EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 16 Aug 2008 18:24 On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Why bother? There is no aether. Light moves at c wrt the source and every component of the apparatus. There should always be a null result. Any fringe movement merely indicates that the apparatus is distorted. >Jerry > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2008 07:27 On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. Given that the control light course is about 36" up and down, while the test light course is about 37" up-and-down plus 24" forwards-and-back horizontally, what are the theoretical fringe shifts that you would expect? How does the theoretical computation compare with your observed "at least five fringe shifts per degree of rotation"? What is the purpose of the vertical part of the light path other than to render your entire assembly mechanically unstable? I presume the total height of your apparatus is perhaps a little less than a meter, the upright sections being built from the same aluminum framework as the base? Jerry
From: NoEinstein on 17 Aug 2008 14:03 On Aug 16, 9:07 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » Dear Jerry: Look up cynic in the dictionary, and see if your picture is shown. If it's not there, look up scientist. Not there either? Then, please list the scientific experiments, of any kind, that you have designed and successfully tested. Don't have any? Then, go away! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 17 Aug 2008 14:07 On Aug 16, 10:03 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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 Dear Jerry: A straight out-and-back instrument has two light courses which don't vary. Such won't detect any fringe shifts regardless of the direction it is pointing relative to the Earth's velocity vector. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 17 Aug 2008 14:10
On Aug 16, 6:24 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > > > > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >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. > > Why bother? > > There is no aether. Light moves at c wrt the source and every component of the > apparatus. There should always be a null result. Any fringe movement merely > indicates that the apparatus is distorted. > > >Jerry > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Henri: Light always EMITS at 'c' relative to the light source or reflection. But the effective velocity is: 'c' plus or minus v. NoEinstein |