# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)  (Read 810 times)

#### marzosia2

• Full Member
• Posts: 93
##### Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)
« on: 18/03/2016 05:58:49 »
If You LOVE physics You need only first   picture to evaluate TRUE
I showed more pictures to make my post
more simple to read ( secoundary school )

Is it meaningful to talk about absolute rotation?

For the concept of absolute rotation to be scientifically meaningful, it must be measurable. In other words, can an observer distinguish between the rotation of an observed object and their own rotation? Newton suggested two experiments to resolve this problem. One is the effects of centrifugal force upon the shape of the surface of water rotating in a bucket. The second is the effect of centrifugal force upon the tension in a string joining two spheres rotating about their center of mass. A related third suggestion was that rotation of a sphere (such as a planet) could be detected from its shape (or "figure"), which is formed as a balance between containment by gravitational attraction and dispersal by centrifugal force.

Mach's principle

Main article: Mach's principle

In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle is the name given by Einstein to a hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

The idea is that the local motion of a rotating reference frame is determined by the large-scale distribution of matter in the universe. Mach's principle says that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. The principle is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here".

References
Max Born and Günther Leibfried. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Courier Dover Publications. p. 78–79. ISBN 0-486-60769-0.
BK Ridley (1995). Time, Space, and Things (3 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 146. ISBN 0-521-48486-3.
Rather than justifying a causal link between rotation and centrifugal effects, Newton's arguments may be viewed as defining "absolute rotation" by stating a procedure for its detection and measurement involving centrifugal force. See Robert Disalle (2002). I. Bernard Cohen & George E. Smith, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge University Press. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0-521-65696-6.
Archibald Tucker Ritchie (1850). The Dynamical Theory of the Formation of the Earth. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. p. 529.
John Clayton Taylor (2001). Hidden unity in nature's laws. Cambridge University Press. p. 26. ISBN 0-521-65938-8.
Isaac Newton: Principia (July 5, 1687) Book III Proposition XIX Problem III, p. 407 in Andrew Motte translation.
See the Principia on line at Andrew Motte Translation. Other sources and some notes are found at Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Charles D Brown (1998). Spacecraft mission design (2 ed.). American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronomy. p. 58. ISBN 1-56347-262-7.
This error is the difference in the estimated ratio of diameters. However, a more demanding measure of oblateness is the flattening, defined as f = (a−b)/a where a and b are the semimajor and semiminor axes. Using the cited numbers, the flattening of Newton's prediction differs by 23% from that of modern estimates.
Hugh Murray (1837). "Figure and constitution of the Earth deduced from the theory of gravitation". The Encyclopædia of Geography. vol. 1. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. pp. 124 ff.
Alexander Winchell (1888). World-life; Or, Comparative Geology. SC Griggs & Co. p. 425.

Mach- Marosz VS Einstein
DOPPLER MEHANISM         (first test Poland 2012 )

I informed about below LIGO TEAM
I LOOKING WAY HOW TO ORGANIZE INTERNATIONAL TEAM
THAT WILL REPEAT MY TEST PROPOSITION !  ( right now I only made simple
test with camera in home - You can repeat my test too )

Mach's  Far Far Star = Marosz close close star
close star it is very comfortable object to register
Doppler's Shift  and Intensity's  Shift

INTENSITY's shift ? what is it ?

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which
shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

1901  P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE

Distance D = constant !
SUN's power =  constant !
L1 , L2 , L3  ???

MAROSZ's test in home

IS 3d signal   MORE  PRECISSION THAN   LASER's  LINE ?

^3 it is very very strong relation
camera is registering  200 000  points  ( perfect COLOUR ? - Nikon 16Mpx ? )
during test I using  dark filtre ! ( very very strong filtre )
I'm able read very good AVERAGE ! ( long picture's time )

I worked near 5 years I found that exist TEMPERATURE problem

My family is not rich  I 'm  not able by more better optica
I started use Math ( Autocad 2014 drawings ) to evaluate 3D Doppler

SOMETIME KNOWLEGE is MUCH MORE BETTER TOOL THAN MONEY

DEARS SCIENTISTS

I NOT HAVE CONDITION TO RESEARCH NOW  . Please inform friends about tihis what I showed here.  I waiting for help - universitets in Poland not want to cooperate. My family is not rich . I want to before die confirm  many new facts in LAB . I informed LIGO TEAM about above  :) funny is that half year  ... later ...They confirmed  next Fact about Einstein.

It is natural that  "NEW " in physics feel strong "OLD" resistance.
Theory without math = religion ! Physics it is not religion.

I want to inform my wife and two daughters
I not lost 5 years work in my life
author Maciej Marosz Poland

400 years old problem !

LINEAR CONSTANT SPEED
MAXWELL  VS EINSTEIN !

HOW BIG FORCE IS PUSHING BEARINGS ?

Joul / cubic meter = Newton * meter / cubic meter = N/m^2 [Pascal]

MACH VS EINSTEIN
DOPPLER VS EINSTEIN
MAXWELL VS EINSTEIN
MAROSZ VS EINSTEIN

GALLILEO 1600 He did use fact that light is pushing objects !
1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which
shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.
1901  P. N. Lebedev EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF LIGHT PRESSURE

Galilean relativity ?
*********************************************************
Imagine a person inside a ship which is sailing on a perfectly smooth lake at constant speed. This passeneger is in the ship's windowless hull and, despite it being a fine day, is engaged in doing mechanical experiments (such as studying the behavior of pendula and the trajectories of falling bodies). A simple question one can ask of this researcher is whether she can determine that the ship is moving (with respect to the lake shore) without going on deck or looking out a porthole.
Since the ship is moving at constant speed and direction she will not feel the motion of the ship. This is the same situation as when flying on a plane: one cannot tell, without looking out one of the windows, that the plane is moving once it reaches cruising altitutde (at which point the plane is flying at constant speed and direction). Still one might wonder whether the experiments being done in the ship's hull will give some indication of the its motion. Based on his experiments Galileo concluded that this is in fact impossible: all mechanical experiments done inside a ship moving at constant speed in a constant direction would give precisely the same results as similar experiments done on shore.
The conclusion is that one observer in a house by the shore and another in the ship will not be able to determine that the ship is moving by comparing the results of experiments done inside the house and ship. In order to determine motion these observers must look at each other. It is important important to note that this is true only if the ship is sailing at constant speed and direction, should it speed up, slow down or turn the researcher inside can tell that the ship is moving. For example, if the ship turns you can see all things hanging from the roof (such as a lamp) tilting with respect to the floor
Generalizing these observations Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis:
???
any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments
???
(it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
In pursuing these ideas Galileo used the scientific method (Sec. 1.2.1): he derived consequences of this hypothesis and determined whether they agree with the predictions.
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving . The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (``are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity.
****************************************************

MAROSZ(me) we are moving respect to own OLD position
this fact we can easy measure !
Dynamica it is absolute frame below I showing box without windows and person inside !

ABSOLUTE ZERO   SPEED ?
DOPPLER / INTENSITY  ( EM preasure )

ABOVE I NOT SPEAK ABOUT AETHER
LIGHT NO NEED MEDIUM TO FLY

MEDIUM IS MAKING  LIGHT MORE SLOWLY
( medium's inertia blocking light )  !

C speed is max for EM preasure respect to
point  in space where the 3D signal Started

X1...X2...me >>> motion

short time ago I was in point X1 ,X2
now I'm in point X3
I will be in point X4

X1,X2 ...................Xn-1.....Xn......

X- absolute stationary points
I'm Sure I was there in past ( it is Virtual point not real object )
many  many points = 3D Neutral Space
(  XYZ similar like we learn in school mathematica )

I no need AETHER to EVALUATE MOTION
inside BOX

« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 09:06:09 by marzosia2 »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1760
• Thanked: 115 times
##### Re: Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)
« Reply #1 on: 18/03/2016 08:44:51 »
There is no clear science question here, so it is being moved.
Please keep questions short and clear, rather than long essays of opinion.

#### marzosia2

• Full Member
• Posts: 93
##### Re: Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)
« Reply #2 on: 18/03/2016 09:09:32 »
post's topic

"Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?) "

Laser = Light = EM preasure = EM wave

please read examples that I showed  ( please give Your opinion here  about Mach , about Maxwell , Doppler , Gallileo 1600 did't recogniaze that EM preasure = FORCE , 1861 Maxwell  ( 250 years later ) )

#### evan_au

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3932
• Thanked: 224 times
##### Re: Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)
« Reply #3 on: 18/03/2016 12:02:18 »
Quote from: marzosia2
How big force is pushing bearings?
The diagram above shows a glass box on wheels, containing a light source and two black objects that absorb light.

This looks like an experiment you could do in the kitchen with a fish tank and a torch.

The box itself looks symmetrical - it should not move along the tracks (provided the track is horizontal and there is no external air circulation or convection currents from the light).

The diagram appears to show the Earth moving around the Sun (and the Earth also spins on its axis). It is not clear how this external motion could cause the fish tank to move along the tracks.

Please describe what you saw when you conducted this experiment in 2012, and why you believe you saw this effect.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Whose theory is confirmed by LASER ( what is Your opinion ?)
« Reply #3 on: 18/03/2016 12:02:18 »