Prev: The pointing out of black hole failure
Next: Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge
From: John Polasek on 11 May 2010 23:26
On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:29:57 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrob137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.
>>>
I don't think we have to get too technical here if we just look at the
output of the experiment as stated by the OP:

"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".

It is inconceivable that this is an ethereal effect, or if so should
be traceable to a local phenomenon with a period of 20 minutes. Aside
from that, such overt motion is most likely due to some of the foibles
in the setup probably having to do with the integrity of the
structure, (or inadvertently leaving the door open so as to catch a
draft).
Since you insist that there was no accordion like compression nor did
there need to be any accordion like compression, may I infer that you
think he has detected either drift and that the equipment is without
flaw?


>>> Tom Roberts
>> John Polasek
From: Tom Roberts on 12 May 2010 10:49
John Polasek wrote:
> I don't think we have to get too technical here if we just look at the
> output of the experiment as stated by the OP [...]
> It is inconceivable that this is an ethereal effect,

Yes. I said so earlier.


> Since you insist that there was no accordion like compression nor did
> there need to be any accordion like compression, may I infer that you
> think he has detected either drift and that the equipment is without
> flaw?

YOU MUST READ WHAT I WRITE.

I did not see his fringes, and have no idea whether they had "accordion like
compression". What I _SAID_ was that some structural deflections involve
compression/expansion of the fringes, and some do not, and that any anisotropy
in the speed of light does not. I also said that his observations clearly show
his instrument is insufficiently stable.

You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. There's no point in
continuing until you do.


Tom Roberts
From: John Polasek on 12 May 2010 12:08
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:49:18 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjrob137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I don't see that anymore light would be shed by extending this
discussion into a vituperative stage, but I want to point out that OP
should have said 70 fringes instead of 7, and while there was no
actual diagram, his casual mention of the shrinking coefficient of
some unspecified wood should have set our flag, as I believe Invar is
the preferred structural material (with kiln dried maple coming in
second :>).
John Polasek

>John Polasek wrote:
>> I don't think we have to get too technical here if we just look at the
>> output of the experiment as stated by the OP [...]
>> It is inconceivable that this is an ethereal effect,
>
>Yes. I said so earlier.
>
>
>> Since you insist that there was no accordion like compression nor did
>> there need to be any accordion like compression, may I infer that you
>> think he has detected either drift and that the equipment is without
>> flaw?
>
>YOU MUST READ WHAT I WRITE.
>
>I did not see his fringes, and have no idea whether they had "accordion like
>compression". What I _SAID_ was that some structural deflections involve
>compression/expansion of the fringes, and some do not, and that any anisotropy
>in the speed of light does not. I also said that his observations clearly show
>his instrument is insufficiently stable.
>
>You REALLY need to learn how to read more accurately. There's no point in
>continuing until you do.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The pointing out of black hole failure
Next: Electron and proton attraction by opposite charge