EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 15 Aug 2008 15:27 On Aug 13, 1:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 13, 12:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 4:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: Good question! Mass is: "That which can be acted upon by > > > > gravity." > > > > That's an interesting definition. You do realize, don't you, that this > > > is not the definition that physics uses for "mass" at all? > > > > > Since gravity is just "flowing ether", > > > > Yes, I remember you saying that. You still haven't explained where the > > > "flowing ether" that flows into the moon emerges. > > > > > then tangles of > > > > ether must impede the flow of ether > > > > Sorry, this doesn't follow from your own definition. You say mass is > > > that which is acted on by gravity, but here you say gravity is that > > > which is impeded by mass. Which one is acted on by which? > > > > > and thus be subject to a force > > > > being applied. The tighter the tangles, the higher the mass. > > > > NoEinstein - > > > Dear PD: Who gives a damn what "physics" defines. I've proved that > > you and all of the Einsteiniacs are screwed up. My definition of mass > > is the simple and the true. Forget those outdated textbooks and > > encyclopedias! NoEinstein > > Ah! My mistake! I had no idea you were inventing your own fantasy > world where words mean new things (what *you* want them to mean) and > where your accomplishments are widely known. > > But... there is still this part above where what you say is not > consistent with *your own* definition. Is it important in your fantasy > world that what you say makes sense and is logically consistent, or is > it only necessary that they be Simple and True? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: There is nothing mutually exclusive about: Making sense and being logical AND being simple and true. NoEinstein
From: PD on 15 Aug 2008 16:49 On Aug 15, 2:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 13, 1:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 13, 12:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 4:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: Good question! Mass is: "That which can be acted upon by > > > > > gravity." > > > > > That's an interesting definition. You do realize, don't you, that this > > > > is not the definition that physics uses for "mass" at all? > > > > > > Since gravity is just "flowing ether", > > > > > Yes, I remember you saying that. You still haven't explained where the > > > > "flowing ether" that flows into the moon emerges. > > > > > > then tangles of > > > > > ether must impede the flow of ether > > > > > Sorry, this doesn't follow from your own definition. You say mass is > > > > that which is acted on by gravity, but here you say gravity is that > > > > which is impeded by mass. Which one is acted on by which? > > > > > > and thus be subject to a force > > > > > being applied. The tighter the tangles, the higher the mass. > > > > > NoEinstein - > > > > Dear PD: Who gives a damn what "physics" defines. I've proved that > > > you and all of the Einsteiniacs are screwed up. My definition of mass > > > is the simple and the true. Forget those outdated textbooks and > > > encyclopedias! NoEinstein > > > Ah! My mistake! I had no idea you were inventing your own fantasy > > world where words mean new things (what *you* want them to mean) and > > where your accomplishments are widely known. > > > But... there is still this part above where what you say is not > > consistent with *your own* definition. Is it important in your fantasy > > world that what you say makes sense and is logically consistent, or is > > it only necessary that they be Simple and True? > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear PD: There is nothing mutually exclusive about: Making sense and > being logical AND being simple and true. NoEinstein The trick in your case is finding the spot where it happens. You're pretty good at finding the simple, just not the stuff that is simple AND true AND making sense AND being logical. You just have this hope that if you land on the simple, you'll also land on the true. Not so easy as you thought, is it? PD
From: NoEinstein on 15 Aug 2008 17:21 On Aug 14, 11:58 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 11, 5:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Please post a link to your description of your XYZ interferometer. > > > Dear PD: How about this? ***The source light is a helium-neon > > laser. The laser is aimed straight down. A paper target is glued to > > the front of laser barrel. A precision pin hole lets the light pass > > through the center of the target. The CONTROL light course reflects > > from a 70T, 30R perpendicular beam splitter. The 30% reflection from > > such, if that was the only reflection, would make a uniform > > illumination of the paper target (without fringes). > > The TEST light course "transmits" through the beam splitter and > > hits a 45 degree, first surface, precision mirror located a centimeter > > or so below the beam splitter. Then, that light travels about 12" to > > a precision, first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; and > > up to the paper target where such light interferes with the > > (unchanging) light from the CONTROL light course. The total length of > > the CONTROL light course is about 36". The entire instrument is > > located on a Lazy Susan, so it can be rotated 360 degrees. > > The bulls eye fringe pattern is about 3/8" in diameter, with each > > fringe being about 1/32nd of an inch wide. Because there are so many > > fringe shifts in 360 degrees, it is difficult to rotate the instrument > > slow enough to be able to count the fringes. But there are at least > > five fringe shifts per degree of rotation. > > The purpose of this $2,000.00 interferometer was simply to prove > > that the Earth's velocity in the cosmos can be detected via > > interference. My instrument does so, superbly! Albert Einstein > > said: "If any Earth mounted experiment can measure the Earth's > > velocity, my relativity theories will be proved wrong." And I have > > done just that! NoEinstein > Dear Jerry: How does a low cost, correctly-designed interferometer that accomplishes its stated purpose leave anything to be desired? > __ || || || laser || || -------- -------- target with pinhole __________________ 70T, 30R beam splitter mirror \ | \ | \ | 45 deg \ | mirror \ | \ | \ | ======================================================== base Lazy Susan > 1) What is the material of the base? The slightest warpage of the base as the Lazy Susan turns will change the fringe pattern. It needs to be massive, rigid, and isolated from any stresses transmitted through the Lazy Susan.. The frame is 40 mm x 80 mm extruded aluminum with one rigid connection to form an ell shape. The slots in the tubes allow adjusting the relative locations of the components. > 2) How accurately vertical is the apparatus? If the apparatus tilts from side to side as the Lazy Susan turns, the fringes will be affected. Verticality isnt a go/no-go for the experiment. Results will vary due to even minute changes in any physical orientation aspect. But as long as the physical dimensions of the apparatus, relative to itself, remain unchanged, the results will still be definitive. Side-to-side tilt of as much as .5 degrees probably happens because the floor may not be perfectly flat. But that side to side movement would occur just once every 180 degrees of rotation. Such a change would affect the total number of fringe changes occurring in any quadrant of rotation. But the total number of fringes would be identical to the number in an apparatus that is resting on an optically flat glass or granite slab. The latter is true, because both the perfect, and the imperfect, apparatus will end the rotation with the apparatus being in the identical place, and thus with an identical tilt. > 3) Have you examined the effects of tilting the apparatus? Try placing the Lazy Susan on a wobbly table and tilt the whole thing slightly. What fringe shifts do you see as a result of the apparatus bending under its own weight? Of course I have! Push on the top of the ell aluminum frame and the horizontal leg of the ell will rise up off of the Lazy Susan. As that happens, the fringes begin retarding due to both the bending in the vertical aluminum, and the opening up of the screwed connection. But that is PHYSICAL CHANGE in the apparatus that requires the long leg to be constantly in and out of vertical. If that is your idea for what is causing the hundreds of fringe shifts observed, how can such be happening when the apparatus is always vertical to within .5 degrees? An intentional .5 degree tilt cause like two fringe shifts. Two such tilts in 360 degrees of instrument rotation would cause perhaps .5% change in the number of fringe shifts in any quadrant of rotation. But there would be ZERO fringe shifts difference in 360 degrees, because the tilt always goes back to where it started, completing the circle. > __ || || || laser || || -------- -------- target with pinhole __________________ 70T, 30R beam splitter mirror \ | \ | \ | 45 deg \ | mirror \ | \ | \ | ======================================================== SLAB () THREE POINT FLOATING SUSPENSION () ======================================================== PRECISION ROTATING BASE > 4) Lazy Susans that I have seen are not smooth enough in their operation for a precision interferometric experiment. They wobble, and the wobble introduces tilt, and any tilt would cause the entire apparatus to bend and warp. Yes, cheap ones are bumpy. To help counteract the bumps, I disassembled the bearings and have them floating in Vaseline on both the top and bottom race. Now, they dont roll, they slide. And quite smoothly. Michelson and Morley would have been thrilled to see even one fringe shift in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. Though everything you say is TRUE about localized variations caused by imprecision, such, taken alone, cant account for the thousand plus fringe shifts in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. > 5) Mount the interferometer on a thick rigid slab, and mount the slab on a three-point floating suspension on a precision rotating base. I suggest using three large steel balls for the three-point suspension, ONLY ONE OF WHICH may be affixed to the rotating base and NOT to the slab. The other two steel balls should roll freely. It is OK if the second ball is confined to a linear track. Your three point support is exactly what I have. The sides of the ell, next to the juncture of the two aluminum legs, have two cast aluminum angle brackets with two leveling feet. The feet are screwed down enough to lift most of the short leg off of the Lazy Susan. That leaves, essentially, just the outermost edge of the short leg contacting the Lazy Susan. An even more vibration free arrangement is to slide those feet while the apparatus is resting on the carpeted floor. The apparatus itself isnt touchedjust those angle brackets. > 6) The axis of the laser must be accurately aligned to within a few micro-radians of vertical, and must remain so throughout the 360 degrees of turn.. The remaining there part Im sure is the case. Verticality would be as ultra important, as you suggest, if I was trying to count the total fringes to very high accuracy. Even if there was a 10% variation in the number of fringe shifts due to imprecision, the experiment would still be a success. Thats because the objective is simply to show that Earths movement in the Cosmos is causing observable fringe changes. Earths velocity is estimated to be like 100,000 mph. The number of fringe shifts such a velocity would cause due to the lateral movement of the M-M experiment while the light [c + or - v] is in transit to the 45 degree mirror, is in-the-ballpark for the number observed in my X, Y, & Z interferometerwith the light traveling 36 to the 45 degree mirror. > 7) The power cord to the laser must not be allowed to pull on the apparatus. I carefully move the long cord to a neutral position, or I hold it in my hand. Not a problem. > 8) This may not be practical, given that you are doing a home-brew experiment, but I recommend that you conduct the experiment in vacuum and under precision temperature control. > Jerry Dear Jerry: The latter are the gnats-eyes, second and third generation versions of my interferometer. Most that you recommend is very expensive. I am not only home-brewed, I am home financed. When my most simple and complete disproofs of Einsteins nonsense is finally acknowledged, money should become available to get the nth degree of accuracy. I have already made designs for a global array of my interferometers to measure Earths velocity in the cosmos accurately enough to see if the Universe is expending. Note: The Universe ISNT expanding, but skeptics need to be shown unbiased results to prove it. Obviously, you know a good bit about interferometers. If you will send me your full personal email address, I will send you a drawing of my interferometer, plus an article or two explaining the logic of everything. Thanks for your thought-worthy comments and suggestions for future interferometers! NoEinstein
From: Jerry on 16 Aug 2008 09:07 On Aug 15, 4:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 14, 11:58 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 5:02 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Please post a link to your description of your XYZ interferometer. > > > > Dear PD: How about this? ***The source light is a helium-neon > > > laser. The laser is aimed straight down. A paper target is glued to > > > the front of laser barrel. A precision pin hole lets the light pass > > > through the center of the target. The CONTROL light course reflects > > > from a 70T, 30R perpendicular beam splitter. The 30% reflection from > > > such, if that was the only reflection, would make a uniform > > > illumination of the paper target (without fringes). > > > The TEST light course "transmits" through the beam splitter and > > > hits a 45 degree, first surface, precision mirror located a centimeter > > > or so below the beam splitter. Then, that light travels about 12" to > > > a precision, first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; and > > > up to the paper target where such light interferes with the > > > (unchanging) light from the CONTROL light course. The total length of > > > the CONTROL light course is about 36". The entire instrument is > > > located on a Lazy Susan, so it can be rotated 360 degrees. > > > The bulls eye fringe pattern is about 3/8" in diameter, with each > > > fringe being about 1/32nd of an inch wide. Because there are so many > > > fringe shifts in 360 degrees, it is difficult to rotate the instrument > > > slow enough to be able to count the fringes. But there are at least > > > five fringe shifts per degree of rotation. > > > The purpose of this $2,000.00 interferometer was simply to prove > > > that the Earth's velocity in the cosmos can be detected via > > > interference. My instrument does so, superbly! Albert Einstein > > > said: "If any Earth mounted experiment can measure the Earth's > > > velocity, my relativity theories will be proved wrong." And I have > > > done just that! NoEinstein > > Dear Jerry: How does a low cost, correctly-designed interferometer > that accomplishes its stated purpose leave anything to be desired? > > > > __ > || > || > || laser > || > || > -------- -------- target with pinhole > __________________ 70T, 30R beam splitter > mirror > \ | > \ | > \ | > 45 deg \ | > mirror \ | > \ | > \ | > ======================================================== base > Lazy Susan > > > 1) What is the material of the base? The slightest warpage of the > > base as the Lazy Susan turns will change the fringe pattern. It > > needs to be massive, rigid, and isolated from any stresses > > transmitted through the Lazy Susan. > > The frame is 40 mm x 80 mm extruded aluminum with one rigid connection > to form an ell shape. The slots in the tubes allow adjusting the > relative locations of the components. > > > 2) How accurately vertical is the apparatus? If the apparatus > > tilts from side to side as the Lazy Susan turns, the fringes will > > be affected. > > Verticality isnt a go/no-go for the experiment. Results will vary > due to even minute changes in any physical orientation aspect. But as > long as the physical dimensions of the apparatus, relative to itself, > remain unchanged, the results will still be definitive. > > Side-to-side tilt of as much as .5 degrees Totally unacceptable. You have a TALL apparatus which will sway by thousands of nanometers under its own weight if the rotational axis is not perfectly vertical. > probably happens because > the floor may not be perfectly flat. But that side to side movement > would occur just once every 180 degrees of rotation. Such a change > would affect the total number of fringe changes occurring in any > quadrant of rotation. But the total number of fringes would be > identical to the number in an apparatus that is resting on an > optically flat glass or granite slab. The latter is true, because > both the perfect, and the imperfect, apparatus will end the rotation > with the apparatus being in the identical place, and thus with an > identical tilt. > > > 3) Have you examined the effects of tilting the apparatus? Try > > placing the Lazy Susan on a wobbly table and tilt the whole thing > > slightly. What fringe shifts do you see as a result of the apparatus > > bending under its own weight? > > Of course I have! Push on the top of the ell aluminum frame and the > horizontal leg of the ell will rise up off of the Lazy Susan. As that > happens, the fringes begin retarding due to both the bending in the > vertical aluminum, and the opening up of the screwed connection. > But that is PHYSICAL CHANGE in the apparatus that requires the long > leg to be constantly in and out of vertical. If that is your idea > for what is causing the hundreds of fringe shifts observed, how can > such be happening when the apparatus is always vertical to within .5 > degrees? An intentional .5 degree tilt cause like two fringe shifts. Did you MEASURE the effect? How did you MEASURE the deviation of the rotational axis from perfectly vertical? How did you determine "vertical"? > Two such tilts in 360 degrees of instrument rotation would cause > perhaps .5% change in the number of fringe shifts in any quadrant of > rotation. But there would be ZERO fringe shifts difference in 360 > degrees, because the tilt always goes back to where it started, > completing the circle. > > > > __ > || > || > || laser > || > || > -------- -------- target with pinhole > __________________ 70T, 30R beam splitter > mirror > \ | > \ | > \ | > 45 deg \ | > mirror \ | > \ | > \ | > ======================================================== SLAB > () THREE POINT FLOATING SUSPENSION () > ======================================================== > PRECISION ROTATING BASE > > > 4) Lazy Susans that I have seen are not smooth enough in their > > operation for a precision interferometric experiment. They > > wobble, and the wobble introduces tilt, and any tilt would > > cause the entire apparatus to bend and warp. > > Yes, cheap ones are bumpy. To help counteract the bumps, I > disassembled the bearings and have them floating in Vaseline on both > the top and bottom race. Now, they dont roll, they slide. And > quite smoothly. How "smoothly" is "smoothly"? How much does the base of the Lazy Susan bend and warp as the apparatus rotates? Surely it bends and warps by hundreds of microns. Grease won't fix flimsiness, and Lazy Susans are FLIMSY. > > Michelson and Morley would have been thrilled to see even one fringe > shift in 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. Though everything you say > is TRUE about localized variations caused by imprecision, such, taken > alone, cant account for the thousand plus fringe shifts in 360 > degrees of apparatus rotation. > > > 5) Mount the interferometer on a thick rigid slab, and mount > > the slab on a three-point floating suspension on a precision > > rotating base. I suggest using three large steel balls for > > the three-point suspension, ONLY ONE OF WHICH may be affixed > > to the rotating base and NOT to the slab. The other two steel > > balls should roll freely. It is OK if the second ball is > > confined to a linear track. > > Your three point support is exactly what I have. FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE > The sides of the > ell, next to the juncture of the two aluminum legs, have two cast > aluminum angle brackets with two leveling feet. The feet are > screwed down enough to lift most of the short leg off of the Lazy > Susan. That leaves, essentially, just the outermost edge of the short > leg contacting the Lazy Susan. You have described a three point suspension, but it is not a FLOATING suspension. The balls must be FREE TO ROLL between two hardened flat surfaces. The first ball may be affixed to one surface. The second ball may be confined to roll freely along a linear track. The third ball must have complete freedom of motion. The idea behind the three point FLOATING suspension is that since the balls are free to roll, the elevated plate is MOSTLY decoupled from strains in the base plate. On the other hand, YOUR three point suspension directly transmits to the elevated ell all of the strains being experienced by the base plate of the Lazy Susan. (Note: "MOSTLY" is not "COMPLETELY". Although a three point floating suspension will largely decouple the elevated plate from strains in the base plate, the decoupling is not complete. As an exercise in mechanical design, think why this must be so...) > An even more vibration free arrangement is to slide those feet while > the apparatus is resting on the carpeted floor. The apparatus itself > isnt touchedjust those angle brackets. > > > 6) The axis of the laser must be accurately aligned to within > > a few micro-radians of vertical, and must remain so throughout > > the 360 degrees of turn. > > The remaining there part Im sure is the case. NOT MEASURED, ONLY GUESSED. > Verticality would be > as ultra important, as you suggest, if I was trying to count the total > fringes to very high accuracy. Even if there was a 10% variation in > the number of fringe shifts due to imprecision, the experiment would > still be a success. Thats because the objective is simply to show > that Earths movement in the Cosmos is causing observable fringe > changes. > > Earths velocity is estimated to be like 100,000 mph. The number of > fringe shifts such a velocity would cause due to the lateral movement > of the M-M experiment while the light [c + or - v] is in transit to > the 45 degree mirror, is in-the-ballpark for the number observed in my > X, Y, & Z interferometerwith the light traveling 36 to the 45 > degree mirror. > > > 7) The power cord to the laser must not be allowed to pull on the apparatus. > > I carefully move the long cord to a neutral position, or I hold it in > my hand. Not a problem. > > > 8) This may not be practical, given that you are doing a home-brew > > experiment, but I recommend that you conduct the experiment in vacuum and > > under precision temperature control. > > Jerry > > Dear Jerry: The latter are the gnats-eyes, second and third > generation versions of my interferometer. Most that you recommend is > very expensive. I am not only home-brewed, I am home financed. When > my most simple and complete disproofs of Einsteins nonsense is > finally acknowledged, money should become available to get the nth > degree of accuracy. I have already made designs for a global array of > my interferometers to measure Earths velocity in the cosmos > accurately enough to see if the Universe is expending. Note: The > Universe ISNT expanding, but skeptics need to be shown unbiased > results to prove it. > > Obviously, you know a good bit about interferometers. If you will > send me your full personal email address, I will send you a drawing of > my interferometer, plus an article or two explaining the logic of > everything. Thanks for your thought-worthy comments and suggestions > for future interferometers! NoEinstein You have a completely unbalanced, flimsy, tall and unbalanced contraption that will bend and sway under its own weight as it rotates. The assembly is mounted on a cheap Lazy Susan, and the three point suspension does nothing to isolate the assembly from mechanical distortions in the rotating base. Until you fix your apparatus to follow basic elements of sound mechanical design, all of your claims are worthless. Sorry, but that is the way things are. Jerry
From: Jerry on 16 Aug 2008 10:03
On Aug 16, 8:07 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > You have a completely unbalanced, flimsy, tall and unbalanced > contraption that will bend and sway under its own weight as it > rotates. The assembly is mounted on a cheap Lazy Susan, and the > three point suspension does nothing to isolate the assembly from > mechanical distortions in the rotating base. Re "flimsiness"... What does your Rube Golberg XYZ interferometer offer that the following vastly simpler, far easier-to-implement design does not? | | | | | | |========== | | laser | | | | | | target beam splitter mirror Instead of your precarious vertical arrangement of components, all of the components can be solidly mounted on a rigid optical bench. All other considerations apply. The axis of rotation must be as nearly perfectly vertical as possible, and the optical bench must be mechanically isolated from the rotating base. Jerry |