madmac surprise (Hijack from Two Bolts Strike Train)

[Mordred]

Most of my favourite sources-articles do not come from top journals because they are sceptical of the mainstream (censorship).

 

I am easily bamboozled by science.

I find this statement confusing. The best way to avoid being bamboozled by any theory or model is to literally study the math itself. I fail to see how journals that are sceptical can ever help you make an informed opinion if you never study the mathematics?

 

Your simply placing faith in one source over another without actually understanding the underlying details.

 

The mathematics behind SR and relativity of simultaneity isn't complex its actually fairly easily learned. You don't need tensors to understand it and make a properly formed opinion.

 

Quite frankly heuristic explanations that try to describe a theory in laymens terms is the greatest source of misconceptions.

 

I also have no idea what you mean by censorship. If I mathematically propose a theory. I literally want every scientist to pick it apart. Its the best way to strengthen a theory, fixing any mistakes and oversights. Competing models is often the best way to improve a model.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Mordred

[madmac]

Mordred.

Can u name 100 theorys-articles in the last 10 years that contradict mainstream theory (ie published in mainstream journals).

I will make it easier. Make that 10 articles in the last 20 years.

Ok, here is my last offer, 1 article in the last 30 years.

 

Re the math, what i look at is the postulate etc. The math might be perfect, but might give a perfectly wrong answer.

 

Re the simplicity of math, u cannot get any simpler than aether theory.

Here u take Lorentz (which is what Einstein did)(ok, he didn't know it at the time), & instead of some sort of silly M&M fixed aether (that Earth orbited or spun through), u inject a background aether-wind, which gives an absolute frame for velocity & time, & immediately u get a perfect solution to every GPS etc problem u can name, correct, first time, every time. Whereas SR & GR give a similar answer much of the time, & a perfect answer some of the time, which is not surprising because both theories use Pythagoras with sides equal to c & v etc.

 

The background aether-wind is say 475 km/sec south to north say 20dg off Earth's spin axis, right ascension say 5 hours or something (i can show u say 20 papers from say 10 independent experimenters that give remarkable agreement).

COBE gave a similar speed but a direction about 90dg different. That's ok, because Earth's aether-wind acts in our part of the galaxy, whereas COBE measured space in another part of the galaxy, or cosmos, or universe even. I thought that COBE & PLANCK & Co were a heap of rubbish (read Crothers & Robitaille) , but this bit of info has changed my mind.

 

Ok here is the real dirt. Aether theory says that an absolute velocity field determines length dilation & (speed) a time dilation. Einsteinian theory says that an acceleration field affects length & time dilation (albeit with vel in the equation too). But re aether theory the observer is born on Earth, & the clock is made on Earth, hencely the absolute velocity of the aether is sort of irrelevant. What the observer & the clock feel is the change in the aether velocity field. The change in the velocity field is due to gravity, & aether gravity is a function of the aether acceleration field (aether accelerating into Earth & Sun & all matter). So now the observable aether effects & Einsteinian effects are almost the same, because their acceleration-gravity fields are very similar (identical even).

 

Just think of the years & effort wasted with scientists scratching their heads when their lasers walk off, & their vacuum based M&M experiments give a null result, & when LIGO have to amp up their lasers to 100Kw, etc etc etc, when if they recognised the direction of the aether-wind they could orientate their apparatus (or make allowances) & get on with real advances.

I don't want a war with mainstream, i don't want victory (which will come sooner than everyone thinks), i want science to simply admit it was wrong, & get on with some really good work. There is no need for winners & losers. I look forward to some thrilling science, before the end.

 

swansont.

Yes links are good, but as i say here in this forum i cant paste links (in fact i cant copy & paste into or out of or within this forum, & i cant use the quote box. & the forum is in my trusted sites). I post on only 3 other forums here on Earth & they never give any problems pasting text or pix or using the quote box.

If a specific reference is critical of course i will give details & source. Mightbe i can type in the full link, i will see.

Edited February 4, 2017 by madmac

[Sensei]

Most of my favourite sources-articles do not come from top journals because they are sceptical of the mainstream (censorship).

 

Because they are rubbish. Who would like to degrade quality of his/her journal by garbage.. ?

 

I don't want a war with mainstream,

Too late..

 

i don't want victory (which will come sooner than everyone thinks), i want science to simply admit it was wrong, & get on with some really good work. There is no need for winners & losers.

So far I have not seen any math equations from you, that would make any calculations possible...

[Strange]

i want science to simply admit it was wrong, & get on with some really good work.

 

 

Science does that all the time. It did it when it was realised that time and space were not absolute. (It never had to admit it was wrong about the aether, because there was never any evidence for it in the first place; it was just an naive and unjustified assumption.)

[VandD]

Be carefull here. When the train passenger passes the platform passenger NONE of the two events occur for the train passenger! Hence stating the train passeger was in the middel of the two events sounds a bit awkward.

For the train passenger first the front flash occurs when the train passenger is NOT YET at the platform observer. And the second flash occurs when the train passenger has already passed the platform observer.

But the platform observer doesn't know this at the start of the experiment.

The train observer can only reason as follows:

<< If both flashes also occur simultaneously for me when I meet embankment observer, then I am in the middle of the flashes and they happen at same distance from me, hence both lights from bolts HAVE TO reach me simultaneously. But.... the lights from the bolts do NOT reach me simultanously. It can only be because for me (in my frame), It can not be correct that lighting bolts occurred simultaneously when I and platform observer>>

 

Actually the platform train observer doesn't know when exactly the flashes occur. But that's not important. What is important for the experiment was to find out whether for the train observer the flashes happened simultanously or not. And the experiment gives the answer: they don't happen simultaneously for the train observer.

Sorry for typo

(I also reshaped the text of analysis in new post original thread. )

Edited February 5, 2017 by VandD

[madmac]

studio.

Thanx for that link. Romer, & Huygens, & others. History is wonderful.

[studiot]

Studiot.

Thanks for thems links. Isnt history marvellous. Today scientists measure stuff to better than 1 part in a billion (but rubbish nonetheless) --- whereas the pioneers worked in the dark with homemade gear with little funding.

 

Although you will win no prizes for fine prose, I see no reason for anyone to mark this down twice.

Particularly as it contains the good manners to thank someone (me).

So +1 from me.

[Sensei]

Although you will win no prizes for fine prose, I see no reason for anyone to mark this down twice.

Particularly as it contains the good manners to thank someone (me).

So +1 from me.

 

That was because of "Today scientists measure stuff to better than 1 part in a billion (but rubbish nonetheless)" comment...

[madmac]

Sensei.

I am not sure if i can actually quote some sort of measurement that is very very accurate but rubbish.

I might think of one while i am watching the Falcons beat the Patriots.

I of course mean that the number might be good, but the explanation rubbish. I will have a think.

 

Yes, of course, LIGO. A very accurate clever apparatus, but found something that doesn't exist.

COBE & PLANCK. Likewise.

How about the standard metre. Supposedly very very accurate, but, in fact the length varies depending on time of day & day of year.

Edited February 6, 2017 by madmac

[Sensei]

I might think of one while i am watching the Falcons beat the Patriots.

I had to google for, what are "Falcons and Patriots".. WTF?! We're on science forums...

 

Yes, of course, LIGO. A very accurate clever apparatus, but found something that doesn't exist.

How can you detect something that does not exist.. ?

They could detect something else that's misinterpreted as gravitational wave,

but couldn't detect something that does not exist,

as it wouldn't make any sense.

 

How about the standard metre. Supposedly very very accurate, but, in fact the length varies depending on time of day & day of year.

Then, the next day, length will be the same as 24h ago,

so it's just a matter of repeating experiment..

 

Then, the next year, length will be the same as year ago,

so it's just a matter of repeating experiment..

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sensei

[DanMP]

swansont.

Re diurnal change in ticking.

This is mentioned on -- page 34 & 35 -- Section 3.6, Clock Bias on and Near Earth -- of -- Report on the ["Clocks and the Equivalence Principle" by Ronald R Hatch] -- by Jonathan Alzetta (April 1, 2011).

 

Alzetta says that Hatch said that -- "Hill reported that millisecond pulsars external to the solar system reveal a difference in clock rate between clock located at noon and at midnight".

The difference is about 300 ps/sec, & is due to Earth's orbit & daily spin. SR does not recognise any orbital contribution. GR suggests that the difference should be only 0.42 ps/sec, ie due to a greater gravitational potential due to the sun at noon.

I found the articles:

 

Clocks and the Equivalence Principle by Ronald R. Hatch (you may download the PDF):

Hill(13) has reported the results of comparing millisecond pulsars external to the solar system with clocks on the earth. These distant pulsars act as extremely stable clocks. They change frequency at a slow, but very precise, function of time due to loss of energy from radiation. Hill reports a significant difference in the rate at which earth-based clocks run at noon compared to their rate at midnight. This difference is explored below.

The noon–midnight problem has been addressed at length. Two explanations for the absence of any apparent effect from the sun’s gravitational potential were reported. Both are clearly incorrect. In fact, within SRT/GRT there is no valid explanation of the missing effect. When data are taken from clocks which are external to the solar system, it is found that earth-based clocks actually do run at different rates at midnight and noon. The mechanism, which explains this rate difference allows us to distinguish between SRT and Lorentz ether theories.

+ Report on the “Clocks and the Equivalence Principle” by Ronald R. Hatch by ALZETTA Jonathan

 

+ Those scandalous clocks by Ronald R. Hatch

 

 

I didn't understand why it is a "missing effect" if "it is found that earth-based clocks actually do run at different rates at midnight and noon" ...

[swansont]

I found the articles:

 

Clocks and the Equivalence Principle by Ronald R. Hatch (you may download the PDF):

+ Report on the “Clocks and the Equivalence Principle” by Ronald R. Hatch by ALZETTA Jonathan

 

+ Those scandalous clocks by Ronald R. Hatch

 

 

I didn't understand why it is a "missing effect" if "it is found that earth-based clocks actually do run at different rates at midnight and noon" ...

 

 

I had run across the "Scandalous clocks" paper. Hatch mentions the answer to the lack of signal from changes in gravitational time dilation from the sun — the clocks also have a different v, which mitigates the change in r — and then hand-waves that away. And then mentions GPS and somehow thinks that GPS clocks aren't changing their speeds with respect to the sun (which is scandalous)

 

"Clearly, the satellite orbital points closest and farthest from the sun do not orbit about the sun at different speeds. "

 

Clearly, this is BS

 

So I put no stock in these objections. (also to note that the article mentions objections to it being printed at all in GPS Solutions; I'm not the only one who thinks it contains fatal errors)

[DanMP]

....

 

Clearly, this is BS

 

So I put no stock in these objections. (also to note that the article mentions objections to it being printed at all in GPS Solutions; I'm not the only one who thinks it contains fatal errors)

 

Ok, I agree, but there is or there is not a midnight/noon difference? It should be?

[swansont]

 

Ok, I agree, but there is or there is not a midnight/noon difference? It should be?

 

 

I haven't worked through the math, but the claim was that the speed difference compensated for the gravitational difference. That's true for clocks on the geoid, so it's plausible that it would hold for the gravitational potential of the sun.

 

I think the differences are parts in 10^13, so when the "Noon-midnight shift" article was written (1961) it's possible it couldn't have been seen anyway, as the shifts were probably too small to be measured with the available clocks.

[DanMP]

I haven't worked through the math, but the claim was that the speed difference compensated for the gravitational difference. That's true for clocks on the geoid, so it's plausible that it would hold for the gravitational potential of the sun.

 

 

Alzetta (in 3.6 Clock bias on and near Earth - pg 35) wrote:

Hatch states that “Hill reported that millisecond pulsars external to the solar system reveal a difference in clock rate between clock located at noon and at midnight.” This is possible because millisecond pulsars act as very accurate clocks in the universe; it is then easy to measure and compare the rate of clocks located at noon and at midnight. The experimental data shows that the second for a clock situated at noon is 300 ps shorter than the one at midnight. The author attributes this cyclical effect to the “composite of the earth’s orbital and spin velocities.”

...

the maximal clock rate error due to the composition of the velocities is ...≈ 156.1 ps/s

...

By integrating the cyclical error, one finds ... ≈ 312.2 ps/s.

This result is in agreement with Hill which predicted that the noon second is about 300 ps shorter.

...

the maximal clock rate error due to the [sun] gravitational potential is 0.42 ps/s as announced by Hatch.

 

 

So it seems that speed difference does not compensate the gravitational difference.

 

And, if I get it right, in order to have the measured (it was repeated after Hill?) difference you have to be on Equator and the spin axle to be vertical (not tilted) ... It may be a problem ...

 

I think the differences are parts in 10^13, so when the "Noon-midnight shift" article was written (1961) it's possible it couldn't have been seen anyway, as the shifts were probably too small to be measured with the available clocks.

Timekeeping and the speed of light - new insights from pulsar observations was published by C.M. Hill in 02/1995. And 300 ps is 3 x 10^-10s.

 

I wonder if there are more recent measurements.

 

...

Re Aether-Wind.

I like the articles (about 40 of them) by Prof Reginald Cahill (Adelaide) & his students & fellow staff.

Cahill never uses the word aether, nor aether-wind. He uses the term Dynamic Space.

Cahill discovered/invented the proper calibration for M&M, which takes into account the refractive index of air (& helium in some tests). Vacuum givs a null result (ie most modern tests).

Actually i recently discovered that Cahill wasn't the first to find the proper calibration, but he is my hero nonetheless. ...

About Cahill:

George Gonzalez, Been around scientist for a few decades.

Written Jul 24, 2015

He has taken too many cosmic rays to the brain.

 

Re analyzing data from 130 years ago and calling the experimental noise a significant result, but ignoring the hundreds of more recent redos of the experiment, that's just plain nuts.

 

On the same page there is an interesting video with M&M vertical exp. (here are more info), with moving fringes ... Can you explain it?

Edited February 7, 2017 by DanMP

[swansont]

 

Timekeeping and the speed of light - new insights from pulsar observations was published by C.M. Hill in 02/1995.

 

 

and published in Galileian Electrodynamics, which makes one wonder if this is a result that anyone else has been able to replicate.

 

 

the maximal clock rate error due to the [sun] gravitational potential is 0.42 ps/s as announced by Hatch.

 

 

Which is 4 parts in 10^13

[madmac]

DanMP.

Thanks for the 2 links. I have heard of vertical M&M.

Non vertical tests are dangerous, u will always get periodic flexing at 2 orientations 180 dg apart. The video shows the fringes reversing direction, i am not sure if this is a signature of flexing, i will have to think about it. Horizontal tests are unlikely to suffer from flexing, the flexing will be constant.

 

But now i put on my aetherist hat, what would an aetherist say re a null fringe drift for a horizontal test, but showing lots of drift when carried out vertically. Aetherists say that the background aether-wind (say 430 km/sec) passes south-to-north at between 10 dg & 30 dg off Earth's spin axis (depending on season of year), Right Ascension 5.5 hrs.

 

If the experiment were carried out at latitude 60 dg then perhaps the plane of the experiment contained the velocity of the aether-wind exactly (unlikely i know). Berlin is at 52.5 dg. If so then any horizontal test would be null (or nearly), whilst a vertical test would give maximum possible fringe drift (for all compass orientations of that-there vertical). I am not sure if in this case the fringes reverse (as in the video), or not, i will have to think about it.

 

Earth's orbital velocity (30 km/sec) would help or hurt my above angles (=30/430) by +4 dg or -4 dg. Hencely u might get a vertical aether-wind at latitude 56 dg for one day a year (Berlin is at 52.5 dg), & of course at latitude 84 dg. But my astronomy is almost non-existent.

Earth's spin velocity is negligible (0.4 km/sec)(less at Berlin).

 

Cahill reports a turbulence (in his Dynamic Space) of up to plus or minus 30 km/s, what he calls Gravitational Waves. I don't know what these are, but i guess that they might add or subtract another +4 dg or -4 dg, taking the above angles to 52 dg& 88 dg. However, he said that these manifest at i think a micro-second frequency (on average), hencely they would be unlikely to show up in these sorts of visual fringe-drifts (too fast for our eyes)(& camera).

 

Getting maximum readings when the arms are at 45 dg (& 225 dg) is a mystery. Flexing should be at a max at say 90dg (& 270) dg, & M&M should be at a max at say 00dg & 180 dg (not sure), in which case if both occur then u might get that-there 45 dg (& 225 dg).

 

Perhaps one more idea. I know little about lasers, but i have a suspicion that the frequency of a laser is affected by its orientation with respect to the aether-wind, going from max to min each 90 dg of turn (or is it each 180 dg).

Not only that, i have a suspicion that there is Doppler happening in an M&M, ie re the reflected photons, going from max to min each 90 dg (or 180 dg). Doppler would give its own fringe-drift, which would add or subtract from the common time delay fringe-drift.

If the aether-wind is vertical, then the horizontal M&M wont be affected by the above frequency & Doppler affects, but the vertical M&M might (i need to think all of this through).

Edited February 8, 2017 by madmac

[DanMP]

... Which is 4 parts in 10^13

 

So you think that there is no speed related difference or that this difference was miscalculated?

DanMP.

Thanks for the 2 links. I have heard of vertical M&M.

Non vertical tests are dangerous, u will always get periodic flexing at 2 orientations 180 dg apart. The video shows the fringes reversing direction, i am not sure if this is a signature of flexing, i will have to think about it. Horizontal tests are unlikely to suffer from flexing, the flexing will be constant.

 

But now i put on my aetherist hat, what would an aetherist say re a null fringe drift for a horizontal test, but showing lots of drift when carried out vertically. Aetherists say that the background aether-wind (say 430 km/sec) passes south-to-north at between 10 dg & 30 dg off Earth's spin axis (depending on season of year), Right Ascension 5.5 hrs.

.....

 

You are welcome.

 

About vertical M&M, well, the flexing was addressed (read below the video link I offered):

Dear interested Viewers!

In the meantime, I have built with better equipment two new interferometers. The measured value is now smaller, roughly between 1.5 and 2.0 fringe shifts, but I could not get him to zero. You see, 11.5 shifts is no value chiselled in stone. The zero points are at all three interferometers at the same position, beamsplitter horizontal to the earth's surface. The daytime shifts about 0.5 fringes shifts have remained. I have no own homepage, and due to time constraints, I do not participate in public discussions. But there are a few websites on which images are visible from the new equipment. Here are two addresses:

 

http://worldnpa.ning.com/profiles/blo...

 

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2009/09/e...

 

With kindest regards

Martin Grusenick

 

At the beginning I also thought that flexing was the "culprit", but then, the fact that maximum shift occurred when the beamsplitter was horizontal made me think that there is something real going on ... One beam is going up and the other down ... I'm sorry to disappoint you but this can be explained by general relativity. Near a massive object (Earth) the "space" is warped (see gravitational wells) and the "upward" path becomes smaller than "downward" path, although the assembly is rigid. Just think about clocks ticking at different paces at different altitudes.

 

The daytime shift, about 0.5 fringes, may be a problem for Einstein's relativity (if confirmed). I think that it may have something to do with noon/midnight time difference discussed above.

 

Madmac, I think that aether wind is nonsense, but I can and will offer you a better, intuitive, relativity, one that you'll like It will take few weeks/months (I have to rewrite it) but you will be pleased.

[swansont]

 

So you think that there is no speed related difference or that this difference was miscalculated?

 

Hatch was calculating the gravitational time dilation, and it's close to what I estimated. The wording suggests that it does not include the effects of speed changing.

[madmac]

DanMP.

I had another look at the video, & i read the story of the 2 new gizmos, & i read the many comments.

Going from 11 fringe shifts to 2 fringe shifts by making a stiffer gizmo is a worry. It all smells like flexing. Except that the 45dg declination doesn't fit.

 

The best comment was that M&M requires a shift each quarter turn, not each half turn. I should have spotted this straight away. So, an M&M effect is unlikely here.

 

Except that with a path length of say 2m u would only get 1/30th the fringe shift of the 60m or so path lengths of say Miller. And even so, M&M and Miller and Co measured fringe shifts to 1/10th of a fringe mostly. Grusnick would have to measure say 1/300th of a shift to keep up.

 

And as u say we have the extra complication of the different g at a different (say 1m) elevation during a turn.

Here GR & aether-theory might give a similar (size) of effect that needs to be taken into account.

 

The daytime shift of 0.5 fringes would i suppose be a temp thing. But i will need to read the exact wording (i have an urgent appointment right now). I'll be back.

[madmac]

DanMP.

Re your comment that -- the upward path becomes smaller than the downward path -- this is something about GR that i haven't seen before.

 

But further to my above comments, re the new improved stiffer gizmo giving only say 2 fringe-shifts (when used in the vertical plane). No matter how stiff the gizmo, half of it will suffer compression when above the axle, & a half of it (below the axle) will suffer tension at the same time.

Adding say 10 times the metal might give say 10 to 100 times the stiffness (depending on how well u do it), & thusly 1/10th to 1/100th the flexing (bending), but, it will do zero to help the compression & extension (axial strains). They will most likely be exactly the same, no matter how much stiffer re bending.

 

Thusly, after making the gizmo stiffer, eventually getting the fringe-shifts down to only 2, Gusnik will then meet a wall, & no matter how much stiffer he makes the gizmo he will still find 2 fringe-shifts (which is perhaps why he gave up & made a fixed vertical gizmo, (Mark#4 i guess)).

 

A solution would be to design the gizmo such that the axle is in the center of its guts. Here the compression in the top half might negate the tension in the bottom half. Notice that Grusenick has all of the guts of his gizmo on the same side of the axle. A part of it, the long arm leading to the plywood target, is on the opposite side to the guts, but i suspect that this is not good enough, i suspect that the axle should be in the center of the guts part (ie inside all of the mirrors).

 

Re Grusenick's green light, i like it. Green is a genuine colour. Whereas M&M's white acetylene light always disturbed me, white is not a colour. Finally i found a reference that said that M&M saw colour in their fringes, which is what i suspected should happen. Anyhow, i am still suspicious of using white. And i said that Grusenick might need to measure fringe-shifts to 1/300th of a fringe, to keep on par with M&M who measured to 1/10th. But the calibration for an M&M gizmo depends on wave-length so my 1/300th is an oversimplification. The calibration i am talking about here is the one equating fringe-shift with speed of the aether (or in M&M's case, speed through the aether).

 

I had another look at the video, i was correct, the fringe-shifts are not M&M shifts, an M&M shift is a quarter turn thing, not half turn. The first video rotation starts at 3:24, shifting stops & reverses at 3:38, & the camera returns to the start point at 3:50 (here shifting stops & reverses).

Continuing, the next rotation has times 3:50 (shifting stops & reverses) , 4:00 (shifting stops & reverses), 4:10 (shifting stops & reverses)(now back at the start again, ie same position as 3:24 & 3:50).

 

The question remaining is why do the reversals occur when at 45dg, ie when the semi-mirror is horizontal??

This 45dg business is an M&M signature (or would be, if there was an aether-wind, & if it were vertical). But M&M would find reversal 4 times per turn (not Grusenick's 2).

 

Hencely, Grusenick's 45dg mystery must have a mechanical solution. If the fringe shifting due to axial compression (& tension) is equal to the fringe-shifting due to flexing, then we have our 45dg solution. Because axial strain is at a max when vertical, & bending strain (flexing) is at a max when horizontal, & the 45dg tells us that both are equal.

 

The problem now changes a little. Grusenick reports the same 45dg angle for all 3 versions of his gizmo. This computes ok if the equality of the ratio of the axial & bending strains is exactly the same for all 3, which is possible, though unlikely.

Edited February 10, 2017 by madmac

[zztop]

swansont.

Re diurnal change in ticking.

This is mentioned on -- page 34 & 35 -- Section 3.6, Clock Bias on and Near Earth -- of -- Report on the ["Clocks and the Equivalence Principle" by Ronald R Hatch] -- by Jonathan Alzetta (April 1, 2011).

 

Alzetta says that Hatch said that -- "Hill reported that millisecond pulsars external to the solar system reveal a difference in clock rate between clock located at noon and at midnight".

The difference is about 300 ps/sec, & is due to Earth's orbit & daily spin. SR does not recognise any orbital contribution. GR suggests that the difference should be only 0.42 ps/sec, ie due to a greater gravitational potential due to the sun at noon.

 

Re the reality of Einstein's Relativity.

I like the following 4 articles that i had a look at this morning that happen to be at the top of my list on my computer for no good reason, some of the other 14 further down my list might be better. These 18 articles are filed under GPS. I have perhaps 1000 articles, mostly related to aether, & some will be better than these 4 (re Einstein's Relativity).

 

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about the Twins's Paradox -- Tom Van Flandern (this is much more interesting than it looks).

 

The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light -- Paul Marmet (love it).

 

Light Transmission and the Sagnac Effect on the Rotating Earth -- Stephan J G Gift (nice).

 

GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview -- Henry F Fliegel & Raymond S DiEsposti (old article, but interesting).

 

Plus look at all of Ronald R Hatch's articles, eg -- In Search of an Ether Drift. He is praps the guru of GPS.

 

Re Aether-Wind.

I like the articles (about 40 of them) by Prof Reginald Cahill (Adelaide) & his students & fellow staff.

Cahill never uses the word aether, nor aether-wind. He uses the term Dynamic Space.

Cahill discovered/invented the proper calibration for M&M, which takes into account the refractive index of air (& helium in some tests). Vacuum givs a null result (ie most modern tests).

Actually i recently discovered that Cahill wasn't the first to find the proper calibration, but he is my hero nonetheless.

The sad saga of De Witte (who was the first to measure the one-way velocity of light) will bring a tear to every aetherist's eyes.

Cahill's discovery of what he calls Gravitational Waves is fascinating.

Cahill, Gift, Hatch, Marmet, De Witte are heavy duty cranks. Instead of wasting your life digging up rubbish, you would be better off taking a class. You will NOT be able to "bury" Einstein, as you mention on your profile, you are only making a fool of yourself.

 

PS: Grusenick is seriously wrong as well, since you seem unable to follow any scientific argument I will not post the math that explains the "fringe shifts" that he's seeing. Suffice to say that they are perfectly explainable thru the fact that the "vertical" arm stretches and compresses becoming longer or shorter than the "horizontal" one. Not only that the stretching/compression occurs but it is also dynamic (it varies in time) and it affects BOTH arms. Only a totally insane person would envisage MMX the way Grusenick did it. Why do you think Michelson, Gale, Dayton Miller and all the modern re-enacters took and take such pains to keep the setup HORIZONTAL?

Edited February 10, 2017 by zztop

[Strange]

Cahill, Gift, Hatch, Marmet, De Witte are heavy duty cranks. Instead of wasting your life digging up rubbish, you would be better off taking a class.

 

 

He is going to continue digging up rubbish because all he interested in is confirming his (irrational) beliefs. It is effectively a religious thing.

[madmac]

zztop.

I don't know why Grusenick did (tried) a vertical M&M. M&Ms are i suppose of no use unless u are looking for aether-wind. And if u do a vertical M&M then i suppose that u must reckon that the aether-wind is vertical (either going down or up). The idea being that u should get a maximum result in the plane of the aether-wind. And a null result if perpendicular to the aether-wind.

 

I wouldn't say that a vertical M&M is silly. U could make a gizmo of say Beryllium, half again as stiff as steel, & only a quarter the weight.

I daresay that Grusenick used Aluminium, which is less than a quarter as stiff as Beryllium, & is 46% heavier.

Beryllium would give approx. 6 times less trouble from compression strain & tension strain.

 

And his gizmo could be better designed to resist strain. He needs a bottom plate & a top plate, with small low-wt mirrors in between.

And the axle should go through the middle of the mirror complex, so that the half under compression (the higher half) would be negated by the half under tension (the lower half).

 

In addition the gizmo could be calibrated for strain. In the horizontal position u could apply compression to one side & tension to the other, to mimic the forces due to self wt found when in the vertical plane, & the fringe-shift due to the application of the compression & tension could then be deducted from the test readings.

 

One problem is that few locations would be suitable for a vertical M&M. What i mean is that most locations would need the test to be carried out on some angle in between horizontal & vertical. An angled M&M would be a nightmare, the strain would be much worse than in a vertical M&M.

 

But why not travel to the tropics, & do a horizontal M&M. In the tropics the aether-wind will be horizontal twice a day. No need for a vertical M&M.

 

If ever Grusenick gets his M&M going properly i daresay that if he measures a valid M&M fringe-shift of say 1/10th of a fringe (four times per revolution), & if this is in the plane of the aether-wind, then this might equate to an aether-wind of say 444 km/sec, which is approx what us aetherists reckon. But i haven't done a proper calibration calculation. But these are the sorts of numbers needed. He would therefor need to get his strain "noise" down to no more than 1/10th of a fringe i reckon, else the noise will be bigger than the signal. The fact that the noise will be a half-turn thing, whilst the signal is a quarter-turn thing, might make things easier for Grusenick (not more difficult).

 

Michelson & Morley & Miller & Co all thought that the Earth was orbiting & spinning through a fixed aether, & hencely that the apparent aether-wind was passing through Earth more or less parallel to the plane of the Equator (& perhaps it might be better to do tests near the north pole). But a 60dg angle off ideal must have seemed acceptable to them. 90dg off ideal would give a null result. It wasn't till later years that they realised that the aether-wind was almost perpendicular to the Equator, & that ideally they should be doing tests in the Tropics.

Edited February 10, 2017 by madmac

[Strange]

I wouldn't say that a vertical M&M is silly. U could make a gizmo of say Beryllium, half again as stiff as steel, & only a quarter the weight.

 

 

Please do the maths to show that the distortion in such a system will be smaller than the effect you are trying to measure.

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot: there is no point asking you to do any science because all you are interested in is your personal beliefs. I will suggest that the mods close this thread for lack of science.