Prev: The pointing out of black hole failure
Next: Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
From: John Park on 7 May 2010 01:47
Tom Roberts (tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net) writes:
> 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

I think "m" is "miles" here...
>
> 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

.... and here.

[...]
--John Park

From: BURT on 8 May 2010 00:12
On May 6, 10:47 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote:
> Tom Roberts (tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net) writes:
> > 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
>
> I think "m" is "miles" here...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ... and here.
>
> [...]
>         --John Park- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The strength of Einstein's gravity is contractile. At the top of the
atmosphere the drop off from maximum gravity strength begins. It is
all even maximum gravity strength inside.
Scientists have abandoned the original truth of contractile gravity
strength. Gravity stays the same.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 00:23
On May 7, 9:12 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 10:47 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Roberts (tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net) writes:
> > > 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
>
> > I think "m" is "miles" here...
>
> > > 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
>
> > ... and here.
>
> > [...]
> >         --John Park- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The strength of Einstein's gravity is contractile. At the top of the
> atmosphere the drop off from maximum gravity strength begins. It is
> all even maximum gravity strength inside.
> Scientists have abandoned the original truth of contractile gravity
> strength. Gravity stays the same.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Up to the top of the atmosphere gravity strength is contractile and
then begins to drop off. The Earth as whole is in this even gravity
strength. Gravity is this round geometry and equal strength.

Mitch Raemsch; Look at a gravity sphere of time, geometry and strength
From: John Polasek on 10 May 2010 22:21
On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:17:34 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrob137(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).

No, I believe you "got it backwards". I said when a fixed pattern
slides across it is merely evidence of structural deflection (or other
bug) affecting the mirrors. A legitimate ether drift ("the phenomenon
you are looking for") would cause the pattern to compress/expand like
an accordion. You have misunderstood my message to think that I said
the opposite. I didn't think you would fumble that.

> 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
John Polasek
From: Tom Roberts on 11 May 2010 11:29
John Polasek wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 11:17:34 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrob137(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).
>
> No, I believe you "got it backwards". I said when a fixed pattern
> slides across it is merely evidence of structural deflection (or other
> bug) affecting the mirrors. A legitimate ether drift ("the phenomenon
> you are looking for") would cause the pattern to compress/expand like
> an accordion.

Your "belief" carries no weight. My arguments (retained below) do, until and
unless you can show an error in them. As I said, SOME structural deflections do
not change the intervals between fringes, and SOME do. An "ether drift"
(anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light) would not vary the interval
between fringes (your "accordion") -- such anisotropy appears as an orientation
dependence of the phase inside a cos(.), which does not compress/expand
("accordion").


> You have misunderstood my message to think that I said
> the opposite. I didn't think you would fumble that.

I did not "misunderstand" what you said. What you said is wrong. And unlike you,
I discussed why it is wrong.


Tom Roberts


>> 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
> John Polasek
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