reintroducing the notion of
the subquantum medium. But it has got to be a medium which is much
subtler than a mechanical medium. Indeed, I believe, there is some
deeper underlying process that we have not begun to understand yet."
Peter
Tom Roberts
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:34:28 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> wrote:
>>Yes. Since then I have obtained a considerable amount of Miller's
>>original data. Modern DSP techniques and statistical analysis of that
>>data show conclusively that Miller's "signal" was really his systematic
>>error aliased into what he considered to be "signal".
>
> If this systematic error was aliased into what Miller considered to be
> a "signal" then I would expect the values that Miller extracted to be
> either uncorrelated, or to correlate with the way the systematic error
> varied.
In Miller's data of Figure 8, the DFT amplitude for the 1/2 turn
"frequency" varies all over the place, and there is a reasonable
correlation with the systematic error (which is sampled twice every turn).
> In the latter case, I would not be surprised to find a correlation
> with solar time, because temperature effects would vary with solar
> time.
I have not made any attempt to look at such correlations.
> But I have been reading,
> "THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
> INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926" by Allais Maurice.
> http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
>
> From this, the picture I get is that Miller's observations for the
> months April 1925, August 1925, September 1925 and February 1926
> correlate with sideral time.
Faces in clouds. Plot the errorbars on his graphs and they exceed the
height of the paper they're plotted on. There is no _SIGNIFICANT_
"signal" here. Yes, there is of course a best-fit value, and simple
techniques like he used can find it. But a real fit for the direction of
the signal would find a good chi-squared for any direction whatsoever.
> I cannot think of any kind of random or systematic error that could
> correlate with sideral time.
So? There is no _SIGNIFICANT_ correlation with sidereal time.
> This gives me the impression that Millers observations must be due to
> "variations in the speed of light according to direction" as Allais
> says.
Except those "variations" are not _SIGNIFICANT_.
> But as you would know when signals are periodic, they can be very
> effectively extracted from background noise with tuning circuits even
> when the noise is thousands or millions of time larger.
You exaggerate. But yes, modern DSP techniques can indeed isolate the
"signal" here -- the question is: is it due to the very large systematic
error, or due to some cosmic effect? After all, the systematic error
clearly has a non-zero amplitude in the same "frequency" bin that a
cosmic signal would be in. The large variations turn-to-turn, and the
correlation with the systematic error for a major fraction of the data
(~1/3) indicate this is not a cosmic effect.
The systematic error is sampled only twice per turn, so its
contribution to the 1/2-turn "signal" is undersampled. But
for about 1/3 of the turns the systematic error is almost
linear throughout the turn (if it were linear, we could of
course compute its exact contribution). For the turns with
an almost-linear systematic error, the amplitude of the
"signal" correlates well with the amplitude for a linear
interpolation between the (undersampled) systematic points.
[The systematic error is obtained by looking only at markers
1 and 9. No matter what signal is present, these should
all be equal, so their differences characterize the
systematic error. It is HUGE -- it can be as large as 1.5
fringes in a single turn.]
> This might apply even if significant signals were not observable in
> individual runs.
One must be careful in averaging multiple turns -- the systematic errors
for individual turns are not uncorrelated. And one MOST DEFINITELY
should not subtract a "linear systematic" as Miller did[#]. It's FAR
better to not do that and simply apply a DFT to the entire run of 20
turns (320+1 points).
[#] It's easy to compute what the contribution to the "signal"
is from this subtraction, and for many turns it dominates.
One simple fallacy is the way some people marvel at how "sinusoidal"
Miller's per-run data look, and it has the expected period of 1/2 turn.
In fact, his analysis technique _guarantees_ that the plot will be
approximately sinusoidal, with period 1/2 turn. He essentially averages
all 40 of the 1/2 turns, and subtracts the straight line from marker 1
to marker 9 (the two endpoints of the averaged 1/2 turn). In this plot
there are only 4 nonzero frequency bins, with the signal in bin 1 (bin 0
is dc which was zeroed by the subtraction). But his systematic error has
a spectrum that falls with frequency, and it will naturally look
"sinusoidal" with period 1/2 turn because frequency bin 1 dominates.
Note there are two runs (20 turns each) with zero signal [@] and almost
no systematic error. People who claim there is a non-null result ignore
these runs for no good reason. As the data contain an independent
measure of the systematic error, one can legitimately select for small
systematic error and conclude Miller had a truly null result. These two
runs alone contain more turns of the interferometer than the entire MMX
paper.
[@] Here "signal" is simply the 1/2-turn amplitude bin of
the 320 point DFT for the entire run.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> But lets assume the worst and suppose that errors in Miller's data
> were so large that they completely swamped the effects he wished to
> measure.
> But I have been reading,
> "THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
> INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926" by Allais Maurice.
> http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
>
> From this, the picture I get is that Miller's observations for the
> months April 1925, August 1925, September 1925 and February 1926
> correlate with sideral time.
You make the same mistake he makes -- you do not consider the errorbars.
They are larger than the page the plots are printed on. So there is no
_SIGNIFICANCE_ here.
> [...]
I am not attempting any sort of underlying physical explantion. I am
merely pointing out that Miller's data have a large systematic, and that
what he (and Allais and Consoli and Cahill and you) consider "signal" is
really just his systematic error aliased into the same "frequency" bin
that a real cosmic signal would be in.
Miller, Allais, Consoli, Cahill, and you are ignoring those two runs
with no signal, and "it just so happens" that they have negligible
systematic, too.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Peter
wrote:
>Peter wrote:
Cahill and Consoli did not provide error analysis when they reviewed
the MM and Dayton Miller experiments--whether they understand error
analysis or not is another matter.
Regarding whether results were significant, in another sub-thread I
argued as follows.
Lets assume the worst and suppose that errors in Miller's data were so
large that they completely swamped the effects he wished to measure.
Then I would expect the values that Miller extracted to be
either uncorrelated, or to correlate with the way systematic errors
varied.
In the latter case, I would not be surprised to find a correlation
with solar time, because temperature effects would vary with solar
time.
But I have been reading,
"THE CLEAR AND EXTRAORDINARY REGULARITIES IN DAYTON C. MILLER'S
INTERFEROMETRIC OBSERVATIONS OF 1925 - 1926" by Allais Maurice.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm
From this, the picture I get is that Miller's observations for the
months April 1925, August 1925, September 1925 and February 1926
correlate with sideral time.
I cannot think of any kind of systematic error on planet earth that
would correlate with sideral time over a period of a year.
This gives me the impression that Millers observations must be due to
"variations in the speed of light according to direction" as Allais
says.
Note however that the light in Miller's experiment was travelling
Dastardly Fiend
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Dastardly Fiend wrote:
>
>> "Timo Nieminen" <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:2005120306...@emu.uq.edu.au...
>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Androcles wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0512021131080.3265-100000@localhost...
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Androcles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One cannot treat time as though it were
>>>>>> a vector, it has no additive inverse. There is no -t such that t+(-t)
>>>>>> =
>>>>>> 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now?
>
> [cut]
Let's try again:
When London is 10,545 miles later than Sydney is 10,545 miles earlier than
London, of course.
And of course Sydney is still 10,545 miles from London since my last reply,
and your head is still up your arse.
London is a coordinate in position. Sydney is a coordinate.
There is a vector London-> Sydney with an inverse vector Sydney-> London.
Yesterday is a coordinate in time.
Today is a coordinate.
Tomorrow is a coordinate.
You (have/will) get from Yesterday to Today to Tomorrow.
There is no inverse function Tomorrow -> Today or Today->Yesterday.
You hopelessly confuse coordinates with vectors.
One cannot treat time as though it were a vector, it has no additive
inverse.
There is no -t such that t+(-t) = 0.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message news:i1t1p1lfeon6ubc92...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:11:41 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>
> >> Newton also had some strange beliefs.
> >>
> >> From:
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newton_2060.shtml
> >>
> >
> >And the point of this bit of irrelevant trivia is?
> >
> I was trying to illustrate that strange beliefs in one area of life
> don't necessarily prevent a person doing good science in another.
>
> So although DeMeo believes in "orgone",
DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski
did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not
believe in bending spoons, Von Daniken does not believe
in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether.
They only believe in the money generated by their books.
> that does not rule out the
> possibility that he has done a good job at having a second look at the
> Miller experiment.
It shows that he does a good job at continuing the work
of Reich, that other impostor.
If you think that DeMeo believes in orgone, or even in
ether, then you are just the imbecile he needs you to be
to make his living.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
to detect ether drift do the experiments in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto