Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: harry on 13 Dec 2006 11:22 "Surfer" <surfer(a)no.spam.net> wrote in message news:6l40o25steb3i912ggnkhf7lko4adr32s3(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:17:22 GMT, "mountain man" > <hobbit(a)southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote: > > <snip> >>In recent years there >>have been a number (5?) of modern versions of the Michelson >>interferometer experiment. This uses two orthogonal resonant >>Fabry-Perot cavities. Rather than detecting interference fringes >>as the device is rotated these experiments detect changes in the >>beat frequency of the resonant frequencies of the two cavities >>as the device is rotated. >> > <snip> >> >>However a major development has occurred - two physicists >>(Dawkins and Luiten) at the University of Western Australia >>reported last week at a physics conference in Brisbane Australia >>that when gas (nitrogen at 10 torr) was placed in one of the >>cavities they detected a preferred frame, as Cahill predicted. >> >>They only had two days of data for presentation to the conference, >>but that data clearly detected the rotation of the earth with respect >>to a preferred frame by means of a clean sinusoidal shift in the beat >>frequency with a 24 hour period. > Wow, thanks, thats exciting news ! > But before jumping to conclusions, they need to make sure that the > period is a sideral day, rather than a solar day. Exactly! Harald >>Soon they will have a speed and >>direction of absolute motion after further refining the experiment. >>If this initial report is confirmed we would now have 9 successful >>absolute motion experiments. >> > Looking forward to hearing more. > > Regards, > Surfer > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > - "Faith in wilderness, or in nature as a creative force... > - is a philosophy, a faith; it is even, if you like, > - a religion. > - It puts your ultimate trust not in human intelligence, > - but in whatever it is that created > - human intelligence." > - > - - Joseph Wood Krutch > - > - http://www.pantheist.net > - http://www.pantheism.net > - > -------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Gisse on 13 Dec 2006 13:52 mountain man wrote: [...] I find it interesting to see how easily a gas-based interferometer can "detect" the preferred frame.
From: badd_xi2 on 13 Dec 2006 15:18 mountain man wrote: > SECOND AUSTRALIAN EXPERIM Since those claims, if true, would be worth at least two articles in prl, get back to us when one or more apperars in prl. >ENT > CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF > A PREFERRED (spatial) FRAME > > Cahill has claimed that Michelson interferometers can only > detect absolute motion if there is gas in the light path. So far > 5 such gas-mode experiments have been identified, including > in particular Michelson and Morley, and Miller. As well the > results from these have been confirmed by the totally different > coaxial cable technique (3 experiments). In recent years there > have been a number (5?) of modern versions of the Michelson > interferometer experiment. This uses two orthogonal resonant > Fabry-Perot cavities. Rather than detecting interference fringes > as the device is rotated these experiments detect changes in the > beat frequency of the resonant frequencies of the two cavities > as the device is rotated. Essentially Cahill's theory also applies > to these devices. His theory predicts that these experiments > will detect no evidence of absolute motion as they suffer from > the same design flaw of all Michelson vacuum-mode > interferometers - because of an exact cancellation between the > path length changes and the relativistic length contraction effect > for the arms. Despite the design flaw in these vacuum cavity > experiments, which are thus dud experiments, their non-response > is claimed to prove the anisotropy of the speed of light. > > However a major development has occurred - two physicists > (Dawkins and Luiten) at the University of Western Australia > reported last week at a physics conference in Brisbane Australia > that when gas (nitrogen at 10 torr) was placed in one of the > cavities they detected a preferred frame, as Cahill predicted. > > They only had two days of data for presentation to the conference, > but that data clearly detected the rotation of the earth with respect > to a preferred frame by means of a clean sinusoidal shift in the beat > frequency with a 24 hour period. Soon they will have a speed and > direction of absolute motion after further refining the experiment. > If this initial report is confirmed we would now have 9 successful > absolute motion experiments. > > > > Pete Brown > http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
From: Sorcerer on 13 Dec 2006 21:48 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:bk2gh.8114$Ga1.2381(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.net... | Eric Gisse wrote: | > I find it interesting to see how easily a gas-based interferometer can | > "detect" the preferred frame. | | That's because the presence of the gas makes it INCREDIBLY finicky. For | Michelson and Morley, I estimated that a 0.002 C relative change in the | temperature of the air in the two arms would induce a fringe shift | greater than the variation in their data. Roberts only looks at ANCIENT measurements, and does not include an error analysis at all. In fact, it is extremely likely that when the errorbars of those measurements are included, they will be consistent with modern measurements. Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars. That estimate completely ignores the many modern measurements, "which" (Roberts' illiteracy for "with") VASTLY smaller errorbars, that all show the speed of light in many different situations is source dependent. From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...(a)lucent.com> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:13:12 GMT This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant. SR is strictly valid only in a flat Lorentzian manifold with the topology of R^4. This of course is a very poor model of the world we inhabit. But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be used - NOT! news:7hQah.16667$6t.3934(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com
From: Eric Gisse on 14 Dec 2006 00:03
Tom Roberts wrote: > Eric Gisse wrote: > > I find it interesting to see how easily a gas-based interferometer can > > "detect" the preferred frame. > > That's because the presence of the gas makes it INCREDIBLY finicky. For > Michelson and Morley, I estimated that a 0.002 C relative change in the > temperature of the air in the two arms would induce a fringe shift > greater than the variation in their data. That variation, by the way, is > SMALLER than the errorbars on the points, so they have no significant > signal. The errorbars are easily computed by making a histogram of the > data. Wow, it certainly does not take much, now does it? > > This applies even more strongly for Miller's result. > > > Tom Roberts |