Existence of Preferred Frame: 2nd Australian Experiment confirms Cahill
in [Physics]
|
From: karandash2000 on 14 Dec 2006 02:18 Eric Gisse wrote: > 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 It takes several things: 1. An antirelativistic crackpot: Reg Cahill 2. An agenda: prove the existence of absolute motion 3. Ignorance of simple theory of speed composition in moving media : Reg Cahill 4. An inept experimenter ready to fake his results: Reg Cahill
From: mountain man on 14 Dec 2006 07:36 "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. And that the effects are not directly related to temperature variations, sure. No doubt further research is in progress. The sci.physics crackpot patrol men are thick and fast this time of year, it would appear. They seem to jump on these threads as if their flaming livelihood depended on the ascii. Pete Brown Did Constantine create Christianity? www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm
From: crank_hunter on 14 Dec 2006 09:58 Eric Gisse wrote: > 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? Eric Gisse is marked by Crank Alert: http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/4841325a3c938f44/01b8793b2b1f235b?rnum=311&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F4841325a3c938f44%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_01b8793b2b1f235b "F = ma, F = GmM/r^2. m*dr^2/dt^2 = GmM/r^2 r^2 * dr^2/dt^2 = GM The rest is left as an exercise. Do you know how to solve an ODE? I'll give you a hint: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerDifferentialEquation.html " http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/6656e57a32f8da73/8de1d639d237c151?rnum=91&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F6656e57a32f8da73%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_18b28dea41093521 "A rocket fired from inside a train that is moving with constant velocity is an inertial frame - it doesn't accelerate, and is thus inertial. " Crank Alert is a free service by Crank Hunter > > > > > > This applies even more strongly for Miller's result. > > > > > > Tom Roberts
From: Bill Hobba on 14 Dec 2006 19:46 <crank_hunter(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166108334.674586.183010(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > Eric Gisse wrote: >> 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? > > Eric Gisse is marked by Crank Alert: > > http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/4841325a3c938f44/01b8793b2b1f235b?rnum=311&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F4841325a3c938f44%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_01b8793b2b1f235b > > "F = ma, F = GmM/r^2. > m*dr^2/dt^2 = GmM/r^2 > r^2 * dr^2/dt^2 = GM > > The rest is left as an exercise. Do you know how to solve an ODE? > I'll give you a hint: > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerDifferentialEquation.html " > > > http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/6656e57a32f8da73/8de1d639d237c151?rnum=91&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F6656e57a32f8da73%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring=d#doc_18b28dea41093521 > > "A rocket fired from inside a train that is moving with constant > velocity is an inertial frame - it doesn't accelerate, and is thus > inertial. " > > Crank Alert is a free service by Crank Hunter The blind leading the blind comes to mind. Bill > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > This applies even more strongly for Miller's result. >> > >> > >> > Tom Roberts >
From: Sue... on 15 Dec 2006 03:33
mountain man wrote: > SECOND AUSTRALIAN EXPERIMENT > 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. Einstein claimed as much 85 years ago. > 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. >> No it doesn't. It claims gereralised Maxwell's equations but never actually derives them. They would look similar to this: http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm ....and can predict this: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html > 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. A Machian inertial reference frame can be detected with a gyroscope. That lends no support at all to the electrodynmaics described in the 2006 Cahill paper that can be attacked on all manner of flaws, real and imagined, since no URL was offered and questions about it have gone unanswered in this n.g. Sue... > > 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/ |