Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372785 > unrolled thread

Re: A Particle Model of Light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:49 +0300
    Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 04:38 -0800
      Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-26 15:06 +0000
      Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 21:57 +0300
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 13:17 -0800
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:15 +0000
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 15:40 +0300
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:41 +0000
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:11 +0300
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 14:32 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:05 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:24 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:57 -0600
                  Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:26 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:13 -0800
                  Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:21 -0800
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:26 -0600
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 18:48 +0000
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:29 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:19 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
                  Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:03 +0300
                    Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 17:28 -0800
                      Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 15:41 +0300
                        Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 05:02 -0800
                          Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 21:00 +0300
                            Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 01:04 -0800
                              Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 18:45 +0300
                                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:33 -0800
                            Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 20:50 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-05 19:50 -0600
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:33 +0000
                  Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 12:40 -0600
                    Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 22:27 +0000
                      Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 19:15 +0300
                        Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:00 +0000
                          Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:02 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#373362

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 10:18:37 AM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel to Tom Roberts:
> >
> > > He "corrected" all of his data  for  aberration.
> > > But  aberration  DOES  NOT  APPLY  to  a geosyn-
> > > chronous satellite. See my post  from  yesterday
> > > on this.
> >
> > Which explains why he got the "results" he did.
> 
> Do  you really agree with Tom?

Yes.

> I mean, have you really found the said correction in  Shtyrkov's
> paper and  can  point  the  equation(s)  into which it has crept?
> 
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

No, because Shtyrkov doesn't give us that equation.  That's why I
was asking about it.  How can he get a speed from an azimuth variation?
Note that 27 km/sec is outrageously large and conflicts with all other
ether "measurements.  How can everyone else not see what Shtyrkov saw?
One laboratory claiming results that conflict with everyone else is
not credible for me.  I'd have to see their data and a lot more, and
Tom's analysis places in the spurious category.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373372

Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:

> > Do  you really agree with Tom?  I mean, have you
> > really found the said correction  in  Shtyrkov's
> > paper  and  can point the equation(s) into which
> > it has crept?
>
> No, because Shtyrkov doesn't give  us  that  equa-
> tion.  That's why I was asking about it.

Yes,  I  have read it but haven't had time to answer
the whole post.  Shtyrkov calculates the  ether  ve-
locity  using  eqs. 7 and 8.  What other equation do
you want?  You seem to accuse Shtyrkov of  something
not present in the actual equations he uses.  And if
so, this supposed error has nothing to with his  re-
sults.

> How can he get a speed from an azimuth variation?

The  ether  wind "bends" the path of electromagnetic
waves just as a breeze wound  bend  the  path  of  a
sound wave.  The amount of this drift is proportion-
al to the component of the ether wind orthogonal  to
the radius-vector to the source, so the deviation of
the observed angle from the actual one allows one to
calculate that component Ver of the ether velocity:

             sin(Aobs - Aact) = Ver/c ,

which  is  more complicated in the paper (eq. 1) be-
cause of treating latitude and longitude  separately
and  then  converting them by eq. 4 into an azimuth.
Whereas the ether wind due to the orbital motion  of
the  Earth, if it existed, would have diurnal varia-
tions with a magnitude of approximately the  orbital
velocity  of the Earth, we should expect this devia-
tion to have the corresponding value.  Shtyrkov says
his observations agree with this prediction.

> Note that 27 km/sec is outrageously large and con-
> flicts with all other ether "measurements."

In Shtyrkov's experiment  the  electromagnetic  wave
travelled largely above the atmosphere and therefore
outside the zone where the ether is entrained.

> How can everyone else not see what  Shtyrkov  saw?
> One laboratory claiming results that conflict with
> everyone else is not credible for me.

Has anyone else used a light path through  the  near
space?   To my knowledge, all other experiments were
performed on Earth, and often in basements, or  when
the  ether wind was screened by metal tubes and cas-
es.

> I'd have to see their data and  a  lot  more,  and
> Tom's analysis places in the spurious category.

Understandable.    How  many  experimenters  publish
their raw data these days?

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373381

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:03:57 PM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:
> >
> > No, because Shtyrkov doesn't give  us  that  equa-
> > tion.  That's why I was asking about it.
> 
> Yes,  I  have read it but haven't had time to answer
> the whole post.  Shtyrkov calculates the  ether  ve-
> locity  using  eqs. 7 and 8.

There is no velocity variable in either of those equations.

> What other equation do you want?

One that explains how velocity was obtained in Figure 4 from
the data in Figure 3.

> You seem to accuse Shtyrkov of  something not present in
> the actual equations he uses.

Yes, _velocity_!

> And if so, this supposed error has nothing to with his
> results.
> 
> > How can he get a speed from an azimuth variation?
> 
> The  ether  wind "bends" the path of electromagnetic
> waves just as a breeze wound  bend  the  path  of  a
> sound wave.

Baloney.

> The amount of this drift is proportional to the
> component of the ether wind orthogonal  to
> the radius-vector to the source, so the deviation of
> the observed angle from the actual one allows one to
> calculate that component Ver of the ether velocity:
> 
>              sin(Aobs - Aact) = Ver/c ,

But beta = V_orbital/c, and there is NO aberration.

> ....

> > Note that 27 km/sec is outrageously large and con-
> > flicts with all other ether "measurements."
> 
> In Shtyrkov's experiment  the  electromagnetic  wave
> travelled largely above the atmosphere and therefore
> outside the zone where the ether is entrained.

Other experiments refute entrained ether.

> > How can everyone else not see what  Shtyrkov  saw?
> > One laboratory claiming results that conflict with
> > everyone else is not credible for me.
> 
> Has anyone else used a light path through  the  near
> space?   To my knowledge, all other experiments were
> performed on Earth, and often in basements, or  when
> the  ether wind was screened by metal tubes and cas-
> es.

Look at LLR experiments and NASA spacecraft position
determination.  These completely refute any ether
effects.

> > I'd have to see their data and  a  lot  more,  and
> > Tom's analysis places in the spurious category.
> 
> Understandable.    How  many  experimenters  publish
> their raw data these days?
> 
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Irrelevant:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- Marcello Truzzi

You can't support an outrageous result obtained by
saying, "Well, others don't present their data."
That's just baloney.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373452

Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:

> > Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > Shtyrkov   doesn't   give  us  that  equation.
> > > That's why I was asking about it.
> >
> > Yes, I have read it but haven't had time to  an-
> > swer  the  whole  post.  Shtyrkov calculates the
> > ether velocity using eqs. 7 and 8.
>
> There is no velocity variable in either  of  those
> equations.

The  orbital component of the ether wind velocity is
contained in beta_orb, which is there in eq. 8.  The
galactic  component  is  contained  in  beta_apx, on
which depends the parameter p of  eq. 8.   The  lead
phase  upsilon from eq. 8 is present in eq. 7, which
is the model of the ether drift effect.

> > What other equation do you want?
>
> One that explains how  velocity  was  obtained  in
> Figure 4 from the data in Figure 3.

By  measuring  the amplitude of the observed azimuth
alpha_obs and the phase difference  upsilon  between
the  observed  and actual azimuths, and substituting
them into eq. 8.  This having been perfomed for sev-
eral  dates, the ether wind orbital and galactic ve-
locities were calculated numerically in MathCAD.

> > > How can he get a speed from an azimuth  varia-
> > > tion?
> >
> > The  ether  wind "bends" the path of electromag-
> > netic waves just as a breeze wound bend the path
> > of a sound wave.
>
> Baloney.

Is  that  what you say for lack of reasonable objec-
tions?  Or did you dislike the word "bend"?  If  so,
might  "deflect" be more accurate?  The path remains
straight of course, but its direction changes.  I am
sorry if you understood me otherwise.

> > The  amount of this drift is proportional to the
> > component of the ether wind  orthogonal  to  the
> > radius-vector to the source, so the deviation of
> > the observed angle from the  actual  one  allows
> > one to calculate that component Ver of the ether
> > velocity:
> >
> >            sin(Aobs - Aact) = Ver/c .
>
> But beta = V_orbital/c

tan a ~ sin a ~ a for small angles a.

You mean the beta of Bradley's  stellar  aberration?
What does it have to do with the deflection of light
by  transvese  ether  wind?    Shtyrkov   introduces
beta_orb  and  beta_apx,  which  are  not related to
Bradley's beta because they depend solely on the or-
bital and galactic components of the ether wind.

> and there is NO aberration.

If  you  mean  Bradley's stellar aberration, then of
course it does not apply to a  geostationary  satel-
lite.   The  hypothetical  aberration  due  to ether
wind, however, does, and Shtyrkov tests this hypoth-
esis.

> > > Note  that 27 km/sec is outrageously large and
> > > conflicts with all other ether "measurements."
> >
> > In  Shtyrkov's  experiment  the  electromagnetic
> > wave  travelled largely above the atmosphere and
> > therefore outside the zone where  the  ether  is
> > entrained.
>
> Other experiments refute entrained ether.

What other experiments do you mean?  I know none.

> Look  at LLR experiments and NASA spacecraft posi-
> tion determination.  These completely  refute  any
> ether effects.

The  conditions  in LLR are different, namely -- the
source is not located where the  ether  wind  blows.
Have you analysed the reflexion of light by a mirror
moving  through  the  ether  and  applied  it  to  a
retroreflector?

I  don't know about "NASA spacecraft position deter-
mination" and you didn't provide any links.

> > > I'd have to see their data and a lot more, and
> > > Tom's  analysis places in the spurious catego-
> > > ry.
> >
> > Understandable.  How many experimenters  publish
> > their raw data these days?
>
> Irrelevant:
>
>    "Extraordinary   claims  require  extraordinary
>    evidence."
>
>                                  - Marcello Truzzi

Another unscientific objection, appealing to the au-
thority of pseudascientist Truzzi.  I think you mis-
interpret the phrase as a die-hard  reactionary  who
will impede scientific progress by encouraging prej-
udice in treating evidence.  A true  scientist  will
let  no bias muddle his mind and will judge evidence
according to its own value instead of  his  own,  or
others', prejudices.

If  "extraordinary results" will be dismissed as not
providing  "extraordinary  evidence"  the  necessary
corroboration  shall  never be allowed to accumulate
to an extraordinary level.  Therefore they  must  be
treated  fairly.  Any theory that takes advantage of
its monopoly is dangerous.

> You can't support an outrageous result obtained by
> saying,  "Well,  others don't present their data."
> That's just baloney.

I do not "support"  it  that  way,  but  simply  de-
mostrate  that  you  cannot  refute an experiment by
saying "Well, he did not publish his raw data."   If
you  require raw data of Shtyrkov and not of the ex-
perimenters with whose results you agree, you evince
prejudice and double standards.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373455

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 5:40:59 AM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> ....
> The  orbital component of the ether wind velocity is
> contained in beta_orb, which is there in eq. 8.  The
> galactic  component  is  contained  in  beta_apx, on
> which depends the parameter p of  eq. 8.   The  lead
> phase  upsilon from eq. 8 is present in eq. 7, which
> is the model of the ether drift effect.

The problem with doing that has been explained by Roberts.
The error bars are much larger than the supposed effect.
Tom's treatise on Dayton Miller's experiment shows what
happens when you have this situation.  And you have Tom's
claim that S incorporated aberration into his analysis
and saw his own inserted artifact instead of any real
effect.  I trust Tom more than you.  Sorry, but that's
just the way it is.  How else can S have gotten a number
three times bigger than Michelson was able to detect and
even larger than the detection limits of other experiments?

It appears to me that you are riding a dead horse.  I'm
not really interested in trying to convince you of
something you have clearly shown you don't want to be
convinced of.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373464

Anton Shepelev:
   Shtyrkov  calculates  the  ether  velocity  using
   eqs. 7 and 8.

Gary Harnagel:
   There is no velocity variable in either of  those
   equations.

Anton Shepelev:
   The  orbital component of the ether wind velocity
   is contained  in  beta_orb,  which  is  there  in
   eq. 8.   The  galactic  component is contained in
   beta_apx, on which depends  the  parameter  p  of
   eq. 8.  The lead phase upsilon from eq. 8 is pre-
   sent in eq. 7, which is the model  of  the  ether
   drift effect.

Gary Harnagel:
   The problem with doing that has been explained by
   Roberts.  The error bars are much larger than the
   supposed   effect.    Tom's  treatise  on  Dayton
   Miller's experiment shows what happens  when  you
   have this situation.

You have now jumped to another argument without com-
pleting the one about Shtyrkov's ether drift  model.
You  have  no  way  of knowing the size of the error
bars in Shtyrkov unless you have analysed the  piece
of his raw data that I posted earlier.

> And you have Tom's claim that S incorporated aber-
> ration into his analysis and saw his own  inserted
> artifact instead of any real effect.

I  have,  but Tom did not care to specify this arti-
fact in Shtyrkov's ether drift model  by  naming  an
equation  and pinning down the exact term or expres-
sion that he thinks is erroneous.

> I trust Tom more than you.  Sorry, but that's just
> the way it is.

That's  all  right  by me.  Appeals to authority and
personal preferences are not science, and I couldn't
discuss them, at least outside the context of objec-
tive evidence and substantial arguments.

> How else can S have gotten a  number  three  times
> bigger  than Michelson was able to detect and even
> larger than the detection limits of other  experi-
> ments?

I have already said how -- by conducting the experi-
ment in the near space, where the ether is less  en-
trained by the Earth and its atmospere.

> I'm  not  really  interested in trying to convince
> you of something you have clearly shown you  don't
> want to be convinced of.

If you want to accuse me of prejudice, be so kind as
to provide corroboration in the form of  quotes  and
(optionally) explanations.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373513

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:59:24 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Anton Shepelev:
>    Shtyrkov  calculates  the  ether  velocity  using
>    eqs. 7 and 8.
> 
> Gary Harnagel:
>    There is no velocity variable in either of  those
>    equations.
> 
> Anton Shepelev:
>    The  orbital component of the ether wind velocity
>    is contained  in  beta_orb,  which  is  there  in
>    eq. 8.   The  galactic  component is contained in
>    beta_apx, on which depends  the  parameter  p  of
>    eq. 8.  The lead phase upsilon from eq. 8 is pre-
>    sent in eq. 7, which is the model  of  the  ether
>    drift effect.
> 
> Gary Harnagel:
>    The problem with doing that has been explained by
>    Roberts.  The error bars are much larger than the
>    supposed   effect.    Tom's  treatise  on  Dayton
>    Miller's experiment shows what happens  when  you
>    have this situation.
> 
> You have now jumped to another argument without com-
> pleting the one about Shtyrkov's ether drift  model.
> You  have  no  way  of knowing the size of the error
> bars in Shtyrkov unless you have analysed the  piece
> of his raw data that I posted earlier.
> 
> > And you have Tom's claim that S incorporated aber-
> > ration into his analysis and saw his own  inserted
> > artifact instead of any real effect.
> 
> I  have,  but Tom did not care to specify this arti-
> fact in Shtyrkov's ether drift model  by  naming  an
> equation  and pinning down the exact term or expres-
> sion that he thinks is erroneous.
> 
> > I trust Tom more than you.  Sorry, but that's just
> > the way it is.
> 
> That's  all  right  by me.  Appeals to authority and
> personal preferences are not science, and I couldn't
> discuss them, at least outside the context of objec-
> tive evidence and substantial arguments.
> 
> > How else can S have gotten a  number  three  times
> > bigger  than Michelson was able to detect and even
> > larger than the detection limits of other  experi-
> > ments?
> 
> I have already said how -- by conducting the experi-
> ment in the near space, where the ether is less  en-
> trained by the Earth and its atmospere.
> 
> > I'm  not  really  interested in trying to convince
> > you of something you have clearly shown you  don't
> > want to be convinced of.
> 
> If you want to accuse me of prejudice, be so kind as
> to provide corroboration in the form of  quotes  and
> (optionally) explanations.
> 
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Your point of the difference between near and far aether entrainment is worth consideration. Also the transverse leg of the M&M experiment is in question as it is tracking c2=(c^2-v^2)/2 according to measurements made by Norbert Feist with audio in a wind tunnel. This was unexpected and calls for a second look at the M&M math model for the transverse leg. c2=(c^2-v^2)/2 puts a aether wind outside the range of measurement therefore inconclusive.

Norbert Feist can be found at

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/norbertfeist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373560

John Heath to Anton Shepelev:

> > Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > How  else  can  S  have  gotten a number three
> > > times bigger than Michelson was able to detect
> > > and  even  larger than the detection limits of
> > > other experiments?
> >
> > I have already said how -- by conducting the ex-
> > periment  in  the near space, where the ether is
> > less entrained by the Earth and its atmospere.
>
> Your point of the difference between near and  far
> aether entrainment is worth consideration.

Dayton Miller was probably the first to make the ob-
servation, but it was ignored  by  the  majority  of
those  who made later "repetitions" with predictably
negative outcomes.

> Also the transverse leg of the M&M  experiment  is
> in question as it is tracking c2=(c^2-v^2)/2 ->

I  don't  know  German,  but think you have mistyped
Feist's equation:

                 Ch = (c^2 - v^2)/c

> -> according to measurements made by Norbert Feist
> with audio in a wind tunnel.

I can't read that paper and can't comment on the re-
sults of his measurements.  How does he  derive  his
formula  for the tranverse speed and what error does
he see in the standard derivation of

               Ctr = sqrt(c^2 - v^2)

from the velocity triangle?  Why  is  the  situation
not equivalent to a boats's crossing a river?

> Norbert Feist can be found at
> http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/norbertfeist.html

That's  not  Fiest, but Bruhn refuting Feist, and in
my opinion Bruhn is correct.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373580

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 11:03:10 PM UTC-5, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> John Heath to Anton Shepelev:
> 
> > > Gary Harnagel:
> > >
> > > > How  else  can  S  have  gotten a number three
> > > > times bigger than Michelson was able to detect
> > > > and  even  larger than the detection limits of
> > > > other experiments?
> > >
> > > I have already said how -- by conducting the ex-
> > > periment  in  the near space, where the ether is
> > > less entrained by the Earth and its atmospere.
> >
> > Your point of the difference between near and  far
> > aether entrainment is worth consideration.
> 
> Dayton Miller was probably the first to make the ob-
> servation, but it was ignored  by  the  majority  of
> those  who made later "repetitions" with predictably
> negative outcomes.
> 
> > Also the transverse leg of the M&M  experiment  is
> > in question as it is tracking c2=(c^2-v^2)/2 ->
> 
> I  don't  know  German,  but think you have mistyped
> Feist's equation:
> 
>                  Ch = (c^2 - v^2)/c
> 
> > -> according to measurements made by Norbert Feist
> > with audio in a wind tunnel.
> 
> I can't read that paper and can't comment on the re-
> sults of his measurements.  How does he  derive  his
> formula  for the tranverse speed and what error does
> he see in the standard derivation of
> 
>                Ctr = sqrt(c^2 - v^2)
> 
> from the velocity triangle?  Why  is  the  situation
> not equivalent to a boats's crossing a river?
> 
> > Norbert Feist can be found at
> > http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/norbertfeist.html
> 
> That's  not  Fiest, but Bruhn refuting Feist, and in
> my opinion Bruhn is correct.
> 
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

The original Feist paper
 
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.687.4535

Click the cached icon to download. 

And yes c2(c^2-v^2)/c 

A follow up in 2006.

http://www.norbertfeist.de/english.htm

The Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971 may be interpreted as a confirmation of the Feist experiment as the east and west bound planes had different RS time dilation consistent with an aether wind caused by the rotation of the earth at the equator , around 1000 MPH or 1600 KMH 1000s of feet above the equator. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

I would add that the Feist experiment when using a car did not have signal to noise problems that were found in the wind tunnel , error bars , in the data. It was within 3 D.B. point energy wise between M&M model and Feist model favoring the Feist model as can be seen in this graphic of Feist black debit curve VS M&M red curve.

http://www.nanoworld.org.ru/data/20030901/1229/index.htm

I do not share the opinion that this proves SR to be wrong. It simply brings us closer to knowing why SR is correct as it seems to be movement relative to a gravity field which is a mix of SR and GR. The earth's gravitational field does not have a reason to rotate as the earth rotates in the same way an electric field from the earth would not rotate with the earth. The point being made is we are moving through the earth's gravitational field at 1000 MPH when at the equator thus an aether wind of 1000 MPH confirmed by the Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971 that was 1000s of feet above the ground. When this is combined with your input of near and far aether entrainment a broader and more intuitive picture comes to focus where SR and GR are correct. A little burned on the edges but still there standing tall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373562

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:59:24 AM UTC-7, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>
> Anton Shepelev:
>    Shtyrkov  calculates  the  ether  velocity  using
>    eqs. 7 and 8.
> 
> Gary Harnagel:
> > How else can S have gotten a  number  three  times
> > bigger  than Michelson was able to detect and even
> > larger than the detection limits of other  experi-
> > ments?
> 
> I have already said how -- by conducting the experi-
> ment in the near space, where the ether is less  en-
> trained by the Earth and its atmospere.

There is no entrainment effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment#Consequences_for_Aether_drag_hypothesis

> > I'm  not  really  interested in trying to convince
> > you of something you have clearly shown you  don't
> > want to be convinced of.
> 
> If you want to accuse me of prejudice, be so kind as
> to provide corroboration in the form of  quotes  and
> (optionally) explanations.
> 
> -- 
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

I have done so:  The experience of the LLREs, which involve most of the
propagation distances outside the earth's atmosphere, would surely have
discovered any aether effects.  Likewise for NASA's determination of
distances to its spacecraft.  These operations have been performed many,
many times and are ongoing and refute your claims about any kind of aether
except the one admitted by Einstein: one that has NO effect on the
propagation of light.

And your continual support of Dayton Miller's experiment in the face
of the work done by Roberts is very troubling.

Dismissal of this multitudinous information is an example of one who
is wearing blinders and refuses to accept reality.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373382

On 1/4/16 1/4/16   7:29 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 11:26:09 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 12/26/15 12/26/15   3:17 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> Reducing the error by making many observations is an acceptable procedure.
>> ONLY SOMETIMES. For measuring the length of a static object, averaging can
>> usually be used to reduce the errorbar. But averaging data has long been
>> known to fool experimenters, because the process of averaging can have
>> additional effects.
>> When the data comprise a time-sequence of values, one should fit the
>> theoretical function of time to the data.
>
> Isn't that what Miller did?

No. For each run he averaged all the turns together, removing the time 
dependence [#]. He subtracted a LINEAR background, but his actual background is 
nowhere near linear, and the result is not really useful. But he did not know this.

	[#] His actual signal is time-independent but orientation-
	dependent, and the orientation varies in time. His
	background is time-dependent and possibly orientation-
	dependent. I found no significant orientation dependence
	in his background, but serious and very non-linear time
	dependence.


> Of course, it would have been really hard
> for him to have done a complete analysis.

Yes, for several reasons, the most important of which is that back then they did 
not understand the importance of error analysis, and did not have either the 
intellectual or computational tools to perform one.

	Had Miller simply performed the basic error analysis for
	just the averaging, he would immediately have known that
	his analysis was yielding nonsense. That is my Fig. 5.
	I do not know when error analyses became common (certainly
	long before I was in school in the 1970s), but I do
	remember looking through the volume his paper was
	published in and noting that almost no plots had errorbars.


> I would think that, today, one could choose a series of sinusoidal periods
> and phases and calculate a least-squares fit to each.  Is that a valid
> technique?

One must model the background. Once that is done and subtracted off, then a 
Fourier transform will do the equivalent of that fit simultaneously, for all 
relevant sinusoids. In part IV of my paper this last is what I did, with the 
result that all Fourier components are zero for the runs with reasonable 
stability (i.e. all he had was background, no orientation dependence at all).

	The reason this works here is that the orientation dependence
	is periodic.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373403

Tom Roberts wrote:

> No. For each run he averaged all the turns together, removing the time
> dependence [#]. He subtracted a LINEAR background, but his actual
> background is nowhere near linear, and the result is not really useful.
> But he did not know this.
> 
> 	[#] His actual signal is time-independent but orientation-
> 	dependent, and the orientation varies in time. His background is
> 	time-dependent and possibly orientation- dependent. I found no
> 	significant orientation dependence in his background, but serious 
>	and very non-linear time dependence.

This is where your analysis fails. Once you don't know the linear-nonlinear 
dependency, there is no reason to declare that it is "very non-linear 
dependence". You don't know *the dependency in time*. Is that Random, 
Function dependent, logarithmic, exponential, how?? [#]

    [#] because the fox doesn't engage in any conscious deliberation of 
eating grapes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373415

On 1/6/16 1/6/16 - 9:33 AM, Kathleen Winder wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> No. For each run he averaged all the turns together, removing the time
>> dependence [#]. He subtracted a LINEAR background, but his actual
>> background is nowhere near linear, and the result is not really useful.
>> But he did not know this.
>>
>> 	[#] His actual signal is time-independent but orientation-
>> 	dependent, and the orientation varies in time. His background is
>> 	time-dependent and possibly orientation- dependent. I found no
>> 	significant orientation dependence in his background, but serious
>> 	and very non-linear time dependence.
>
> This is where your analysis fails. Once you don't know the linear-nonlinear
> dependency, there is no reason to declare that it is "very non-linear
> dependence". You don't know *the dependency in time*. Is that Random,
> Function dependent, logarithmic, exponential, how??

READ THE PAPER. The time dependence for Miller's background (in this run) at 
each marker is given in figure 10. It is none of your guesses; not even close.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373496

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> This is where your analysis fails. Once you don't know the
>> linear-nonlinear dependency, there is no reason to declare that it is
>> "very non-linear dependence". You don't know *the dependency in time*.
>> Is that Random, Function dependent, logarithmic, exponential, how??
> 
> READ THE PAPER. The time dependence for Miller's background (in this
> run) at each marker is given in figure 10. It is none of your guesses;
> not even close.

We agree. The dependency is not on time, but on temperature /strain and 
gravity. He used malleable Iron girders, instead of something with rigid 
crystal structure, as ceramics or stones. I don't need to read the paper, 
is clear already. I wonder how he could allow himself coming out saying 
this and that, without thinking on things which were obvious before the 
start of the "experiment".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373561

Kathleen Winder to Tom Roberts:

> > READ THE PAPER. The time dependence for Miller's
> > background (in this run) at each marker is given
> > in  figure  10.  It is none of your guesses; not
> > even close.
>
> We agree.  The dependency is not on time,  but  on
> temperature/strain and gravity.  He used malleable
> Iron girders,  instead  of  something  with  rigid
> crystal structure, as ceramics or stones.  I don't
> need to read the paper, is clear already.  I  won-
> der  how  he could allow himself coming out saying
> this and that, without thinking  on  things  which
> were obvious before the start of the "experiment".

If  you  had read Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson
conference:

  http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf

and his detailed 1933 report

  http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf

telling about his experiments you  would  know  that
the effects of temperature and magnetostriction were
taken into account and exhaustively tested, e.g.:

  Before announcing such a result, it seemed  neces-
  sary  to  study  every  possible cause which might
  produce a displace- ment  of  fringes  similar  to
  that caused by ether- drift; among the causes sug-
  gested were radiant heat,  centrifugal  and  gyro-
  static   action,  irregular  gravitation  effects,
  yielding of the foundation, magnetic  polarization
  and  magnetostriction.   In   order  to  test  the
  first, the metal parts of the interferometer  were
  completely covered with cork about one inch thick,
  and fifty sets of observations consisting  of  273
  turns were made; there was a periodic displacement
  of the fringes,  as  in  the  first  observations,
  showing  that radiant heat is not the cause of the
  observed effect.

and that the strain on the interferometer  was  zero
while it flowed in its mercury pool.

Do  you  think  that  temperature oscillatons in the
room could be so rapid and  strong  as  to  cause  a
high-frequency noise in the heavy metal interferome-
ter?  I think not, becuase metal works as a heat ca-
pacitor,  or  a high-pass filter for temperature os-
cillations!

As to gravity, how much could it change  during  the
eightteen  minutes required one "data run"?  I doubt
it could produce high-frequency  noise  either,  be-
cause  it would chagne slowly and monotonously, just
like the temperature.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373567

Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Do  you  think  that  temperature oscillatons in the room could be so
> rapid and  strong  as  to  cause  a high-frequency noise in the heavy
> metal interferome- ter?  I think not, becuase metal works as a heat ca-
> pacitor,  or  a high-pass filter for temperature os-
> cillations!

I see you are merely a theorist, seemingly with not much laboratory 
experience in the field (see optics). Forget then the temperature 
variation, and focus only on Gravity and Low Frequency vibrations from the 
airplane. Even an asymmetric torque and catch of a bolt or skrew may give 
discrepancy in output reads, due to gravity. More important the vibration, 
(the body of the airplane, due to turbulence, pressure change, sun/clouds, 
humidity, temp etc etc) today easy! to remove in software filters, 
directly from the signal. But in those days they had not computational 
power.

I can tell you one thing. This stuff is pretty hard to do even in Dark 
Rooms laboratory conditions. So, mister Tom is not stupid, he knows 
material. I guess he started looking at it, in the first place, just for 
the reasons I gave you above. It goes like this:

    Read a paper which seemingly appears controversial --> refute.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373568

Carmine Portacio wrote:

> Anton Shepelev wrote:
> 
>> Do  you  think  that  temperature oscillatons in the room could be so
>> rapid and  strong  as  to  cause  a high-frequency noise in the heavy
>> metal interferome- ter?  I think not, becuase metal works as a heat ca-
>> pacitor,  or  a high-pass filter for temperature os-
>> cillations!
> 
> I see you are merely a theorist, seemingly with not much laboratory
> experience in the field (see optics). Forget then the temperature
> variation, and focus only on Gravity and Low Frequency vibrations from
> the airplane. Even an asymmetric torque and catch of a bolt or skrew may
> give discrepancy in output reads, due to gravity. More important the
> vibration,
> (the body of the airplane, due to turbulence, pressure change,
> sun/clouds,
> humidity, temp etc etc) today easy! to remove in software filters,
> directly from the signal. But in those days they had not computational
> power.
> 
> I can tell you one thing. This stuff is pretty hard to do even in Dark
> Rooms laboratory conditions. So, mister Tom is not stupid, he knows
> material. I guess he started looking at it, in the first place, just for
> the reasons I gave you above. It goes like this:
> 
>     Read a paper which seemingly appears controversial --> refute.

This is what I do in Relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web