Prev: The pointing out of black hole failure
Next: Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
From: BURT on 5 May 2010 22:37
On May 5, 6:07 pm, John Polasek <jpola...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:15:44 -1000, cosmojoe
>
> <cosmo...(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
> >Luminiferous Ether by Joel Webb
>
> >     Utilizing a Michelson type interferometer w, I was able to detect
> >luminiferous ether over  a one month period of observation.
> >     On the evening of March 15th I observed these fringes to be moving
> >to the left for about ten minutes, and then slowly change direction, as
> >though being some kind of fluid, and then begin to drift to right for
> >another ten minutes.
>
> I am pretty sure of this: an unchanging fringe pattern swinging from
> left to right is only evidence of structural deflection. The
> phenomenon you are looking for would cause the pattern to
> compress/expand like an accordion being stretched or squeezed, i.e.
> changing to more or fewer fringes in the pattern.
>
> I explained this to someone on YouTube a couple of months ago who
> reported the same effect; his device had a slender beam subject to
> gravitational bending.
>
> >     Temperature variations were taken into account, the severest
> >coefficient for expansion occurring across the grain, and comes to 61.4
> >x 10-6 change in length per degree Centigrade at room temperature.
> >Given that that the total round trip lap for either interferometer beam
> >comes to 24" (each leg being 12"), one could expect a change of
> >length of:
>
> John Polasek

The center of space is gravity's geometry center. There can be more
than one geometry in space comming from multibody gravity sources.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Androcles on 6 May 2010 00:23

"John Polasek" <jpolasek(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3154u55914q0a9mtu9n8dt09tdvqf7p4fr(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:15:44 -1000, cosmojoe
> <cosmojoe(a)hawaiiantel.net> wrote:
>
>>Luminiferous Ether by Joel Webb
>>
>> Utilizing a Michelson type interferometer w, I was able to detect
>>luminiferous ether over a one month period of observation.
>> On the evening of March 15th I observed these fringes to be moving
>>to the left for about ten minutes, and then slowly change direction, as
>>though being some kind of fluid, and then begin to drift to right for
>>another ten minutes.
> I am pretty sure of this: an unchanging fringe pattern swinging from
> left to right is only evidence of structural deflection. The
> phenomenon you are looking for would cause the pattern to
> compress/expand like an accordion being stretched or squeezed, i.e.
> changing to more or fewer fringes in the pattern.
>
> I explained this to someone on YouTube a couple of months ago who
> reported the same effect; his device had a slender beam subject to
> gravitational bending.
>

In other words the apparatus is a self-contained system unaffected by
and independent of anything external.
It is ping-pong in an aeroplane, the speed of the ball is +/- 100 mph
seen from inside the plane and 500 mph +/- 100 mph seen on the ground
from outside the plane, and the speed of light is +/-c inside the plane
and v +/-c seen from outside the plane.
No betas or length contractions distorting the aeroplane or any other
hocus-pocus is required to explain it.




From: Tom Roberts on 6 May 2010 12:17
John Polasek wrote:
> I am pretty sure of this: an unchanging fringe pattern swinging from
> left to right is only evidence of structural deflection. The
> phenomenon you are looking for would cause the pattern to
> compress/expand like an accordion being stretched or squeezed, i.e.
> changing to more or fewer fringes in the pattern.

You got it backwards. SOME structural deflections, such as rotations of the
mirrors, will cause a compression/expansion of the fringes if tan(theta) differs
visibly from theta -- for visible light and 2 meter arms that requires a
movement of many thousands of fringes (any device that unstable is useless).

This is so because the fringe positions are determined by
tan(theta), but position of the image in the visible field
corresponds to theta.

But SOME structural deflections would not: a linear expansion of one arm will
appear as a variation in the relative phases of the two waves, generating no
compression/expansion of the fringes [#].

This is so because the difference in phase between the waves
enters as the argument to a cosine, which repeats indefinitely
with constant intervals between peaks. Note that with white light
a difference in the two arms' lengths of a few microns will wash
out the fringes.

[#] Wiener fringes are a related phenomenon, generated by a single
mirror and a monochromatic light source. They are routinely used
for spatial measurements by moving the mirror and counting the
fringes; millions of fringes can be counted with good lasers, and
they are equally spaced. Conceptually, considering a non-rotating,
monochromatic, Michelson interferometer, moving the mirror of one
arm directly outward would permit you to count the Wiener fringes.
So this type of "structural deflection" would generate no
compression/expansion.

An anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light would appear as a variation in
the relative phases of the two waves, generating no compression/expansion --
such anisotropy is indistinguishable from an orientation-dependent variation in
the arms' lengths.

Experiments that carefully control the latter show that the anisotropy is
consistent with zero, with an upper bound far too small to be visible in a
Michelson interferometer using a human eyeball.


Tom Roberts
From: BURT on 6 May 2010 15:35
On May 6, 9:17 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> John Polasek wrote:
> > I am pretty sure of this: an unchanging fringe pattern swinging from
> > left to right is only evidence of structural deflection. The
> > phenomenon you are looking for would cause the pattern to
> > compress/expand like an accordion being stretched or squeezed, i.e.
> > changing to more or fewer fringes in the pattern.
>
> You got it backwards. SOME structural deflections, such as rotations of the
> mirrors, will cause a compression/expansion of the fringes if tan(theta) differs
> visibly from theta -- for visible light and 2 meter arms that requires a
> movement of many thousands of fringes (any device that unstable is useless).
>
>         This is so because the fringe positions are determined by
>         tan(theta), but position of the image in the visible field
>         corresponds to theta.
>
> But SOME structural deflections would not: a linear expansion of one arm will
> appear as a variation in the relative phases of the two waves, generating no
> compression/expansion of the fringes [#].
>
>         This is so because the difference in phase between the waves
>         enters as the argument to a cosine, which repeats indefinitely
>         with constant intervals between peaks. Note that with white light
>         a difference in the two arms' lengths of a few microns will wash
>         out the fringes.
>
>         [#] Wiener fringes are a related phenomenon, generated by a single
>         mirror and a monochromatic light source. They are routinely used
>         for spatial measurements by moving the mirror and counting the
>         fringes; millions of fringes can be counted with good lasers, and
>         they are equally spaced. Conceptually, considering a non-rotating,
>         monochromatic, Michelson interferometer, moving the mirror of one
>         arm directly outward would permit you to count the Wiener fringes.
>         So this type of "structural deflection" would generate no
>         compression/expansion.
>
> An anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light would appear as a variation in
> the relative phases of the two waves, generating no compression/expansion --
> such anisotropy is indistinguishable from an orientation-dependent variation in
> the arms' lengths.
>
> Experiments that carefully control the latter show that the anisotropy is
> consistent with zero, with an upper bound far too small to be visible in a
> Michelson interferometer using a human eyeball.
>
> Tom Roberts

Einstein's gravity continuum was his ultimate glory.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Tom Roberts on 6 May 2010 21:07
cosmojoe wrote:
> On the evening of March 15th I observed these fringes to be moving to the
> left for about ten minutes, and then slowly change direction, as though being
> some kind of fluid, and then begin to drift to right for another ten
> minutes.

Later on you say the apparatus is in a fixed orientation relative to the surface
of the earth. This observation is proof positive that your interferometer is not
sufficiently stable. No reasonable cosmic effect could possibly behave this way.
And dozens of other, more believable observations do not behave this way.


> [...] a green laser pointer of wavelength 532 nm

Such a source is not nearly sufficiently stable for this. Hopeless.


> [...] wood grain

Wood is also not nearly sufficiently stable for this. Hopeless.


> [...] earth's orbit component [...] 18.5 m/s

The earth orbits the sun with a speed relative to the sun of about 30 km/s, not
anything at all like "18.5 m/s".


> [...] The earth's rotation at this site's latitude is -0.138 m/s

You are located within 1 degree of the north or south pole???? That is
inconsistent with your aiming the interferometer to the east.

Hint: the earth's circumference is about 40,075,000 meters,
and one rotation takes about 86400 seconds.


> [... rest omitted]

Your results are merely instabilities in your apparatus. And your knowledge of
very basic facts is hopelessly bad.

Other similar observations with VASTLY more stable apparatus put an upper bound
on fringe shifts FAR below what you report.


Tom Roberts
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The pointing out of black hole failure
Next: Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge