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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382470 > unrolled thread

Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

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

Contents

  Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments GSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
    Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 09:51 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 03:57 +0200
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 19:53 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:48 -0700
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 00:04 -0500
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:24 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 09:59 +0200
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 04:59 +0200
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 20:26 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 21:08 -0700
              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 22:54 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:35 -0700
                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-02 21:47 +0200
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:43 -0500
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:30 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:21 -0500
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 09:16 -0500
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 07:41 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:48 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 15:01 -0700
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:14 -0500
                    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
                      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:16 +0200
                        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 22:13 -0700
                          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-06 06:47 +0200
                            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-05 22:20 -0700
                              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
                                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 06:44 -0700
                                  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-30 18:15 +1000
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:05 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 15:50 +0200
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 06:58 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-30 19:56 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:49 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:02 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:25 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:12 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#382735

Am 03.05.2016 16:16, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 5/2/16 5/2/16 10:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> If the apparatus of Mr.Gruneick is not rigid enough to withstand
>> deformation
>> caused by gravity, the question would be, how to build a more rigid
>> instrument, which does not deform if rotated vertically.
>
> It simply is not possible to build an instrument "which does not deform if
> rotated vertically".


If the mirrors, beam-splitter, screen and laser are mounted on a disk, 
the effect of deformation could be compensated by the design of the disk.

It is certainly impossible to build an entirely rigid device, since no 
kind of matter is totally rigid.

But I don not agree upon your statement "... it is not possible...".

Sure, deformation would occur. But the device could be designed, that 
the deformation would not influence the measurement of the interferometer.

Martin Grusenick measured a rather large shift of about eleven fringes. 
This could by no means caused by variations of the speed of light.

So, possibly, we don't need such a large resistance against deformation 
as you seem to require.

I would build a disk, that has a form roughly similar to a 1/r² curve, 
with the axis where that curve has the y-axis.

Deformation of that inner bulge had no influence on the measurement, 
since only the outer rim and the relation of the mirrors towards each 
other are important. The out rim is very thin and has therefore 
negligible weight, in comparison to the bulgy centre.

So it could eventually be possible to build a device rigid enough.

The question to solve is not, whether of not the speed of light varies, 
but the original question of Michelson and Moreley: the so called 
'aether-flow hypothesis'.

If there is a vertical effect, this would demand to rethink the 
postulates about the existence of something like 'aether'.

And if this turns out to be true, then physicists made a few mistakes 
for a little more than a century.

TH

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

#382744

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 1:49:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.05.2016 16:16, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 5/2/16 5/2/16 10:30 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> If the apparatus of Mr.Gruneick is not rigid enough to withstand
> >> deformation
> >> caused by gravity, the question would be, how to build a more rigid
> >> instrument, which does not deform if rotated vertically.
> >
> > It simply is not possible to build an instrument "which does not deform if
> > rotated vertically".
> 
> 
> If the mirrors, beam-splitter, screen and laser are mounted on a disk, 
> the effect of deformation could be compensated by the design of the disk.
> 

No, it cannot. The disc ROTATES, remember?


 

> Martin Grusenick measured a rather large shift of about eleven fringes. 

Because he is an ignorant.


> This could by no means caused by variations of the speed of light.
>

Only for cranks. Like you.

 

> Deformation of that inner bulge had no influence on the measurement, 
> since only the outer rim and the relation of the mirrors towards each 
> other are important. The out rim is very thin and has therefore 
> negligible weight, in comparison to the bulgy centre.
> 

You are seriously more stupid than you appeared in your earlier posts.


 
> If there is a vertical effect, this would demand to rethink the 
> postulates about the existence of something like 'aether'.
>

It would demand that you got help. Medical help.

 
> And if this turns out to be true, then physicists made a few mistakes 
> for a little more than a century.
> 
> TH

Most cranks claim the same thing. 

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

#382745

On 5/3/2016 3:48 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> If the mirrors, beam-splitter, screen and laser are mounted on a disk,
> the effect of deformation could be compensated by the design of the disk.

On a rotatable disk? I'd be curious what kind of design you come up with 
that does that.

No hand-waving, now. It's doable when you show how it's doable.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#382666

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:48:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>  
> Sure, the device is under stress. But it cannot be very much stress,

It is exactly enough stress to give the false readings/ Why do you persist in your errors?

 

> So my intuition tells me, that the effect was not caused by 
> gravitational deformation.
> 

It doesn't matter what your intuition tells you.


>
> 
> But how would YOU test the validity of the measurements of Martin Grusenick?
> 
Have you stopped for a second to think why ALL the professional tests are done by having the setup float HORIZONTALLY?


> I would rebuild the machine and measure, whether or not weight and/or 
> stress has an influence on the effect.
>

Do so. When you do it, attach a piezoelectric sensor for measuring the stress/strain in the interferometer arms. Compare the readings in the two arms. They will be unequal. What do you learn from that?

 
> I would use a large, thick and carefully balanced disk and very small 
> instruments (laser, mirrors, camera ...)  and turn the disk by a motor.
> 

Wrong, the disc will distort under its OWN weight. You don't know what you are doing.


 
> If the effect measured follows this ration in some way, the effect is 
> most likely caused by gravitational deformation.
> 
> But if it does not show such a correlation, the effect does not come 
> from deformation.
>

Well, go ahead. Knock yourself out. 

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

#382681

Am 02.05.2016 23:35, schrieb Dono,:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:48:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Sure, the device is under stress. But it cannot be very much stress,
>
> It is exactly enough stress to give the false readings/ Why do you persist in your errors?
>
>
>
>> So my intuition tells me, that the effect was not caused by
>> gravitational deformation.
>>
>
> It doesn't matter what your intuition tells you.
>
>
>>
>>
>> But how would YOU test the validity of the measurements of Martin Grusenick?
>>
> Have you stopped for a second to think why ALL the professional tests are done by having the setup float HORIZONTALLY?


Yes, I did.

I personally think, that it is kind of collective cheating, committed by 
the community of professionals.

The question itself is quite important: does vertical rotation of an 
interferometer cause an effect?

Why is this so important???

Well, if there would have been an effect, the reason of this effect 
could be linked to gravity. And the reason and the 'mechanics' of 
gravity are still debated.

The experiment of Mr. Grusenick would also support an idea, that was 
called 'aether flow hypothesis' and that in turn would support 'Growing 
Earth'.

And 'Growing Earth' is an idea, which I had tried to prove for several 
years.

GE was actually accepted knowledge before Plate tectonics came along.

The reason for this assumed cheating seems to be, that certain knowledge 
is utilised to cheat in other realms.

Growing Earth would also render the greater part of current physics 
wrong, like the standard models of QM and of cosmology. And that could 
be eventually be an issue.

So that young German student had to be wrong. period.




TH

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

#382685

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> > Have you stopped for a second to think why ALL the professional tests are done by having the setup float HORIZONTALLY?
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
> I personally think, that it is kind of collective cheating, committed by 
> the community of professionals.
> 

I think that you need help. Medical help. Go see a psychiatrist.

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

#382851

Am 03.05.2016 07:13, schrieb Dono,:

>>> Have you stopped for a second to think why ALL the professional tests are done by having the setup float HORIZONTALLY?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I did.
>>
>> I personally think, that it is kind of collective cheating, committed by
>> the community of professionals.
>>
>
> I think that you need help. Medical help. Go see a psychiatrist.
>

'Psychiatry' is a part of medicine, not of physics.

The purpose of medicine is to help people with certain physical 
malfunctions of their body and not to decide a question in politics or 
science.

There has been - nevertheless - a misuse of psychiatry in the former 
Soviet Union, by then ruling criminals called 'Bolsheviks'.

These have been the scum of the Earth and the greatest mass-murders in 
all of human history. Among their many deeds was the misuse of 
psychiatry to silence dissidents.


TH

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

#382854

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 9:47:55 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:

> 
> 'Psychiatry' is a part of medicine, not of physics.
> 

Precisely. Since what you are doing is not physics, psychiatry is what you need.


> The purpose of medicine is to help people with certain physical 
> malfunctions of their body and not to decide a question in politics or 
> science.
> 

Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.



> These have been the scum of the Earth and the greatest mass-murders in 
> all of human history. Among their many deeds was the misuse of 
> psychiatry to silence dissidents.
> 
> 
All true  but you are not a "dissident", you are a crank. There might still be hope for you, why don't you study physics instead of making up crap? Much better use of your time. 

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

#383020

Am 06.05.2016 07:20, schrieb Dono,:

>> 'Psychiatry' is a part of medicine, not of physics.
>>
>
> Precisely. Since what you are doing is not physics, psychiatry is what you need.
>
>
>> The purpose of medicine is to help people with certain physical
>> malfunctions of their body and not to decide a question in politics or
>> science.
>>
>
> Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.
>

I had a certain idea. I tried to find a connection between QM and GR. 
Such a connection could be understood as hidden path in rough terrain, 
which you try to find. You assume, such a path should exist, but don't 
know where.

So I tried loads of different concepts and sieved through an enormous 
pile of books and papers until I found something roughly fitting. That 
was a quaternion formula for rotations, which looked vaguely similar to 
the bra-ket formalism of QM.

This was fitting, since I tried to start with the search on the side of 
relativity and wanted some real system called 'spacetime'. This 
spacetime should be kind of quaternion field.

Now I only needed to build particles with rotations of 
'spacetime-elements' and I've got the connection.

This a quite unusual concept and my own invention. But as strange as it 
seems, the concept does work.

I tried various kinds of quaternions and found 'complex-valued 
four-vectors' or 'Bi-Quaterinons' fitting. This is also a group (SO3) 
and a certain algebra, often used in theoretical physics ('Pauli-algebra').

Now I wrote my ideas down and made a lot of illustrations. This could be 
found here:


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


And then I tried to tell someone about it and all I received were insults.

This was kind of unexpected, since I had no intention to harm anybody.

So I stopped working on my 'book' and tried to find out, what the hack 
physicists are actually doing and what they have against such work of 
hobbyists like me.

One of my many assumptions was: possibly they know the solution I have 
found for more than a century, but cheated the general public.

So instead of physics I have studied politics under the aspect of the 
use of hidden physics in the realm of clandestine operations, occult 
sects and secret societies.

This would certainly justify hostile reactions from members of such 
groups or organisations. But actually I don't know, since secret 
societies (which I assumed to have some influence on the direction of 
mainstream physics) are in fact secret.

So... What to do now???

Well, I don't know, since it's actually no fun, if you receive only 
insults and people like to lock you away in a mental health asylum.

Maybe I write a book about my favourite conspiracy theories.


TH

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

#383029

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 11:04:26 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.05.2016 07:20, schrieb Dono,:
> 
> >> 'Psychiatry' is a part of medicine, not of physics.
> >>
> >
> > Precisely. Since what you are doing is not physics, psychiatry is what you need.
> >
> >
> >> The purpose of medicine is to help people with certain physical
> >> malfunctions of their body and not to decide a question in politics or
> >> science.
> >>
> >
> > Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.
> >
> 
> I had a certain idea. I tried to find a connection between QM and GR. 
> Such a connection could be understood as hidden path in rough terrain, 
> which you try to find. You assume, such a path should exist, but don't 
> know where.
>

But you lack the basic knowledge (you clearly do not understand SR, let alone GR and QM). You should have used your time trying to learn physics.


 
> So I tried loads of different concepts and sieved through an enormous 
> pile of books and papers until I found something roughly fitting. That 
> was a quaternion formula for rotations, which looked vaguely similar to 
> the bra-ket formalism of QM.
> 

Rubbish, science doesn't work this way.

 

> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>

You keep advertising your fringe ideas in the context of showing your ignorance about basic physics, as in this thread.


> 
> And then I tried to tell someone about it and all I received were insults.
> 
> This was kind of unexpected, since I had no intention to harm anybody.
>

I remember distinctly that my initial feedback was one of praise . not insults. The insults started in THIS thread because you are showing crass ignorance and a predilection towards crankery when it comes to basic SR.


> So instead of physics I have studied politics under the aspect of the 
> use of hidden physics in the realm of clandestine operations, occult 
> sects and secret societies.
> 

Total waste of your time. Your time would have been much better used by studying physics. You lack the basics.


 
> Well, I don't know, since it's actually no fun, if you receive only 
> insults and people like to lock you away in a mental health asylum.
> 
> Maybe I write a book about my favourite conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
Wrong answer. Go study physics, you still have time. 

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

#383073

Am 08.05.2016 15:44, schrieb Dono,:

>>>
>>> Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.
>>>
>>
>> I had a certain idea. I tried to find a connection between QM and GR.
>> Such a connection could be understood as hidden path in rough terrain,
>> which you try to find. You assume, such a path should exist, but don't
>> know where.
>>
>
> But you lack the basic knowledge (you clearly do not understand SR, let alone GR and QM). You should have used your time trying to learn physics.


This is typical for the difference between amateurs and professionals. 
Hobbyists can eventually have very good qualities in a very narrow range 
of experience, while professionals have solid knowledge in the entire 
subject they work in.

If we compare this with e.g. cooking, than an amateur could eventually 
make the best pizza in the world, but cannot boil an egg.

While professionals tend to see this with disgust, the way to deal with 
such pizza bakers is to taste the pizza, but not to start a competition 
in some of the other realms.

So maybe I cannot do everything, that you regard as essential for your 
field of science. But certainly I have a lot of knowledge in the field 
of physics.

E.g. I know a lot about Chemistry. And especially organic chemistry has 
relations to quantum physics.

I'm actually an engineer, but worked mainly with computers. And now I 
spend my time with electronics.

I was also quite good in mathematics and once on a price.

And, after all, you could try to learn even difficult subjects, if you 
decide to do so.
>
>
>> So I tried loads of different concepts and sieved through an enormous
>> pile of books and papers until I found something roughly fitting. That
>> was a quaternion formula for rotations, which looked vaguely similar to
>> the bra-ket formalism of QM.
>>
>
> Rubbish, science doesn't work this way.
>
Well yes. But I did work this way.

And yes, sure, I'm not a physicists, since that is kind of hobby for me. 
So I feel free to abandon usual procedures, if I decide to do so, since 
it's my time and my efforts.

>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>
> You keep advertising your fringe ideas in the context of showing your ignorance about basic physics, as in this thread.
>

You are talking about a person (in this case me), while I don't. So you 
reject proposals from people, which you regard as unworthy or as 
non-members of your particular cult.

But who I am or what I know is not relevant, since I was talking about a 
certain proposal for a certain problem in the field of physics, which is 
of some general interest.

Whether or not you personally like it (or me) or find it useful for your 
profession, that is not my concern.


TH

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

#382521

On 30/04/2016 2:49 AM, GSS wrote:

> With current technological advancements in atomic time measurements
> and pulsed lasers, modern MMX type experiments based on absolute
> motion induced change in light pulse propagation time across two
> perpendicular arms on the surface of earth, can be easily planned and
> conducted.  Each set of the test equipment required for conducting
> such absolute motion tests includes a solid state pulsed laser with
> picoseconds pulse width and single shot option, laser detector with
> focusing optics, Cesium atomic clock with picoseconds resolution,
> high precision event timer and data acquisition computer. It is quite
> possible that the original idea conceived by Michelson in 1880 to
> measure the absolute velocity of earth by optical means, may be
> successfully completed now, if the mainstream scientific community
> gets motivated to do it.  G S Sandhu
>

Other experiments, and the elaboration of special relativity in general 
relativity, with its extended and verified predictions, give confidence 
the the speed of light really is constant, regardless of whether MMX 
showed that.

So even if it were demonstrated that the null result in MMX has an 
overstated significance, it's history.

I doubt anyone's going to be motivated to do a time of flight experiment 
along the lines you suggested. There would be no point.

Sylvia.

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

#382539

On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 10:15:38 PM UTC-10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/04/2016 2:49 AM, GSS wrote:
> 
> > With current technological advancements in atomic time measurements
> > and pulsed lasers, modern MMX type experiments based on absolute
> > motion induced change in light pulse propagation time across two
> > perpendicular arms on the surface of earth, can be easily planned and
> > conducted.  Each set of the test equipment required for conducting
> > such absolute motion tests includes a solid state pulsed laser with
> > picoseconds pulse width and single shot option, laser detector with
> > focusing optics, Cesium atomic clock with picoseconds resolution,
> > high precision event timer and data acquisition computer. It is quite
> > possible that the original idea conceived by Michelson in 1880 to
> > measure the absolute velocity of earth by optical means, may be
> > successfully completed now, if the mainstream scientific community
> > gets motivated to do it.  G S Sandhu
> >
> 
> Other experiments, and the elaboration of special relativity in general 
> relativity, with its extended and verified predictions, give confidence 
> the the speed of light really is constant, regardless of whether MMX 
> showed that.
> 
> So even if it were demonstrated that the null result in MMX has an 
> overstated significance, it's history.
> 
> I doubt anyone's going to be motivated to do a time of flight experiment 
> along the lines you suggested. There would be no point.
> 
> Sylvia.

I disagree, there is a point to doing presice experiments as GSS suggested " pulsed laser with 
" picoseconds pulse width and single shot option, laser detector with 
 focusing optics, Cesium atomic clock with picoseconds resolution, 
 high precision event timer and data acquisition computer."

To detect 4.9 meters per second out of 300,000,000 using a wavelength of 0.4 microns will be possible in a 1 meter optical table. See the ratios:

.4um / 1 meter compared to 4.9 / 3x10^8

4x10^-7 compared to 1.6x10^-8

That indicates that only .03 peaks will pass the interferometer. The first video shows 11 peaks, and the second was 1 peak. They need 30 times better precision to detect gravitational light speed change. The pulsed picosecond laser will do it easily. Modern eqquipment is has made enough progress to detect the light speed difference, if it is real.

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

#382529

On 29.04.2016 18:49, GSS wrote:
> My latest paper on the subject has been recently published in a peer-reviewed international journal 'Applied Physics Research'.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v8n3p45
>
> G S Sandhu	
>

The paper is fundamentally wrong.
The claim that the MMX would give a null result
even if a "Michelson type" ether had existed
is equivalent to claim that an acoustic variant
of the MMX couldn't detect motion through the air.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243487745_Sound_Wave_Propagation_in_a_Moving_Medium_and_the_Michelson-Morley_Experiment



Peer-reviewed?
Not very flattering for 'Applied Physics Research'
when they can let a paper with such obvious errors pass.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#382530

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:50:44 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
> 
> Peer-reviewed?
> Not very flattering for 'Applied Physics Research'
> when they can let a paper with such obvious errors pass.
> 

Anybody willing to pay 300$ can publish any crap in "Applied Physics Research". Hence, the garbage that Gurcharn "published". 

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

#382565

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:50:44 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 29.04.2016 18:49, GSS wrote:
> > My latest paper on the subject has been recently published in a peer-reviewed international journal 'Applied Physics Research'.
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v8n3p45
> >
> > G S Sandhu	
> >
> 
> The paper is fundamentally wrong.
> The claim that the MMX would give a null result
> even if a "Michelson type" ether had existed
> is equivalent to claim that an acoustic variant
> of the MMX couldn't detect motion through the air.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243487745_Sound_Wave_Propagation_in_a_Moving_Medium_and_the_Michelson-Morley_Experiment
> 
> 
> 
> Peer-reviewed?
> Not very flattering for 'Applied Physics Research'
> when they can let a paper with such obvious errors pass.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

xxein:  The paper may be fundamentally wrong but with time dilation and length contraction alone, it guarantees a null result provided it is done on the horizontal (level) plane wrt the surface.

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

#382667

"It is quite possible that the original idea conceived by Michelson in 1880 to measure the absolute velocity of earth by optical means, may be successfully completed now" GSS April 29


_________________________________________________________________________



The purpose of Michelson's experiment is NOT to measure the velocity of light but to determine if the ether exist which is depict in the title of Michelson's 1881 paper "The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Lumiferous Ether".

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

#382672

How can you determine the velocity of light using Michelson's experiment since Michelson's experiment does not involve a clock.

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

#382673

Also, the translational velocity is not constant since the translation velocity used in Lorentz and Einstein theory is based on the earth daily and yearly motions. 






"Lorentz uses the earth yearly motion's tangential velocity vector px to reverse the negative result of Michelson's experiment yet, as time increases, px is not constant. Example, near sunset, at the surface of the earth, the magnitude of px is zero (fig 7) but at midnight, the magnitude of px is equal to p; consequently, because of the affect of the earth's daily rotational motion, Lorentz's earth yearly motion's tangential velocity vector px varies from zero to over 1000 mph yet Lorentz's transformation is based on a constant value of px. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to justify the existence of the aether. In addition, Lorentz's transformation is unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum is definitive and irreversible experimental proof Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist."

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

#382739

Tom Roberts think there is an ether composed of matter.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web