Speed of Light Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt.
Max Keon
The proof is clearly displayed using a setup that's similar to
Fizeau's ether drag experiment, but with major variations in that
there's only a single straight tube carrying the liquid flow and
the apparatus can be rotated to point east or west.
The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/--<--HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path
Variable water flow is toward the laser end.
The light path from the laser is split at the first mirror, which
is semi silvered. One beam travels through to the end of the water
filled tube where it's reflected via two mirrors to return along
the air path beside the tube. It is then reflected at 90 degrees
to again pass through the semi silvered mirror and finally arrive
at the viewing screen, after being magnified through a lens. The
other half beam travels the same path but in the opposite direction,
and is reunited with its counterpart to follow along the same path
direction after it's finally reflected off the semi silvered mirror.
The apparatus is extremely stable because the light paths are
almost identical. And there are no temperature effects to be
considered because both paths change in unison. So long as the paths
are identical, everything remains exactly proportional.
For many years I've doubted the validity of the Fizeau ether drag
experiment because interferometer experiments are usually so
delicate that one barely dares to breathe near them. The thought
of relatively huge water velocities pelting around a circuit along
the interferometer light paths was incomprehensible.
And incidentally, with such liquid velocities, how could Fizeau
possibly convince anyone that the fringe shift wasn't mechanically
caused? Increasing the flow rate increases the forces at every turn,
and (I imagine) for the mediums that he tested, refractive index and
relative density were close to proportionally related. Setting up
that experiment in the 1850's in such a manner that would prove his
point was a most remarkable achievement, in my opinion. He has
earned my utmost respect (whether he wants it or not).
In the case of my experiment, no such concerns arise because if a
fringe shift is mechanically created due to changes in the water
flow rate only, no added change will be noted when the water flow
direction (via the device) is turned between east and west.
Increasing the water velocity causes the interference pattern to
shift in a particular direction, and the pattern changes in that
same direction when the water flow (via the device) is turned from
the west to point east.
Example: Assuming that light propagates according to the non
rotating frame of the earth (the ECI frame).
c = 3E+08
v = 400 Tangential velocity for Melbourne Australia
wv = 6.1 Water velocity per second (= .1 wavelength shift)
n = 1.332 Water/air refractive index.
l = 3.6 The water tube length is 1.8 meters. But both beam
paths are affected.
(for a water velocity of 6.1 m/sec)
Flow pointing west per ECI frame (v - wv) = 393.9 m/sec. (east)
Light is dragged by (v - wv) * (1 - (1/n^2)) = 171.8875 m/sec.
Flow pointing east per ECI frame (v+wv) = 406.1 m/sec. (east)
Light is dragged by (v + wv) * (1 - (1/n^2)) = 177.2112 m/sec.
The difference is 5.323754 m/sec of water path length.
5.323754 / c * 3.6 = 6.388505E-08 meters for a 3.6 meter water
path length which is .1007651 of a wavelength.
The article along with photos of the setup are available at
http://optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
Before the water tube was fitted, all laser paths were aligned.
The tube windows were also roughly aligned square to the tube by
reflecting a laser pointer off the window face while the tube was
being rotated along its axis. Any misalignment caused the reflected
spot to scribe a circle. Each tube end was adjusted until the
reflected spot remained still. The final adjustment was done by
slightly bending the (now water filled and in place) tube with the
adjusting screws until each beam path found its way to the center
of the far end of the tube.
If the windows are not aligned perfectly square to the beam paths
the paths will, due to refraction, never be the same, and a stable
interference pattern would be impossible.
(more pictures)
The torsion force acting on the swivel, applied in either
direction, is of no consequence to the interference pattern.
(pictures)
Vibrations from the twin screw pump are absorbed in an air bubble
housed in a football bladder.
The maximum pump pressure used was 200 psi, when the pump was
running at around 5000 rpm. 100% efficiency would give a water flow
rate of 51 meters per second. Judging by the fringe shift, it was
about 20 m/sec. A consistent fringe shift of what appears to be
close to the mark was easily noted.
The fact that a fringe shift is observed when the device is rotated
demands a reason why no fringe shift is observed that relates to
the tangential velocity of the device fixed to the earth's surface
when the unit is rotated between east and west and water flow is
stopped. The pieces of the puzzle are now all on display and can
only be fitted together in one way to create the perfect picture.
Assuming that light traveling in a vacuum local to the earth
propagates relative to the ECI frame, the 400 m/sec tangential
velocity of the water relative to the ECI frame would drag the
light propagation base along with it to some degree.
WATER
c = 3E+8
wl = 634 Wavelength in nanoneters.
n = 1.332 Water refractive index.
v = 400 Tangential velocity.
pl = 1800000000 Path length in nanometers.
Linear speed of light = 1/n = .7507507507507507 * c
Water propagation center is dragged v*(1-(1/n^2))
= 174.5493240988737 m/sec east of the ECI frame.
Beam source is 400 - 174.5493240988737 = 225.4506759011263
m/sec further east than the propagation center, relative to
the speed of light with no medium. Relative to the speed
of light in water, the propagation base is
225.4506759011263 / .7507507507507507 = 300.3003003003003 m/sec
to the west. All other time-distance measurements change in
accordance with that slower speed of light, but that has no effect
on the result.
The distance that the beam must travel along the water path
increases pointing east and decreases pointing west, at the rate
of 300.3003003003003 meters per second of path length.
Number of wavelengths along the path if the device is fixed with
the ECI frame = pl/(wl*1/n) = 3781703.470031546
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing east
= (((c+((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 3781707.255520505
which is 3.785488958936185 more waves than the ECI frame fixed device.
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing west
= (((c-((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 3781699.684542587
which is 3.785488958936185 less waves than the ECI frame fixed device.
AIR
n = 1.0003 Air refractive index.
Linear speed of light = 1/n = .9997000899730081 * c
Air propagation center is dragged v*(1-(1/n^2))
= .2398920431837794 m/sec east of the ECI frame.
Beam source is 400 - .2398920431837794 = 399.7601079568162
m/sec further east than the propagation center, relative to
the speed of light with no medium. Relative to the speed
of light in air, the propagation base is
399.7601079568162 / .9997000899730081 = 399.8800359892033 m/sec
to the west. All other time-distance measurements change in
accordance with that slower speed of light, but that has no effect
on the result.
The distance that the beam must travel along the air path
increases pointing east and decreases pointing west, at the rate
of 399.8800359892033 meters per second of path length.
Number of wavelengths along the path if the device is fixed with
the ECI frame = pl/(wl*1/n) = 2839968.454258675
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing east
= (((c+((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 2839972.239747634
which is 3.785488959401846 more waves than the ECI frame fixed device.
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing west
= (((c-((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 2839964.668769716
which is 3.785488958936185 less waves than the ECI fixed device.
No matter what mediums are used, and how many waves are along
each path, exactly the same number of wavelengths will be added to
or subtracted from each path as the device is rotated. The anisotropy
only shows up when the light source is moving at a different rate to
the water path.
---------------
The experiment only proves that light propagates on a base which
is located somewhere to the west by at least the velocity of the
water flow. If the device was fixed with the ECI frame, although the
light paths would still be dragged relative to the moving water, no
asymmetry between the light paths could exist due to changes in the
pointing direction of the water flow. Which could easily be proven.
Regardless of how the puzzle pieces are fitted together, **an
anisotropy in the one way speed of light most certainly exists
around here.**
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Why do you need water to determine if there is an anisotropy in light
speed?
Bill Hobba
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4397d77b$0$18198$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> SPEED OF LIGHT ANISOTROPY PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.
>
> The proof is clearly displayed using a setup that's similar to
> Fizeau's ether drag experiment, but with major variations in that
> there's only a single straight tube carrying the liquid flow and
> the apparatus can be rotated to point east or west.
>
> The setup was designed thus:
> _____________
> . screen .
> . .
> . .
> =Fiber optic collimator lens
> water path .
> /-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/--<--HeNe LASER
> \---------------------/
> air path
>
> Variable water flow is toward the laser end.
What has water to do with the speed of light in a vacuum? - which is what
light isotropy is concerned with
Bill
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket
"Freedom and water", in the word of the Orange Alternative.
Jerry
<snip>
Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90c7f4ce98a2ae3e
Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
your setup in detail.
Jerry
Peter
wrote:
>
>What has water to do with the speed of light in a vacuum? - which is what
>
Hi Bill,
Couldn't resist checking this NG again before my trip and noticed this
very interesting post.
I read Cahill's mathematical analysis of MM type experiments at:
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
If he is correct then when an MM type experiment is performed in a
vacuum, Lorentz effects prevent any anisotropy in the speed of light.
Hence vacuum mode MM type experiments will never exhibit fringe shifts
and will always confirm SR.
However, when an MM type experiment is performed in a gas, owing to
the fact that the gas reduces the speed of light to _less_ than c, the
Lorentz effects are no longer able to prevent anisotrophy.
Hence gas mode MM type experiments _should_ exhibit fringe shifts.
It may be something like this that Max has observed.
However, as such fringe shifts are only seen when light is slowed down
by matter, eg a gas, the cause may be not so much anisotrophy in the
speed of light as anisotrophy in the interaction between light and
matter.
If Cahill is correct, this would be caused by "absolute motion".
But I would not rule out other causes.
For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
matter?
Regards,
Peter
Bill Hobba
"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:j0fgp1l0hh341ao7r...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>What has water to do with the speed of light in a vacuum? - which is what
>>light isotropy is concerned with.
>>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Couldn't resist checking this NG again before my trip and noticed this
> very interesting post.
>
> I read Cahill's mathematical analysis of MM type experiments at:
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> If he is correct then when an MM type experiment is performed in a
> vacuum, Lorentz effects prevent any anisotropy in the speed of light.
Lorentz effects? Never heard of those. The reason the MM failed is
simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the speed
of light is the same regardless of direction. To a very high degree of
accuracy frames attached to the earth are inertial. If an aetther did exist
then an aether wind would break a frame attached to the earths isotropy and
so would not be inertial.
> Hence vacuum mode MM type experiments will never exhibit fringe shifts
> and will always confirm SR.
>
> However, when an MM type experiment is performed in a gas, owing to
> the fact that the gas reduces the speed of light to _less_ than c, the
> Lorentz effects are no longer able to prevent anisotrophy.
>
> Hence gas mode MM type experiments _should_ exhibit fringe shifts.
>
> It may be something like this that Max has observed.
>
> However, as such fringe shifts are only seen when light is slowed down
> by matter, eg a gas, the cause may be not so much anisotrophy in the
> speed of light as anisotrophy in the interaction between light and
> matter.
>
> If Cahill is correct, this would be caused by "absolute motion".
>
> But I would not rule out other causes.
>
> For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
> apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
> matter?
What apparatus is that? The one detailed in the post? Such was not the
claim of the poster.
Bill
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
Hero.van...@gmx.de
laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
Hero
Dirk Van de moortel
> wrote:
> >
> >What has water to do with the speed of light in a vacuum? - which is what
> >light isotropy is concerned with.
> >
> Hi Bill,
>
> Couldn't resist checking this NG again before my trip and noticed this
> very interesting post.
>
> I read Cahill's mathematical analysis
You *are* Cahill, idiot. You can stop being dishonest about
it now.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
>
> I read Cahill's mathematical analysis of MM type experiments at:
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> If he is correct then when an MM type experiment is performed in a
> vacuum, Lorentz effects prevent any anisotropy in the speed of light.
> Hence vacuum mode MM type experiments will never exhibit fringe shifts
> and will always confirm SR.
>
> However, when an MM type experiment is performed in a gas, owing to
> the fact that the gas reduces the speed of light to _less_ than c, the
> Lorentz effects are no longer able to prevent anisotrophy.
>
> Hence gas mode MM type experiments _should_ exhibit fringe shifts.
>
What you write, Cahill. Peter, or whomever, is complete bullshit!
hanson
news:fb0mf.610709$_o.12279@attbi_s71...
> What you write, Cahill, Peter, or whomever, is complete bullshit!
>
[hanson]
Peter probable referred to or meant "fringe benefits".
So,... why exactly did they crank you so bad, Sam?... ahahaha..
ahahaha... and Sam, isn't that "whomever" a rather wide swath?
That "whomever" would include everybody... including yourself...
Thanks for the laughs, Sam. Take care.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Eric Gisse
What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
patient way of dealing with cranks is missed :D
Bill Hobba
<Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I have never heard of wave lock. However analysis of the MMX has been done
to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial frame -
and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
produce a null result.
Bill
> Hero
>
Bill Hobba
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:v6%lf.68805$Mi.39...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
I suspected as much myself. Good to see he has been outed.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
Jerry
He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
and computer programming. My parents' very expensive final
illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Ah. Good to hear.
>
> Jerry
Bill Hobba
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1134091831.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>> Jerry wrote:
>> > Max Keon wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
>> > Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
>> > attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90c7f4ce98a2ae3e
>> >
>> > Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
>> > together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
>> > your setup in detail.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>>
>> What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
>> patient way of dealing with cranks is missed :D
>
> He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
> evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
> and computer programming.
Funny, I always got the impression he as an experiment type guy rather than
the IT math type.
> My parents' very expensive final
> illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
> with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
> medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
> he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
> sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
> wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
> long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.
>
> Jerry
Yes indeed; very good to hear. Minor crank was a voice of reason - he is
missed.
Thanks
Bill
Peter
wrote:
>
>The reason the MM failed is
>simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the speed
>of light is the same regardless of direction.
>
I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
"failed". In isolation the results of the original MMX were
inconclusive but when combined with the results of later MM type
experiments, a coherent picture seems to emerge.
Further:
(1) Making inertial frames isotropic by definition, does not guarantee
that nature will comply.
(2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.
Peter wrote:
>>
>> For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
>> apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
>> matter?
>
>What apparatus is that? The one detailed in the post?
>
My question was about the apparatus detailed in the post. However, it
could be asked of any apparatus that attempts to detected anisotropy
in the speed of light through a gaseous or liquid medium.
In such mediums we would expect the speed of light to be anisotropic
due to lack of any fixed structure.
However, if an external field (eg magnetic or electric or ...) were to
impose a preferred alignment on the molecules, that might cause the
speed of light to vary according to direction.
If this field was of terrestrial origin, then the anisotropy would
rotate with the earth. This would not be particularly remarkable.
However the evidence of the various gas mode MM type experiments
suggests that an anisotropy has been discovered in the speed of light
(in gases) that _does_not_ rotate with the earth.
Whatever could cause such an effect must be of cosmic origin.
It seems to be a tradition to assume such an effect implies detection
of absolute motion.
However, could such an effect not alternatively be due to say high
speed motion through dark matter?
We are located in a spiral galaxy, which according to GRT requires
lots of dark matter to account for its rotation curve.
Although we can't observe this dark matter, if GRT is correct, it must
be there and we must be hurtling through it.
>
>Such was not the claim of the poster.
>
That is correct.
I was just trying to suggest we don't jump to the conclusion that a
"non-null" result necessarily implies absolute motion.
A non-null result could imply motion relative to dark matter or
something else in space, that potentially might be of great interest.
Peter
Bill Hobba
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:44:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>The reason the MM failed is
>>simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the
>>speed
>>of light is the same regardless of direction.
>>
> I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
> "failed".
Because guys like you don't like it. It was generally thought at the time
it would detect an aether - it did not - so by looking up that wonderful
source called a dictionary people found the appropriate word - failed.
> In isolation the results of the original MMX were
> inconclusive but when combined with the results of later MM type
> experiments, a coherent picture seems to emerge.
Analysis by experts like Tom Roberts suggests otherwise.
>
> Further:
> (1) Making inertial frames isotropic by definition, does not guarantee
> that nature will comply.
>
Are you serious? The issue is not that inertial frames are isotropic by
definition - the issue is that to good accuracy experiment has established
frames attached to the earth are inertial. For mechanics this was already
known well before the MM experiment. Scientists simply thought light was
somehow special - they were wrong.
>
> (2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
> properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
> are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.
>
Your logic escapes me. Fact: from many sources including mechanics, optics
and ME a frame attached to the earth is inertial to a good degree of
accuracy. Conclusion - the speed of light does not depend on direction.
Experimental fact - on the earth to high accuracy TWLS is the same - which
basically what the MM experiment was looking for changes in depending on
direction. The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.
>
> Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
>>> apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
>>> matter?
>>
>>What apparatus is that? The one detailed in the post?
>>
> My question was about the apparatus detailed in the post. However, it
> could be asked of any apparatus that attempts to detected anisotropy
> in the speed of light through a gaseous or liquid medium.
>
> In such mediums we would expect the speed of light to be anisotropic
> due to lack of any fixed structure.
Again your logic escapes me.
>
> However, if an external field (eg magnetic or electric or ...) were to
> impose a preferred alignment on the molecules, that might cause the
> speed of light to vary according to direction.
>
We break isotropy by introducing a field - and guess what it may no longer
be isotropic. How marvelous.
>
> If this field was of terrestrial origin, then the anisotropy would
> rotate with the earth. This would not be particularly remarkable.
>
> However the evidence of the various gas mode MM type experiments
> suggests that an anisotropy has been discovered in the speed of light
> (in gases) that _does_not_ rotate with the earth.
>
> Whatever could cause such an effect must be of cosmic origin.
>
> It seems to be a tradition to assume such an effect implies detection
> of absolute motion.
>
Since you will not detail the precise nature of the experiments you are
talking about as well as the detailed analysis that leads step by inexorable
step to your conclusion so it can be examined by the experts who post on
sci.physics.relativity then your comments are basically hot air Mr. Cahill.
Bill
Henri Wilson
Fucking idiot.
The MMX null result is due to the glaringly obvious fact that light speed is c
in the source frame.
Everything in the MMX apparatus is in the source frame no matter which way you
turn it..
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson
Crank was just as difficult as his younger sister.
In fact, I believe the disapearing Crank has now returned under the name of
'Jerry'. .
They are certainly equally stupid.....must be genetic..
>
>Thanks
>Bill
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1134091831.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> >> Jerry wrote:
> >> > Max Keon wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> >
> >> > Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
> >> > Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
> >> > attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/90c7f4ce98a2ae3e
> >> >
> >> > Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
> >> > together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
> >> > your setup in detail.
> >> >
> >> > Jerry
> >>
> >> What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
> >> patient way of dealing with cranks is missed :D
> >
> > He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
> > evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
> > and computer programming.
>
> Funny, I always got the impression he as an experiment type guy rather than
> the IT math type.
You're right, he was. Before becoming a software engineer, he was a
biology professor and ran a molecular biology research laboratory
studying Myxococcus xanthus, hence his alternate name.
> > My parents' very expensive final
> > illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
> > with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
> > medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
> > he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
> > sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
> > wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
> > long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.
> >
> > Jerry
>
> Yes indeed; very good to hear. Minor crank was a voice of reason - he is
> missed.
Jerry
Jerry
> Crank was just as difficult as his younger sister.
>
> In fact, I believe the disapearing Crank has now returned under
> the name of 'Jerry'. .
Well, he did "ghost" one of my replies, once. Not to you, though.
For the most part, he wants to stay away because he considers
usenet to be addictive, and he was spending far too much of
his time on these groups. Sort of like being an alcoholic, he
can't allow himself to slip.
> They are certainly equally stupid.....must be genetic..
Since you reverse the meanings of "stupid" and "smart",
I suppose that's a compliment.
Jerry
Bill Hobba
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:t5mip1pod3v4q2e51...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:48:16 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>>news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>> Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
>>> laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
>>> By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
>>
>>I have never heard of wave lock. However analysis of the MMX has been
>>done
>>to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial
>>frame -
>>and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
>>produce a null result.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>> Hero
>>>
>>
>
> Fucking idiot.
My my - such language.
>
> The MMX null result is due to the glaringly obvious fact that light speed
> is c
> in the source frame.
> Everything in the MMX apparatus is in the source frame no matter which way
> you
> turn it..
>
Your knowledge of physics is about the same as your knowledge of appropriate
language.
Bill
>
>
>
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
>
Peter
wrote:
>
>"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message
>news:ggthp1tv79134kcf8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:44:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The reason the MM failed is
>>>simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the
>>>speed
>>>of light is the same regardless of direction.
>>>
>> I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
>> "failed".
>
>Because guys like you don't like it. It was generally thought at the time
>it would detect an aether - it did not - so by looking up that wonderful
>source called a dictionary people found the appropriate word - failed.
>
A failure for those who expected to find a Newtonian ether. But for
all of us who were taught to believe in SR, the MMX comfirms what we
were taught to believe.
So it was a success !
But I would also welcome a new theory that goes beyond SR and GTR.
If Cahill's work is a step in this direction, thats even better.
Eg.
"'Dark Matter' as a Quantum Foam In-Flow Effect"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405147
>
>>
>> (2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
>> properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
>> are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.
>>
>
>Your logic escapes me.
==============
From:
http://www.brocku.ca/earthsciences/people/gfinn/optical/anisintr.htm
Anisotropic minerals differ from isotropic minerals because:
1. the velocity of light varies depending on direction through the
mineral;
===============
We all know the speed of light _in_vacuo_ does not depend on
direction.
However, the MM and Miller experiments were done in air. Anything that
induced an anisotropy in the speed of light through air would cause
fringe shifts.
According to Cahill, fringe shifts have been observed in six
experiments that are consistent with absolute motion of the earth
through space.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/CahillMM.pdf
However, such fringe shifts would also be consistent with the motion
of the earth relative to something in space (eg dark matter). Dark
matter is required by GTR to account for the flat rotation curves of
spiral galaxies.
Peter
donsto...@hotmail.com
**************
So, logic is a substance which can flow?????
Hero.van...@gmx.de
> <Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> >> > wrote:
> > Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
> > laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
> > By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
>
> I have never heard of wave lock.
wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.
The wave-lock is a problem in modern tetra-laser gyros (1996 in
sci.optics in the thread "ring laser gyro ques" .
> However analysis of the MMX has been done
> to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial frame -
> and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
> produce a null result.
independent observer should be enough, or why not?
Thanks for Your reply
Sincerely Yours
Hero
>
> Bill
Dastardly Fiend
<Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1134215072....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> <Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> > Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
>> > laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
>> > By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
>>
>> I have never heard of wave lock.
> Think of a wave of a water wave - reflected the incoming and outgoing
> wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
> wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.
Oh, you mean a standing wave. Ok.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/standingWaves/standingWaves1/StandingWaves1.html
Ya gotta click on the little boxes to see all of it.
You are wasting your time on Hobba. He's an ineducable idiot.
Androcles.
Tom Roberts
>><Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>>news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
>>>By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
The MMX used an alcohol lamp for the light source, and that is incapable
of wave lock (no significant stimulated emission). Indeed, if one simply
used a laser as the light source in a Michelson interferometer, then
wave lock would be a major problem.
Wave lock usually a problem only for lasers in which a light beam near
the frequency of the laser is put into the laser -- in certain cases the
external light beam can lock the laser's output to itself, rather than
the laser output being determined by the laser's mirrors. This can
happen, for example, if the laser's output beam can be reflected back
down the same path its output beam followed.
[For example, Silvertooth did not know about this, and
all of his measurements have essentially 100% feedback into
his laser,. The resulting wave lock explains his otherwise
puzzling results.]
Competent experimenters using lasers will protect against this. See, for
example, Brillet and Hall [reference in the FAQ]. They used Faraday
isolators to prevent return signals from entering their lasers with any
significant strength.
This could be a problem for a laser-gyro, but it need not be. A laser
gyro can be built without mirrors inside the laser, using the entire
ring as the laser.
Back to the opening question above: A clever experimenter wanting to use
a laser in a Michelson interferometer would arrange to do something
similar and make the entire interferometer part of the laser.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> In isolation the results of the original MMX were
> inconclusive but when combined with the results of later MM type
> experiments, a coherent picture seems to emerge.
Yes, to some people it does indeed _SEEM_ to emerge. But when examined
using modern techniques it is clear that there is no SIGNIFICANT signal
present for any of them. The primary "modern technique" is ERRORBARS --
everyone who proclaims these old experiments had non-null results have
omitted an error analysis and the errorbars.
And, of course, they ignore more modern experiments with errorbars
millions of times smaller and null results.
> (1) Making inertial frames isotropic by definition, does not guarantee
> that nature will comply.
Of course not. But the MEASUREMENTS that have been made are all
consistent with such isotropy. At least all I have looked at (MMX and
Miller so far, as they are the primary ones cited).
> (2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
> properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
> are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.
Except the measurements are all consistent with isotropy.
> In such mediums we would expect the speed of light to be anisotropic
> due to lack of any fixed structure.
TYPO: "anisotropic" => "isotropic".
> However the evidence of the various gas mode MM type experiments
> suggests that an anisotropy has been discovered in the speed of light
> (in gases) that _does_not_ rotate with the earth.
No _SIGNIFICANT_ anisotropy has been observed. People who ignore
errorbars fool themselves.
> Whatever could cause such an effect must be of cosmic origin.
Not if it is merely a systematic error aliased into the frequency bin
where any real signal would be.
> It seems to be a tradition to assume such an effect implies detection
> of absolute motion.
> However, could such an effect not alternatively be due to say high
> speed motion through dark matter?
Sure. but one needs to find a SIGNIFICANT anisotropy first.
> I was just trying to suggest we don't jump to the conclusion that a
> "non-null" result necessarily implies absolute motion.
> A non-null result could imply motion relative to dark matter or
> something else in space, that potentially might be of great interest.
Sure. But one needs a _SIGNIFICANT_ non-null result.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> The setup was designed thus:
> _____________
> . screen .
> . .
> . .
> =Fiber optic collimator lens
> water path .
> /-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/--<--HeNe LASER
> \---------------------/
> air path
(ASCII art got completely screwed up -- see his description)
Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser. The resulting
mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.
Another poster called this "wave lock".
> And there are no temperature effects to be
> considered because both paths change in unison.
On the contrary, temperature effects will affect the mode lock.
Mode lock is probably impossible to avoid in such a setup. For instance,
even multiple Faraday isolators between the laser and the half-silvered
mirror will not guarantee to prevent it because the feedback is so large.
You need to figure out how to arrange for the mode lock to be part of he
experiment; in the process you ought to be able to improve sensitivity
by a large factor (typically the ratio of the total light path length to
the distance between the laser's mirrors). Note, however, that will
probably make the setup more finicky by that same ratio....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Hero.van...@gmx.de
That's an interesting point, the light returns into the light source.
What i was thinking about was the interference of the light beam going
to an from a mirror, the front part will interfere with the back part
of a pulse of light, wouldn't it? Now this might happen in both arms in
the MMX. But actually both light beams should only interfere in the
last moment to show some kind of a difference. A ball thrown against a
wall will return the same path - but a wave in water is of certain
length, and when reflected by a solid object it will interfere with
"itself", wouldn't it?
> This could be a problem for a laser-gyro, but it need not be. A laser
> gyro can be built without mirrors inside the laser, using the entire
> ring as the laser.
>
> Back to the opening question above: A clever experimenter wanting to use
> a laser in a Michelson interferometer would arrange to do something
> similar and make the entire interferometer part of the laser.
I did propose a different experiment in "Just a millimeter", without
any interference at all.
Thanks
Hero
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>> Crank was just as difficult as his younger sister.
>>
>> In fact, I believe the disapearing Crank has now returned under
>> the name of 'Jerry'. .
>
>Well, he did "ghost" one of my replies, once. Not to you, though.
>For the most part, he wants to stay away because he considers
>usenet to be addictive, and he was spending far too much of
>his time on these groups. Sort of like being an alcoholic, he
>can't allow himself to slip.
I know the feeling.
I think I will have to give it up too. Life is too short.
....besides, I'm tired of trying to re-educate the irreversibly indoctrinated.
.
>Jerry
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Bill Hobba
> On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:28:12 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter" <no_...@unknown.net> wrote in message
>>news:ggthp1tv79134kcf8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:44:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The reason the MM failed is
>>>>simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the
>>>>speed
>>>>of light is the same regardless of direction.
>>>>
>>> I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
>>> "failed".
>>
>>Because guys like you don't like it. It was generally thought at the time
>>it would detect an aether - it did not - so by looking up that wonderful
>>source called a dictionary people found the appropriate word - failed.
>>
> A failure for those who expected to find a Newtonian ether. But for
> all of us who were taught to believe in SR, the MMX comfirms what we
> were taught to believe.
> So it was a success !
Gee and one could probably call robbing a bank a success as well rather than
a failure for law enforcement - and you would probably take that view if you
were a bank robber. Your irrelevant sensless semantics is just that -
senseless and irrelevant. Its purpose is obvious - obfuscation.
>
> But I would also welcome a new theory that goes beyond SR and GTR.
> If Cahill's work is a step in this direction, thats even better.
>
As Dirk said you can stop the charade now - we all know you are Cahill.
Then present your findings so they can be examined by the experts who post
on sci.physics.relativity. Vague references devoid of specifics are usually
made by those who have nothing but hot air.
Bill
>
>
> Peter
>
Bill Hobba
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:TdDmf.32567$q%.18502@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Max Keon wrote:
>> The setup was designed thus:
>> _____________
>> . screen .
>> . .
>> . .
>> =Fiber optic collimator lens
>> water path .
>> /-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/--<--HeNe LASER
>> \---------------------/
>> air path
> (ASCII art got completely screwed up -- see his description)
>
> Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
> setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser. The resulting
> mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
> MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.
>
> Another poster called this "wave lock".
Thanks for clarifying that Tom - I had never heard of wave lock before. A
quick internet search bought back a whole lot of stuff on water.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:fMLmf.17028$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
To be specific your link stated:
'That these very different experiments show the same speed and RA of
absolute motion is one of the most startling discoveries of the twentieth
century. Torr and Kolen [8] using an East-West orientated nitrogen
gas-filled coaxial cable also detected absolute motion. It should be noted
that analogous optical fibre experiments give null results for the same
reason, apparently, that transparent solids in a
Michelson interferometer also give null results, and so behave differently
to coaxial cables.'
What you did not do was present a statistical analysis of the type Tom did
nor did you show any kind of balance by mentioning that such analysis is
perfectly consistent with no aether.
Bill
>
> Bill
>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>
Bill Hobba
<Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1134215072....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> <Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>> news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> > Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
>> > laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
>> > By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
>>
>> I have never heard of wave lock.
> Think of a wave of a water wave - reflected the incoming and outgoing
> wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
> wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.
> The wave-lock is a problem in modern tetra-laser gyros (1996 in
> sci.optics in the thread "ring laser gyro ques" .
>> However analysis of the MMX has been done
>> to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial
>> frame -
>> and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
>> produce a null result.
> Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes.
The same reason women have two breasts.
> One eye - as an
> independent observer should be enough, or why not?
One breast should be enough to feed the young.
Bill
Bill Hobba
BTW the answer of course is depth perception is better with two eyes.
Bill
Hero.van...@gmx.de
> However analysis of the MMX has been done
> to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial
> frame - and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
> produce a null result.
> >> Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes.
> > The same reason women have two breasts.
> >> One eye - as an
> >> independent observer should be enough, or why not?
> BTW the answer of course is depth perception is better with two eyes.
Women can feed two babies at the same time, some animals can feed even
more simultaneously.
Depth is something static, distance is a property of let's say a small
sandkorrel beeing blown through air onto one eye. So it's moving and
the second eye has a different picture on the movement of the grain of
sand - so it can "help" protecting the first eye.
All reference frames have the same right, but one on it's own gives a
subjective picture, an ego-centric view.
Now think of some light given off from a distant sun, let's say a short
outburst of some red light. This is now (highly)independent from it's
source in space and time, the source may be extinguished or else. One
observer with one reference frame will not, or not easily can tell the
form - is it an expanding sphere around it's orign, is it a cone, like
water waves from a moving ship ? And talking about speeds will even be
more difficult.
Two eyes spaced apart by two or three inches, form a segment of a line,
orientated with angles and directions to the objects observed. With
experience one can imagine, how these would look like for another
person at a different place, and with some phantasy one can imagine how
You would look like from the point of view of the grain of sand.
The distance of Your eyes is expressed in a coordinate system for one
eye as the two basic points spaced apart by one unit. With some
phantasy one can imagine how it will look like from the point of view
of the light from the red outburst. From one point there are only
directions, with two points depth and differences in pictures of the
same movement. There's no clock for this light ? What about if there's
rotating polarisation in it? From an point at the peripherie of
rotation world looks what we experience in a carussel on a fair. So in
arriving in Your eye some of this light will "end it's life" as light
and change into agitating nerves and warming molecules a tiny bit.
Now, i don't like to become a cyclop and that's why i'm enjoying
reading Your answers:
They give more depth to my thoughts, a lttle bit of course, as i not
always understand them completely, at least more than a "null
resultat", more than zero.
Regards
Hero
Bill Hobba
<Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1134327320....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Correct.
> is it a cone, like
> water waves from a moving ship ? And talking about speeds will even be
> more difficult.
> Two eyes spaced apart by two or three inches, form a segment of a line,
> orientated with angles and directions to the objects observed. With
> experience one can imagine, how these would look like for another
> person at a different place, and with some phantasy one can imagine how
> You would look like from the point of view of the grain of sand.
> The distance of Your eyes is expressed in a coordinate system for one
> eye as the two basic points spaced apart by one unit. With some
> phantasy one can imagine how it will look like from the point of view
> of the light from the red outburst. From one point there are only
> directions, with two points depth and differences in pictures of the
> same movement. There's no clock for this light ? What about if there's
> rotating polarisation in it? From an point at the peripherie of
> rotation world looks what we experience in a carussel on a fair. So in
> arriving in Your eye some of this light will "end it's life" as light
> and change into agitating nerves and warming molecules a tiny bit.
>
> Now, i don't like to become a cyclop and that's why i'm enjoying
> reading Your answers:
> They give more depth to my thoughts, a lttle bit of course, as i not
> always understand them completely, at least more than a "null
> resultat", more than zero.
I suspect you will get a better hearing for your musings on a philosophy
forum.
Bill
> Regards
> Hero
>
Max Keon
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:TdDmf.32567$q%.18502@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> The setup was designed thus:
>> _____________
>> . screen .
>> . .
>> . .
>> =Fiber optic collimator lens
>> water path .
>> \---------------------/
>> air path
> (ASCII art got completely screwed up -- see his description)
My apologies. I'll try and fix it.
> Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
> setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser.
That's very obviously true, prior to fitting the water tube. A very
clear and very rigidly fixed interference pattern involving just a
few wavelengths could be found anywhere along the paths, coming from
either direction. If the feedback direction is exactly square to the
HeNe laser output mirror face, a pattern of only a few Newton's
rings would result. The pattern I was getting indicated that the
feedback wasn't exactly square to the mirror face, but there was
still no doubt that the whole thing was phase locked.
When the water filled tube is introduced into the paths, the
interference patterns are no longer visible from either direction.
But that doesn't mean that the system isn't still phase locked. In
fact it most likely is. After the beam has passed through the water
filled tube its intensity has substantially reduced. The greatest
feedback is then generated in the reflection off the windows at each
end of the water tube. **The phase locking mechanism doesn't include
the water path.** In any case, it's hard to imagine how the thing
could always be phase locked with the variable flow rate water path
and the rest of the paths at the same time.
> The resulting
> mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
> MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.
There are no "confusing effects". All I see is exactly what is
predicted.
>> And there are no temperature effects to be
>> considered because both paths change in unison.
> On the contrary, temperature effects will affect the mode lock.
Yes. But I would certainly notice inconsistencies caused by such
effects within the time it takes me to point the apparatus east or
west. The thing always gives the right answer. What more could one
ask for?
There's really no way out of this one Tom.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
>
> The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.
But we can show OWLS anisotropy, can't we! I think my presentation
was more than adequate. Don't blame me if you can't understand it.
-----
Max Keon
donsto...@hotmail.com
***********************************
"The vaglestun purstrators have vipped the karsdale furblesons on Beta
Lyrae during the Garloxian festival".
Dastardly Fiend
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d636c$0$9289$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:MB8mf.15132$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.
OWLV is required. OWLS has no direction.
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:439d636c$0$9289$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> news:MB8mf.15132$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.
>
> But we can show OWLS anisotropy, can't we!
Errrr. No - you are still faced with the issue of syncing the clocks.
> I think my presentation
> was more than adequate. Don't blame me if you can't understand it.
>
I did not even attempt it until you answer my simple query that you avoided.
Since then Tom Robbers has examined it - and guess what - it is far from
adequate.
Bill
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
>
>
>
Bill Hobba
Just as there is no way out of avoiding syncing clocks to measure OWLS and
get meaningful results. Basically you can't do it.
Bill
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
>
>
>
shevek
> >light isotropy is concerned with.
> >
> Hi Bill,
>
> Couldn't resist checking this NG again before my trip and noticed this
> very interesting post.
>
> I read Cahill's mathematical analysis of MM type experiments at:
> http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
>
> If he is correct then when an MM type experiment is performed in a
> vacuum, Lorentz effects prevent any anisotropy in the speed of light.
> Hence vacuum mode MM type experiments will never exhibit fringe shifts
> and will always confirm SR.
>
> However, when an MM type experiment is performed in a gas, owing to
> the fact that the gas reduces the speed of light to _less_ than c, the
> Lorentz effects are no longer able to prevent anisotrophy.
>
> Hence gas mode MM type experiments _should_ exhibit fringe shifts.
> [..]
Cahill's error is in ascribing the velocity of light as measured in the
aether frame to be V=c/n. Actually that is the velocity of light as
measured in the laboratory frame.. in moving to the aether frame the
velocity addition formula should be used. (see the |P between
equations 1 and 2 in your link).
This is especially important when the light is travelling parallel to
the motion of the laboratory through space-time.
Max Keon
> SPEED OF LIGHT ANISOTROPY PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.
>
> The proof is clearly displayed using a setup that's similar to
> Fizeau's ether drag experiment, but with major variations in that
> there's only a single straight tube carrying the liquid flow and
> the apparatus can be rotated to point east or west.
I've noticed an oversight in the original post that I think warrants
correcting, even though it's of no real consequence to the outcome
of the experiment.
--------------
Assuming that light traveling in a vacuum local to the earth
propagates relative to the ECI frame, the 400 m/sec tangential
velocity of the water relative to the ECI frame would drag the
light propagation base along with it to some degree.
WATER
c = 3E+8
wl = 634 Wavelength in nanometers.
n = 1.332 Water refractive index.
v = 400 Tangential velocity.
pl = 1800000000 Path length in nanometers.
Linear speed of light = 1/n = .7507507507507507 * c
Water propagation center is dragged v*(1-(1/n^2))
= 174.5493240988737 m/sec east of the ECI frame.
Beam source is 400 - 174.5493240988737 = 225.4506759011263
m/sec further east than the propagation center, relative to
the speed of light with no medium. Relative to the speed
of light in water, the propagation base is
225.4506759011263 / .7507507507507507 = 300.3003003003003 m/sec
to the west. All other time-distance measurements change in
accordance with that slower speed of light, which has no effect on
the result.
The distance that the beam must travel along the water path
increases pointing east and decreases pointing west, at the rate
of 300.3003003003003 meters per second of path length.
Number of wavelengths along the path if the device is fixed with
the ECI frame = pl/(wl*1/n) = 3781703.470031546
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing east
= (((c+((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 3781707.255520505
----------
I plucked the above equation (and three similar) from the program
I was using, and didn't notice that I hadn't given a value for "a".
"a" is replaced with (1/n) being the speed of light for the medium.
I've added a little more to the web page as well,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
-----
Max Keon
Bilge
><Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>news:1134215072....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Bill Hobba wrote:
>>> <Hero.van...@gmx.de> wrote in message
>>> news:1134061751....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> > Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
>>> > laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
>>> > By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?
>>>
>>> I have never heard of wave lock.
>> Think of a wave of a water wave - reflected the incoming and outgoing
>> wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
>> wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.
>> The wave-lock is a problem in modern tetra-laser gyros (1996 in
>> sci.optics in the thread "ring laser gyro ques" .
>>> However analysis of the MMX has been done
>>> to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial
>>> frame -
>>> and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
>>> produce a null result.
>> Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes.
>
>The same reason women have two breasts.
I always thought that was why I had two hands.
>> One eye - as an
>> independent observer should be enough, or why not?
>
>One breast should be enough to feed the young.
You mean -- they aren't just decorative?