Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and its three directions)
Next: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, May 28, 2010 Washington,DC
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 16:35 "YKhan" <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fc447a6e-3c5b-49a9-a12f-929bb53617db(a)t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com... On May 31, 7:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is > isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in > the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented > vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to > gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm > that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted > by relativity. Yes, I read that in your paper. It might be a valid argument -- if the Earth were the *only* source of gravity in the entire Universe. But as it turns out, we live in a Universe with many other big, powerful, and local gravity sources, such as the Sun and the Moon. If these two objects are big enough to raise tides on the Earth, then I am sure they can cause "the needles" to go off in an MMX (metaphorical, no real needles are used). When the Sun or the Moon are on the horizon of these various modern MMX apparatus, then their gravity is aligned with the arms of these experiments. During this time, all sorts of shifts should be seen. > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > photographic paper. > > Ken Seto Uh, you do realize that that's not how the MM experiments work, right? The laser doesn't ever shift its position, like some vibration meter. All they're looking for is a change in the interference patterns between the lights coming from the two arms of the experiment. Yousuf Khan ================================================= Uh, you do realize that if you roll two balls along two chutes and if they leave together and arrive together, no matter what the shape of the paths may be, then "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" but light is NEVER "propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" no matter how much Einstein would like it to be?
From: Androcles on 1 Jun 2010 16:38 "YKhan" <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fc447a6e-3c5b-49a9-a12f-929bb53617db(a)t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com... On May 31, 7:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is > isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in > the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented > vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to > gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm > that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted > by relativity. Yes, I read that in your paper. It might be a valid argument -- if the Earth were the *only* source of gravity in the entire Universe. But as it turns out, we live in a Universe with many other big, powerful, and local gravity sources, such as the Sun and the Moon. If these two objects are big enough to raise tides on the Earth, then I am sure they can cause "the needles" to go off in an MMX (metaphorical, no real needles are used). When the Sun or the Moon are on the horizon of these various modern MMX apparatus, then their gravity is aligned with the arms of these experiments. During this time, all sorts of shifts should be seen. > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > photographic paper. > > Ken Seto Uh, you do realize that that's not how the MM experiments work, right? The laser doesn't ever shift its position, like some vibration meter. All they're looking for is a change in the interference patterns between the lights coming from the two arms of the experiment. Yousuf Khan ================================================= Uh, you do realize that if you roll two balls along two chutes and if they leave together and arrive together, no matter what the shape of the paths or there orientation may be, then "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" and this is exactly what MMX shows, but light is NEVER "propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" no matter how much Einstein would like it to be?
From: YKhan on 1 Jun 2010 16:50 On Jun 1, 9:33 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:09:52 -0700 (PDT), YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >Really, hasn't this been taken care of already by the Michelson-Morley > >experiments -- more than a century ago? > > That was thought to be the case and we have all been taught to believe > that by our text books. But new research shows that the experiment > may in fact have detected absolute motion. > > The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute > Motion > Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) > Progr.Phys. 3 (2005) 25-29http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174 > > Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887 > experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no > rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it > was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data > revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a > speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of > the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was > less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post > relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however > gives a different calibration leading to a speed >300km/s. So this > experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of > Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this > first detection of absolute motion in 1887. So why would you count relativistic effects, if you're trying to disprove relativity? It's a bit like saying, "I know god doesn't exist, because god himself told me this!" > >They've come up with more and > >more sensitive versions of experiments ever since, culminating in the > >current LIGO, GEO600, and TAMA300 experiments which are basically > >kilometer-scale versions of the Michelson-Morley apparatus. > > Sensitive in terms of detection of fringe shifts. But if the two way > speed of light relative to vacuum is equal to c, such vacuum > experiments are incapable of producing fringe shifts, so in effect > have zero sensitivity. > > In contrast it has been discovered that non-zero sensitivity can be > achieved if MM experiments are performed with an optical medium in the > light path. So it's the vacuum's fault? If you see different results in a gas, liquid, or solid, then that means you've messed up your experiment. Also outer space is all vacuum, while Earth has solids, liquids and gases. Does that mean absolute motion only exists on Earth but not in outer space? > >Incidently, they haven't detected any > >gravitational waves either, which is what they were designed to look > >for. > > Quite true. > > This could indicate that the space time concept is wrong, and if so it > would be consistent with the detection of absolute motion by MM > experiments that include optical media in the light path. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that these experiments are insensitive enough to detect absolute motion, but sensitive enough to disprove relativistic motion. The real answer is that Relativity is the right theory, just an incomplete one. We haven't discovered gravity waves from the cosmos because we don't have a complete enough description of how gravity works at several different vast distance scales (i.e. solar system vs. galactic vs. cosmic). The differences in gravitational behaviour among these length scales likely serves to dampen out gravity waves. But our current theory of Relativity only covers gravity within the solar system scale. Yousuf Khan
From: kenseto on 1 Jun 2010 18:04 On Jun 1, 4:00 pm, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 7:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is > > isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in > > the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented > > vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to > > gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm > > that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted > > by relativity. > > Yes, I read that in your paper. It might be a valid argument -- if the > Earth were the *only* source of gravity in the entire Universe. This is not a valid arguement. Expedriments on earth (in the same gravitational potential) shows that the speed of light is isotropic and that's why the MMX null result. If the plane of the arms is oriented vertically then fringe shift should be observed as the apparatus is rotated. >But as > it turns out, we live in a Universe with many other big, powerful, and > local gravity sources, such as the Sun and the Moon. If these two > objects are big enough to raise tides on the Earth, then I am sure > they can cause "the needles" to go off in an MMX (metaphorical, no > real needles are used). Again this is not a valid arguement.....the speed of light in the same gravitational potential is isotropic. the effect of the moon's gravity has no effect on the isotropy of the speed of light on earth. > > When the Sun or the Moon are on the horizon of these various modern > MMX apparatus, then their gravity is aligned with the arms of these > experiments. During this time, all sorts of shifts should be seen. Again, on earth the speed of light in the same gravitational potential is isotropic and thus the MMX null rsult. > > > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > > photographic paper. > > > Ken Seto > > Uh, you do realize that that's not how the MM experiments work, right? No....the MMX does not work because the speed of light in the same gravitational potential is isotropic. > The laser doesn't ever shift its position, like some vibration meter. In my proposed experiment it does shift. > All they're looking for is a change in the interference patterns > between the lights coming from the two arms of the experiment. My proposed experiment is not the same as the MMX. The laser will trace out a line on the photographic paper if there is absolute motion. Ken Seto > > Yousuf Khan
From: YKhan on 2 Jun 2010 06:54
On Jun 2, 4:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 4:00 pm, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 31, 7:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is > > > isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in > > > the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented > > > vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to > > > gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm > > > that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted > > > by relativity. > > > Yes, I read that in your paper. It might be a valid argument -- if the > > Earth were the *only* source of gravity in the entire Universe. > > This is not a valid arguement. Expedriments on earth (in the same > gravitational potential) shows that the speed of light is isotropic > and that's why the MMX null result. If the plane of the arms is > oriented vertically then fringe shift should be observed as the > apparatus is rotated. > > >But as > > it turns out, we live in a Universe with many other big, powerful, and > > local gravity sources, such as the Sun and the Moon. If these two > > objects are big enough to raise tides on the Earth, then I am sure > > they can cause "the needles" to go off in an MMX (metaphorical, no > > real needles are used). > > Again this is not a valid arguement.....the speed of light in the same > gravitational potential is isotropic. the effect of the moon's gravity > has no effect on the isotropy of the speed of light on earth. Explain why? > > When the Sun or the Moon are on the horizon of these various modern > > MMX apparatus, then their gravity is aligned with the arms of these > > experiments. During this time, all sorts of shifts should be seen. > > Again, on earth the speed of light in the same gravitational potential > is isotropic and thus the MMX null rsult. But these arms are in different gravitational potentials with respect to the Moon or the Sun, depending on what's on the horizon. > > > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > > > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > > > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > > > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > > > photographic paper. > > > > Ken Seto > > > Uh, you do realize that that's not how the MM experiments work, right? > > No....the MMX does not work because the speed of light in the same > gravitational potential is isotropic. > > > The laser doesn't ever shift its position, like some vibration meter. > > In my proposed experiment it does shift. > > > All they're looking for is a change in the interference patterns > > between the lights coming from the two arms of the experiment. > > My proposed experiment is not the same as the MMX. The laser will > trace out a line on the photographic paper if there is absolute > motion. > > Ken Seto Okay, good luck with that experiment. |