What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono on 4 Jun 2007 10:59 On Jun 3, 3:34 am, firstn...(a)lastname.net (Florian) wrote: > Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is > > wrong > > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > > light we thought" > > Each time I've seen the set up of a MMX, both arms of the interferometer > were horizontal. Is there any MM experiment peformed with one vertical > arm and one horizontal arm? > > -- > Florian > > "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" > Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) You must mean that the interfereometer plane always coincides with the local tangent plane to the Earth surface, right? The reason is mechanical, the older interferometers were placed on heavy platforms that were rotated on a mercury bath. Tom Roberts will chime in and explain that it would have been impractical to turn the setup in a plane perpendicular on the Earth tangent plane since the mercury would drip and the arms would bend :-) Now, there is no reason why the modern arrangements, using vibrating cavities could not be set up "vertically". See here : http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/research_mm.htm Note that due to the very high stability of these cores, they do not need to be rotated manually, the experimenters can "wait" for the Earth rotation to do the "work" for them. The only requirement would be, as in the original MMX, to have the plane of rotation set up in such a way that the two interferometer "arms" exchange roles such that the fringe shift is maximized, exactly as in the original MMX. Turns out that setting the cavity in a plane parallel with the Equator produces the optimal results. Once you do that, wait for 24 hours (or more) and observe the results. The question for you is why would such an experiment be intersting? There is a crackpot in this forum, named Ken Seto that thinks that there would be influence from the GR redshift effect but since these cavities are minuscule, the effect would be negligible.
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Jun 2007 11:20 On Jun 2, 9:40 am, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > I must remind you to check attributes and decide who's viewpoint > you agree with. Not too bright, are you? whose
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Jun 2007 12:03 On May 31, 11:09 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Laurent" <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1180634363.526421.224010(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a > > > > medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a > > > > preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a > > > > medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. > > > > Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes > > > a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing. > > > It is an important distinction from acoustic waves. > > > Right, that's where force lines come from. > > Force lines are a metaphor for the isopotents of the > given field. They have no basis in a mechanical aether. > > If free space has mechanical properties, what is its > stiffness (can't have transverse wave propagation without > a rigid material)? It must be huge for it to carry waves > at the speed of light. What is its Young's modulus? How > about shear strength? Density? How can all these > disparate mechanical properties required to serve the > purpose of a medium for light propagations be reconciled > with null experimental results for its detection? No spase is fully free, as there must be matter in the medium to interact; the medium is identical with the medium, and so the stiffness is that of the matter's. As lihtwaves are a subtractive process (net shifts in fields) rather than additive that would be ballistic-convective of masses, their proportionality with the above mekanic properties would be ah artefact. The aither is not stiffer than steel; it is however stiff a good vacuum is that is considered free spase. So your conditions are a big, fat strawman. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 4 Jun 2007 12:11 On Jun 4, 9:03 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > No spase is fully free, as there must be matter in the medium to > interact; the medium is identical with the medium, and so the That should be "the medium is identical with the matter".
From: Florian on 4 Jun 2007 16:28
Rudolf Drabek <newsrudy(a)aon.at> wrote: > Between Aequator and pole you have 90� already. It makes no > difference. > Also on other places you may have 90� inbetween. Never a difference > was found. But in this case, you'll never figure out if there is an ether wind perpendicular to the surface of the earth... -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) |