0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, all the people who looked at this experiment think that 24 is not 25.Why do you think they are all wrong and 24=25?
Alright I may have been wrong about that one
It's speed is independent of the speed of the medium that it is travelling through.
If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 01/11/2018 13:22:20Alright I may have been wrong about that oneShould we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/11/2018 19:51:38Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 01/11/2018 13:22:20Alright I may have been wrong about that oneShould we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?How is the boat example wrong?
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 01/11/2018 19:58:26Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/11/2018 19:51:38Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 01/11/2018 13:22:20Alright I may have been wrong about that oneShould we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?How is the boat example wrong?http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorAddition.html
The boat travels .2 mph upstream and 4.8 mph sideways, so an angled 5 mph in total. right?
I looked this over.
To be honest, if you don’t understand why this is wrong you ought not to be posting new theories on a science forum.Go back to secondary school maths (to be honest they cover it over here at primary level).
It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
This is your proof that the experiment works as they said it should?
you don't have any intelligent answer, just number salad.
And yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong,
Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?
I'm guessing wave-particle duality is also proven concrete in your head as well since it fits with your opinion that space isn't a medium is that right?
but you have failed to show that you understand that.
Strictly from an energy standpoint, it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light, as long as it makes an equal trip back on that path,
it looks very similar to diffraction
how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus?
What do you think space actually is?
The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.
I've got some good news for you! The US National Science Foundation spent about $600 Million upgrading the Michelson Morely experiment, bringing it up to date with the latest, most stable lasers and latest high-tech mirrors, and even paid for an enormous vacuum tube so it wouldn't be disturbed by changes in air pressure, etc. Comment: A proper MMX needs gas -- vacuum gives zero fringeshift. It now has the extraordinary ability to detect motion relative to the aether of better than 1 part in 1020, which is certainly enough to detect the rotation of the Earth, the Earth's movement around the Sun, and the Sun's movement around the galaxy. Comment: It has zero ability to detect aetherwind in the conventional MMX fringeshift sense. However it appears that it has the ability to confirm Lorentz's gamma for length contraction to 20 decimals.Secondly if they did detect an aetherwind they would not need to account for it. They only need to ignore it -- easily done -- after all their detection is obtained by removing noise of all sorts that is 1000 times as strong as the signal they are looking for -- a signal to noise ratio of 1000. So removing or ignoring a smooth gradual 24hr change would be like taking candy from a baby. As it is they are trying to make us babies eat baloney. But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO". Comment: No u are wrong. The daily etc change in aetherwind shows up during every second of every day by changing the direction of their laser beams. Thats why they need big convex mirrors -- flat mirrors wouldnt work. Flat mirrors would need 1/1000th of the wattage, but they have to have convex mirrors & super wattage thusly giving them a giant thermal headache. If the aetherwind is say c/1000 & it it swings back & forth during each 24hrs then a 4" flat mirror wouldnt work. However because the swing is predictable then they could easily allow for it & use 4" flat mirrors & 1watt lasers, but that would require a knowledge of the background aetherwind blowing throo Earth, & more importantly it would require an admission of aetherwind, which in turn proves aether, which in turn proves SR wrong, which in turn proves GR wrong, which in turn proves that GWs do not exist, which in turn proves that LIGO is a waste of time & money. So we have large convex mirrors -- & we have a waste of time & money anyhow. And in the absence of a disturbed aether, LIGO does detect the subtle influence of gravitational waves (as also predicted by Einstein). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO Comment: No such GWs exist. And if they did exist they would not travel at c, they would travel at at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern). Thats how we know that their GW detections are fake. Their delay of 0.0069 sec tween Hanford & Livingston would need to be 1/20 billionth of that or less to convince me of GWs.Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.A Russian team detected an event of some sort during the 1 sec of the first LIGO GW detection. I forget the details.
Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.
how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus?Nobody ever said it did.The problem seems to be that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/11/2018 00:34:52Their detection is i reckon due to harmonics from their calibration signals. Or if the delay of 0.0069 sec is legitimate then there is the possibility of a photonic event passing throo at c, or an em event passing throo at c.As a gravitational wave passes through a given region of space, it compresses space at a 90 degree angle to the direction of travel along one axis and stretches space along an axis perpendicular to both the direction of travel and the direction of compression. As it progresses, the axis of compression switches to expansion and the axis of expansion to compression. This goes back and forth over and over until the gravitational wave passes.Here's an image to help illustrate it: https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/visual/visual.html?shortname=gravitational_wavesThis series of compressions and stretches is exactly what gravitational wave detectors like LIGO look for and is why they have two "legs" that the lasers pass through at 90 degree angles to each other. If a gravitational wave causes a measurable compression along one leg, it should produce a simultaneous expansion along the other. Electromagnetic waves do not cause distortion of this sort, so the signature of any kind of electromagnetic interference on LIGO would not look the same as a gravitational wave detection.
So that leaves us with some sort of seismic event.On the other hand the guilty event only has to affect the disposition of the little detector, it doesnt have to affect the whole 4 km of pipeline. So it could be sonic. But photonic & em are probly not guilty.