Apology to Brillet and Hall

3 views
Skip to first unread message

z@z

unread,
Apr 2, 2000, 4:00:00 AM4/2/00
to
: = Luc Bourhis in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605621693
:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=605296775

=====================================================================
I must apologize for having accused Brillet and Hall of misrepresenting
Jaseja et al.'s ether drift experiment.

Brillet and Hall's experiment is actually a great improvement on the
measurement of Jaseja, and Brillet and Hall's "persistent spurious
signal" is not identical to Jaseja's spurious signal (attributed to
the earth's magnetic field) as I have claimed unfortunately several
times.
=====================================================================

My judgement that Jaseja et al. had found the same results as Brillet
and Hall is based on a misinterpretation of the expression "less than
1/1000 of the effect on an 'ether drift' as large as the earth's
orbital speed". This is not identical to "less than the effect of an
'ether drift' as large as 1/1000 of the earth's orbital speed of light".
(in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=524152873)

It happens too easy that one accepts wrong facts and reasonings if they
lead to desired result.

In future I try to be more careful, especially before accusing others
of dishonesty, sorry! Really embarrassing for me!

Brillet and Hall have done an excellent work and I'm still
optimistic that in future it will be considered not only the first
experiment having shown the experimental limitations of Relativity
but also the first suggesting the superiority of Relationaliy (which
predicts an 'ether drift' of 13 m/s due to the sun's movement wrt
the earth and a second drift of 205 m/s (at Boulder, Colorado) due
to the earth's rotation.

:: The 17 Hz signal however had always the same amplitude "with an
:: approximately constant phase in the laboratory frame".
:
: It is also true for the 200 Hz signal. ...

We agree on the 17 Hz signal. But we do not agree on the gravitational-
stretching signal. You assume that it was always around 200 Hz and had
an approximately constant phase in the laboratory frame (or that Brillet
and Hall did perform their experiment only once when the gravitational-
stretching signal was incidentally around 200 Hz).

I assume that what you call the "200 Hz signal" changed between different
set-ups of the experiment and could be as well 100 Hz with a phase in
one direction as 300 Hz with a phase in a completely different direction.
Making the rotation plane as horizontal as possible is one of the
difficulties of such an experiment.

I further assume that if you were right and the 17 Hz signal were
related to the gravitational-stretching signal, then Brillet and Hall
would certainly have noticed this fact. Think about it: rotating the
apparatus through 180 degrees leads to a full oscillation of this 17 Hz
signal. Doesn't it then stand to reason to change slightly the rotation
plane and to test whether this change in gravitational stretching of
the apparatus does also change the 17 Hz signal?

To sum up: the gravitational-stretching signal was "TYPICALLY about 200
Hz" whereas the other is called a "persistent spurious signal (17-Hz
amplitude at 2f)" by the experimenters.

Luc, whether we agree or not, I thank you very much for having helped me
to recognize that I'm completely wrong with my claims concerning Jaseja's
experiment.

Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages