Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/10/2018 18:37:05
-
Light is just waves of density in space. All waves are expanding density through a medium. Light's medium is space, so all light is is a wave of density in space with a certain frequency.
Protons and neutrons are made of super dense space. There density squeezes the surrounding space of the universe they are in. The region of squeezing creates its gravity field. When two gravity fields touch the same squeezing of space on space occurs and it pulls two objects together based on their mass.
In a magnet, all the electrons in the atoms circle in the same direction, this creates a fan like churning that sends outward waves of density along space in the pattern of the magnetic field.
An electron is a slice of energy that fits an atom's electron shell. It's density as a wave adds to the overall weight of the atom. The electron may collect energy gradually until it is 'full' and needs no more energy. Positively charged protons may vibrate producing waves in the nucleus's gravity field which capture electron's while a neutron with the same weight repels electrons.
-
Light is just waves of density in space. All waves are expanding density through a medium. Light's medium is space, so all light is is a wave of density in space with a certain frequency.
Protons and neutrons are made of super dense space. There density squeezes the surrounding space of the universe they are in. The region of squeezing creates its gravity field. When two gravity fields touch the same squeezing of space on space occurs and it pulls two objects together based on their mass.
In a magnet, all the electrons in the atoms circle in the same direction, this creates a fan like churning that sends outward waves of density along space in the pattern of the magnetic field.
An electron is a slice of energy that fits an atom's electron shell. It's density as a wave adds to the overall weight of the atom. The electron may collect energy gradually until it is 'full' and needs no more energy. Positively charged protons may vibrate producing waves in the nucleus's gravity field which capture electron's while a neutron with the same weight repels electrons.
What do you mean by "density"?
Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.
-
What do you mean by "density"?
Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.
I mean taking a large volume of something, in this case space, and compressing it into a smaller area. For example, when light hits a dense area of space caused by a gravity field, it refracts and moves at an angle to it's previous path. I suppose density means the total number of atoms per cubic measurement, but I mean space that has been compressed.
-
What do you mean by "density"?
Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.
I mean taking a large volume of something, in this case space, and compressing it into a smaller area. For example, when light hits a dense area of space caused by a gravity field, it refracts and moves at an angle to it's previous path. I suppose density means the total number of atoms per cubic measurement, but I mean space that has been compressed.
A large volume of space is an oxymoron.
What do you think space actually is?
-
What do you mean by "density"?
Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.
I mean taking a large volume of something, in this case space, and compressing it into a smaller area. For example, when light hits a dense area of space caused by a gravity field, it refracts and moves at an angle to it's previous path. I suppose density means the total number of atoms per cubic measurement, but I mean space that has been compressed.
I think you need to start by finding out the scientific definitions of the words you are using, because none of that makes much sense.
-
A large volume of space is an oxymoron.
More like a tautology than an oxymoron, I'd say.
Michio Kaku did mention in his book Hyperspace that there was some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating through a fifth dimension of space. Apparently, it was pretty good, at least mathematically-speaking, at unifying gravity with electromagnetism. It turned out to be insufficient when the nuclear forces were taken into account, unfortunately.
-
What do you think space actually is?
Space is what it is, I'm not arguing pro aether or against. The only thing in space instead of there being nothing everywhere, are density's within it as described in the OP. The universe has a consistent density of space all through out it and is like a drawing board for matter and energy. I believe the universe is just another particle of matter to an outside universe which has an overall density in ratio to a particle of matter's density to our universe. Time would be same in infinite universe's this way because the density of are host universe would allow light to move much faster for the distance it has to travel.
-
A large volume of space is an oxymoron.
More like a tautology than an oxymoron, I'd say.
Michio Kaku did mention in his book Hyperspace that there was some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating through a fifth dimension of space. Apparently, it was pretty good, at least mathematically-speaking, at unifying gravity with electromagnetism. It turned out to be insufficient when the nuclear forces were taken into account, unfortunately.
I once thought about it as a vibration moving through space a few years ago I should Revit this idea one day, an ultra fine vibration compared to a gravity wave. If a gravity wave was the wave in a wake left by a ship then light would be the ultra fine chop of the ocean which was already there and the wave from that wake can pass by causing basically little effect. Keep in mind this ripple would be more organised and not just random like ocean chop. In a way it is a density wave traveling through space time so in a way density may apply.
It came to me one day watching a travel commercial and a cruise ship pass by leaving a wake on a choppy sea right when I was wondering what light might be - I never gave it much more thought.
-
Seems like all waves are a spread of density through a medium. Like when you throw a rock into a pond, the waves in the water occur after the rock creates a crater of expansion.
-
I think you need to start by finding out the scientific definitions of the words you are using, because none of that makes much sense.
Well I would ask you what term you would use to describe density, but you would probably just go on about relativity and how space isn't a medium. Well I'm pro medium and am set out to prove it. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71445.msg523210#msg523210
The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.
-
Let's start with a box of air. Light propagates through it. Pump out the air. Light still propagates. Fill the box with carbon dioxide or water, ditto. So the "medium" is present in solids, liquids and vacua but has no mechanical or chemical properties (or we would be able to pump or displace it). Now add black ink to the water. Where has the "medium" gone? Try red ink - some light gets through but most doesn't. It must be there, but it doesn't work properly in the presence of almost everything!
Now take a birefringent crystal. The medium must be present because it transmits light, but suddenly this stuff with no physical or chemical properties has become anisotropic!
Religion may prefer the synthetic explanation of natural phenomena, adding gods or angels to fill the gaps in our understanding, but most scientists prefer Occam's approach. If you can produce an equation that predicts the behavior of light without using a magic medium, use it.
-
Light is just waves of density in space.
Density is a scalar value - it has a value (amplitude) at every place in space. A density wave is able to propagate through a medium, like longitudinal waves through a solid.
However, when you have polarised light, it behaves differently, depending on the polarisation. So light has an amplitude, but also a direction of polarisation.
A density wave does not have enough degrees of freedom to correctly represent light.
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.
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.
But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".
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
-
But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".
The whole experiment is flawed in the first place. The light bounces back on the same path they sent it out on, which would cancel any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether on that specific path. That's not what they said though.
-
But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".
The whole experiment is flawed in the first place. The light bounces back on the same path they sent it out on, which would cancel any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether on that specific path. That's not what they said though.
Congratulations!
You just worked out why the MM experiment is a 2nd order effect experiment.
Now all you need to do is see why that 2nd order experiment actually works.
-
Congratulations!
You just worked out why the MM experiment is a 2nd order effect experiment.
Now all you need to do is see why that 2nd order experiment actually works.
You're not leaving me with much to argue with you here. How does it work as a 'second order experiment' as you say? My arguement as I stated in post #12 is that the light split along two paths in the experiment bounces back along the same path, cancelling any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether, and consequently won't give the results they predicted, that the two light waves would return at different times. It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium. Wave particle duality is ridiculous. Someone should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago.
-
some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating
Well, vibrating causes motion to and fro, sending out waves, example a tuning fork. I guess its true or I've heard it before that electrons vibrate when light bounces off them causing color in substances.
-
It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium.
One could argue that the electromagnetic field itself is that medium. Electromagnetic waves (such as light) are excitations that propagate through that field. Since all of space contains an electromagnetic field (due to both the inverse square law and vacuum fluctuations), there is always something present to propagate light through.
-
You're not leaving me with much to argue with you here. How does it work as a 'second order experiment' as you say? My arguement as I stated in post #12 is that the light split along two paths in the experiment bounces back along the same path, cancelling any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether, and consequently won't give the results they predicted, that the two light waves would return at different times. It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium. Wave particle duality is ridiculous. Someone should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago.
"You're not leaving me with much to argue with you here. "
Feel free to look it up.
"My arguement as I stated in post #12 is that the light split along two paths in the experiment bounces back along the same path, cancelling any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether, and consequently won't give the results they predicted, that the two light waves would return at different times."
Your argument is wrong for two reasons
First.
If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.
Your idea that they cancel is factually wrong.
People who do this sort of thing realise why the two journeys (out and back) do not cancel.
That's why nobody "should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago."..
Imagine you are walking in a canal full of water with no flow.
Obviously, you walk more slowly than in air.
If you walk say 20 metres, then turn + walk 20 metres back it will take some time
You seem to think that, if you make the same trip in a river (rather than a canal) it will take the same time because the flow of the water will hinder you in one direction but help in the other.
But that fails to take account of the fact that, because you walk against the current more slowly than you walk with it, you spend more time walking against it than you spend walking with it..
And because of that, the effects don't cancel.
You see it's not a matter of "Someone should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago".
It's a matter of you should have realised that you are not so clever as almost 200 years worth of scientists.
Why did you think you were that clever?
-
You seem to think that, if you make the same trip in a river (rather than a canal) it will take the same time because the flow of the water will hinder you in one direction but help in the other.
But that fails to take account of the fact that, because you walk against the current more slowly than you walk with it, you spend more time walking against it than you spend walking with it..
And because of that, the effects don't cancel.
This makes no sense. You would gain back the time you lost walking against the current by walking with it because it would accelerate you in the direction of its flow.
It seems to me that the more I read about the experiment, that they just assumed that it would work the way they imagined in their minds. Is there any concrete proof that the results should be accurate with what they assumed?
-
Is there any concrete proof that the results should be accurate with what they assumed?
Yes, there is.
That is why I already told you about it.
If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.
Your idea that they cancel is factually wrong.
And you are simply wrong in thinking that the time lost walking one way is exactly compensated walking the other way.
Say the current makes a 1 mile per hour difference and you walk at 5 miles an hour in still water. (OK that's not realistic, but the numbers make the maths easy)
And, lets say your walk is a mile each way.
In the canal you travel a mile in 1/5 hours which is 12 minutes.
So the return journey takes 24 minutes.
In the river you make the same mile each way return journey.
You set off against the current so you are slowed down by a mile per hour. You travel at 4 miles per hour.
The mile takes 1/4 hours or 15 min.
And then there's the second leg.
With the water behind you , you can manage 6 miles per hour so the journey takes 1/6 hours i.e. 10 minutes.
The round trip takes 10 +15 =25 min
I say that 24 is not the same as 25 and you claim
This makes no sense
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?
-
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?
In thinking about your example I came to the conclusion that we're both wrong. For starters a wave isn't a boat or a person walking in a river current. A wave is not the movement of matter. It's speed is independent of the speed of the medium that it is travelling through. It's frequency is changed by the movement of the medium, but not the speed at which it propagates. For example when a car drives past with loud music, as it drives away from you the music doesn't seem to slow down but rather becomes lower in tone because its frequency has stretched out. Same thing with red shift and blue shift of the stars as we move toward or away from them. The faster you move towards the wave, the higher the frequency appears to be because you are moving into it. So the moving aether wouldn't change the speed of the wave, just it's frequency. The Michelson Morley experiment assumes that speed will be added to the wave travelling with the moving aether as if it was a boat travelling with a river current and then slower on its way back. Instead though when light waves travel with the aether the wavelength becomes wider because the expansion of the wave travels with the moving medium and it slows down its frequency, not the wave in its entirety. Hence the speed of the light travelling along both paths in the experiment comes back at the same time causing no infraction.
-
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 but wrap your head around this. According to the M&M experiment, the light travelling to and fro on a path perpendicular to the aether movement should return faster then the light moving with and against the current right? So lets say you have a boat that travels 5 mph and the current of the river you are on is 1 mph. The boat will move 4 mph upstream and 6 mph downstream because of the loss and gain of momentum from the current. So lets say it travels one mile and back. Upstream it will take the boat 15 minutes and going down stream it will take 10 minutes to travel a mile. So a total trip of 25 minutes. Now if the boat travels perpendicular to the one mph current for one mile at 5 mph, it will drift down stream 1/5 of a mile. So in order for it to travel a straight line perpendicular to the current it has to travel 1/5 of a mph upstream to fight the current. so 5 mph minus 1/5 or .2 mph is 4.8 mph. So it travels .2 mph upstream to compensate for the current and 4.8 mph in the perpendicular direction. Traveling one mile at 4.8 mph will take 12.5 minutes. The path back along the perpendicular will take the same amount of time and 12.5 + 12.5 = 25 minutes. Hence 25 minutes for the boat to travel a one mile path and back in the perpendicular to the current, and with and against it. The math will be the same for any river current speed or boat speed as long as the speed of the boat exceeds the river current
-
Alright I may have been wrong about that one
Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?
-
It's speed is independent of the speed of the medium that it is travelling through.
FFS!
For the third time
If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.
-
Alright I may have been wrong about that one
Should we skip ahead to the bit where you accept you were wrong about this one too?
How is the boat example wrong?
-
Alright I may have been wrong about that one
Should 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
-
This is such a common problem that I am almost ashamed to have to explain it to a group of science enthusiasts.What on earth has happened to basic mathematical education? Here's what happens to me on an ordinary work day.
I fly from A to B, do something useful, then fly then back again. Suppose the distance is 200 miles and I fly at 200 mph through still air.
Time outward = 1 hour, time return = 1 hour. obviously. So total trip time =2 hours.
Now suppose there is a 50 mph wind blowing from B to A. Speed over the ground outward = 150 mph so time outward = 200/150 hr = 1 hour 20 minutes
Return trip covers the ground at 250 mph so return time = 200 / 250 hr = 48 minutes
So the total trip time = 2 hr 8 minutes
Any reflection of a compression wave through the aether will be subject to similar delays if the aether is moving relative to the source.
If a light wave "gained momentum" from the aether, it would increase in frequency (E=hν by experiment). Funny thing is, no matter where you place your diffraction grating with respect to the source and the "aether wind", the measured wavelength of a laser or even a sodium lamp doesn't change, so the "one-way momentum" is constant.
But who cares about elementary arithmetic, or the physics you did at school? If Donald Trump believes in the aether, that's good enough for Republicans, flat earthers and aetherists.
-
Alright I may have been wrong about that one
Should 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
I looked this over. Anyways back to my example of the boat having to direct itself at least partially upstream to travel a straight perpendicular path. The boat travels .2 mph upstream and 4.8 mph sideways, so an angled 5 mph in total. right? but wait. If the boat is travelling 4.8 mph it will drift into a diagonal path because .2 mph upstream is to compensate for 5 mph. So if you use 5.2 mph in the math as the speed of the boat you get the perpendicular path at 24 minutes, and the horizontal path at 23.96 minutes. So the math gets screwed up. Can anyone help me see from a physics world if .2 mph upstream is sufficient for the 4.8 mph perpendicular path? Also light wouldn't push upstream because it has no engine it would just carry off in a diagonal path, wouldn't that effect it's speed not having to fight the current of the aether?
-
The boat travels .2 mph upstream and 4.8 mph sideways, so an angled 5 mph in total. right?
Wrong.
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).
-
I looked this over.
Look it over again, and keep doing so until you realise that you can't justy add velocities together.
Or think about this example.
I'm in a city where the streets are set out as a square grid pattern and each block is 100 metres on each side.
I walk at 100 metres per minute.I set out and go North 5 blocks (that's 5 min) and then East 5 blocks (another 5 min).
Since I walked for 10 min , according to your arithmetic, I should be 1 km from where I started .
But obviously,, I'm not.
So, even if you don't know how to calculate the right speed, you should recognise that just adding the speeds together gives you the wrong answer.
When you use that (definitely wrong) answer, you come to the conclusion that physics has been wrong since M+M's time.
Because, with that (definitely wrong) calculation, the path differences cancel out.
But, if you know that they cancel when you do the wrong maths, you also know that they do not cancel if you do the right maths (because exactly cancelling is the wrong answer).
So, while you, personally, don't know enough to calculate how much the fringes shift, you must realise that they do shift if you move relative to the "ether".
And, since they would shift if there was an ether, but they don't, you know there's no ether.
If you want to learn some actual science, so you can find out what the right calculation of the sum of the velocities of the river and the boat would give you, perhaps you should start here
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus/vectors-precalc
-
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?
This is your proof that the experiment works as they said it should? You are ridiculous. I would ask you to prove it works but know you don't have any intelligent answer, just number salad. 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?
And yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong, and I may know where they're wrong, 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, all paths are equal in length, the motion of the space-medium is consistent as well as the space it's in i.e. a gravity field or any other kind of field, and basically is set up the M&M experiment.
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).
So you as well believe space is not a medium? It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
-
It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
Here's a much more precise one that was done in 2009: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
-
And if you think about its natural diagonal path it takes along the perpendicular to the space-medium, it looks very similar to diffraction which doesn't just make that path longer, but would also slow the light down. But energy can't be gained or lost, how can any equal path from the source and back yield an energy plus or minus? if it can we should be able to build a free energy machine out of it.
-
This is your proof that the experiment works as they said it should?
No.
It's my proof that you are wrong.
you don't have any intelligent answer, just number salad.
I showed where all the numbers I used came from.
And yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong,
Told you so
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?
Particle wave duality is proven in my view, because I have personally done experiments that work with bothe the particle and wave aspects of light.
That's why I actually know what I'm talking about.
but you have failed to show that you understand that.
I pointed out exactly where you were wrong and gave you instructions on where you might learn better.
It isn't my fault you didn't do so, but came back with a silly rant.
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,
Nobody ever said there was an energy loss, so that's a straw man attack.
It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
How did you come to the conclusion that, in spite of being repeatedly shown to be wrong, you think you know better than the intelligent people?
it looks very similar to diffraction
It's not a matter of "what it looks like", it's a matter of how it is.
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.
-
What do you think space actually is?
What do you think space actually is ?
You'll probably avoid answering......
-
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.
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_waves
This 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.
-
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.
Ok then just leave my posts alone then
I have heard that there is a fringe shift, just not one that fits with there results.
"By rotating the spectrometer 90 degrees, one can compare the effect of speed through the putative æther on one of the beams. Then by making measurements six months apart, one can add or subtract the speed of the Earth through æther. The speed of the Earth in its orbit around the sun is v = 30 km/s. Substituting in the equations above (and using l = 11 m - for an optical spectrometer, it was a seriously large!) the phase difference expected would be
Δφ = 2πΔt(c/λ) = 2.3 radians = 0.4 fringes.
The spectrometer was easily sensitive enough to see this*. However, the result was: 0.00 plus or minus 0.01 fringes."
https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_M&M.htm
However at the time they were looking for the speed of the earth around the sun, not even realizing that the earth traveling with the galaxy through the universe would be the fastest movement through the aether, way faster then its motion around the sun. What I believe though is 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, all paths are equal in length, the motion of the space-medium is consistent as well as the space it's in i.e. a gravity field or any other kind of field, and basically is set up the M&M experiment.
-
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.
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_waves
This 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.
Yes, if GWs of that kind exist then LIGO should detect. I might prefer to call them something other than waves, waves suggests a natural frequency as for light, but the GWs are i think more of pulses, pulses that follow exactly the quadrupole orbital motion-dance of the 2 merging stars, giving a chirp. Not that i believe in these sorts of GWs (ie quadrupole induced GWs-pulses), nor do i believe the speed of c. A chirp of 1000 Hz could be well measured by legs of up to 300 km long (anything over 300 km would be counterproductive), LIGO has legs i think 4 km long so is ok.
Yes its difficult to see how a passing photonic or em event might induce a fringeshift at LIGO. A leg 4 km long can possibly well detect frequencies of say 75,000 Hz or less (ie 300,000/4), or better still a half of that (say 40,000 Hz), ie something with a wavelength say twice as long as a LIGO leg (legs are 4 km). The event would have to shorten one leg & either not affect the other leg or better still stretch the other leg during that same instant. But photonic or em events cannot affect the length of a leg, unless of unearthly strength perhaps (cant happen)(we wouldnt be here). Sonic events have too short a wavelength. 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.
-
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.
Neither a seismic event nor sound waves can be blamed.
(1) Sound waves and seismic waves don't have the peculiar expansion/contraction characteristics of gravitational waves so they would not produce the same kind of signature. Seismic waves and sound waves cause an expansion and contraction parallel to the direction of movement, whereas gravitational waves cause an expansion and contraction perpendicular to the direction of movement.
(2) The event GW170814 was detected by both of the LIGO detectors (one in Washington state and one in Louisiana) and the Virgo interferometer in Italy all in a span of 14 milliseconds. An earthquake or sound wave would not be able to trigger detectors separated by thousands of miles in such a time span: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101
(3) The event GW170817 was accompanied by the gamma ray burst GRB 170817 (which was detected 1.7 seconds later by multiple observatories). The gravitational wave signal lasted for about 100 seconds, becoming stronger as the two neutron stars neared each other and finally stopped after they collided. If sound waves or seismic waves were to blame, there would be no connection to cosmological events like this nor would the signal look like what was expected of two in-spiraling neutron stars coming closer and closer to each other as they orbited over a period of 100 seconds: https://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/paper/GW170817-PRLpublished.pdf
(4) Virgo has environmental sensors capable of detecting seismic or sonic interference. The scientists who run it would therefore know if a gravitational wave detection were accompanied by such a compromising event or not: https://www-sop.inria.fr/apics/sbpi/derosa.pdf
I apologize for derailing your thread, trevorjohnson42. This will be my last post here about gravitational waves.
-
It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
Here's a much more precise one that was done in 2009: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
MMXs in vacuum mode are null for fringeshift. Their null results merely support Lorentz LC & show that gamma is accurate to umpteen decimals. A much more precise MMX was done in 1970 by Demjanov, his twin media (air-carbondisulphide) MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the old fashioned single media (air) MMXs.
-
Ok then just leave my posts alone then
No.
When you post stuff that is plainly wrong, I will continue to correct it in order to ensure that this site provides reliable information to those who come here looking for it.
What I believe though is from an energy standpoint,
The photon energies don't change.
If they did then the frequencies would change. Two beams of different frequencies will not give an interference pattern.
So, because we see fringes, we know there's no energy change. Nobody ever said there would be. It's a bit of nonsense you have chosen to add.it defies the laws of nature that you would gain or lose energy on any path you shoot the light,
And again.
NOBODY EVER SAID THE ENERGY WOULD CHANGE. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THIS.
-
But that fails to take account of the fact that, because you walk against the current more slowly than you walk with it, you spend more time walking against it than you spend walking with it..
And because of that, the effects don't cancel.
The time you spend walking in the water? YOU call yourself an EXPERT and YOU can't even see what's wrong with this? You're examples have no point. I meant the momentum gained or lost on any outward path, would be cancelled in relation to each other, in other words all paths in the moving current would return at the same time. Not that 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?
A path in still water vs two in the aether, something I'm trying to discuss on this thread and you offer no help. By the way the way you word this makes it sound like its your proof for the experiment. Meanwhile you say things likeOk then just leave my posts alone then
No.
When you post stuff that is plainly wrong, I will continue to correct it in order to ensure that this site provides reliable information to those who come here looking for it.
I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!
-
YOU call yourself an EXPERT
No
I don't.
Whatever gave you that impression?
You're examples have no point.
They show why you are mistaken.
I meant the momentum gained or lost on any outward path, would be cancelled in relation to each other, in other words all paths in the moving current would return at the same time.
OK, there are a number of issues there
Firstly, it may have been what you meant, but it isn't what you said.
You can't expect us to read your mind.
Secondly the only momentum transfers are when the light bounces off the mirrors.
If it transferred momentum in transit then it would run out and it would stop. We know that light from vastly distant stars gets to us- so we know it doesn't lose momentum over the course of 11 metres.
Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.
And if there's a moving medium like an ether you would get a shift.
It's like the example I gave of wading through a river (or the one you used of a boat on the river).
If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel.
Which by the way the way you word this makes it sound like its your proof for the experiment.
No, it is just proof that you're wrong.
You accepted that fact already.
Alright I may have been wrong about that
and
yes, my physics with the boat going at a diagonal may be wrong,
I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!
You talk of "number salad" but you have yet to show that there's anything wrong with the numbers I posted.
I already explained why I won't leave your posts along.
I will continue to point out that they're wrong.
-
Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.
Where in your number salad did you explain this?
If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel.
Perhaps since you seem to have all the answers you could point out where I'm wrong in my examples and what the right answer is?
-
the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier.
Where in your number salad did you explain this?
Here
And you are simply wrong in thinking that the time lost walking one way is exactly compensated walking the other way.
Say the current makes a 1 mile per hour difference and you walk at 5 miles an hour in still water. (OK that's not realistic, but the numbers make the maths easy)
And, lets say your walk is a mile each way.
In the canal you travel a mile in 1/5 hours which is 12 minutes.
So the return journey takes 24 minutes.
In the river you make the same mile each way return journey.
You set off against the current so you are slowed down by a mile per hour. You travel at 4 miles per hour.
The mile takes 1/4 hours or 15 min.
And then there's the second leg.
With the water behind you , you can manage 6 miles per hour so the journey takes 1/6 hours i.e. 10 minutes.
The round trip takes 10 +15 =25 min
I say that 24 is not the same as 25 ...
Perhaps since you seem to have all the answers you could point out where I'm wrong
I already did.
You don't know how to add velocities together.
...and what the right answer is?
It doesn't really matter what the right answer is (you can look up M+M's work if you really want to know).
What matters is that, since you use the wrong maths and get a zero path difference, using the right maths will get a difference that is not zero.
Yet zero is what they found- so there is no ether.
-
...........Thirdly, the different paths do not always take the same time. There's a delay if you move through a medium. It's the one I explained earlier. And if there's a moving medium like an ether you would get a shift. It's like the example I gave of wading through a river (or the one you used of a boat on the river). If you do the maths correctly (and you have not shown that you understand that maths yet) you find that the times do not cancel...........
MMXs do indeed work if-because there is a time difference in the 2 legs, or more correctly if there is a changing time difference.
In an ordinary MMX in air the diff aint much, ie the fringeshift is very small, eg less than 0.1 fringe, mightbe only 0.01 fringe -- sometimes called a 2nd order fringeshift.
I said that an MMX in vacuum gives a null result. More correctly in theory there is (can be) a very small fringeshift in vacuum -- i suppose it could be called 3rd order. I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal. Plus there is a 4th order fringeshift, etc.
Modern MMXs give a null result to say the 17th decimal or even the 21st decimal -- there are a number of possible reasons why. Firstly an MMX in vacuum must give a null result to say the 10th decimal as i said.
Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero, hencely changes in the apparent wind can be zero. MMXs are usually horizontal -- & as the background aetherwind blows at 20 deg to Earth's axis then this sort of thing should only arise near latitude 70 deg.
Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs -- they have inherent properties that mimic the effects that they are looking for. The result is anyone's guess-- lots of zeros by the looks.
Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs -- in fact his tabletop MMX had legs less than 12" long -- & his error-noise was not much wider than the thickness of the line on his graph -- bearing in mind that his fringeshifts included 2nd order fringeshifts which he ignored, these sort of made the line in his graph look fat, but the fatness wasnt all noise, most of it was proper (2nd order) signal.
Funny thing, Demjanov's MMX was periodic in a full turn -- whereaz oldendays MMXs were periodic in a halfturn -- i looked into it, its legit.
-
I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal.
Then it would have been ten million times bigger than the mobern experiments would detect.
But they didn't.
So, you are wrong.Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero
How fortunate, then that the earth's axis is tilted WRT the plane of its orbit.
They can't both be coplanar with any ether wind.
Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs
Not in any meaningful sense.Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs --
And about a hundred million million times less sensitive than recent experiments which found no ether
-
I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal.
Then it would have been ten million times bigger than the modern experiments would detect. But they didn't. So, you are wrong.
Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity, null rezult guaranteed first time every time.Secondly any MMX can give a null result if it is carried out in a plane that is at 90 deg to the aetherwind. Here the in-plane component of the aetherwind is (can be) zero
How fortunate, then that the earth's axis is tilted WRT the plane of its orbit. They can't both be coplanar with any ether wind.
True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs
Not in any meaningful sense.
Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs. And they are sensitive to the aetherwind in other ways.Demjanov's twin media MMX done in 1970 was what he called a 1st order MMX, about 1000 times as sensitive as the oldendays MMXs --
And about a hundred million million times less sensitive than recent experiments which found no ether.
Not so. An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero -- in which case Demjanov's MMX was infinitely more sensitive than thems recent MMXs.
-
Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity,
No.
For two reasons, one is the reason I have been explaining to the OP.
The other is that, if a MMX can "detect" air, it can detect ether.
True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.
The plane moves WRT the earth, so you would need to mount the MMX on gimbals and deliberately move it to keep it in that plane.
Please stop being silly.
Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs.
So does my left ear, but that doesn't make it an MM experiment
Please stop being silly.
An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero
No it doesn't.
However, it's irrelevant because there have been modern experiments using triangular lasers and also optical fibres which are not vacuum experiments.
Please stop being silly, and do your homework.
-
Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity,
No. For two reasons, one is the reason I have been explaining to the OP. The other is that, if a MMX can "detect" air, it can detect ether.
An MMX needs to have a dielectric, air is the easiest. The correct calibration of an MMX is explained by Reg Cahill & also by Demjanov (altho slightly differently).True, but at any point on Earth there is always a plane that is at 90 deg to the wind, & even Demjanov's 1st order MMX would show zero fringeshift if it were in that plane.
The plane moves WRT the earth, so you would need to mount the MMX on gimbals and deliberately move it to keep it in that plane. Please stop being silly.
Yes, but u need to be aware.Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs.
So does my left ear, but that doesn't make it an MM experiment. Please stop being silly.
Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind (in ways not understood) -- & an MMX is sensitive to the aetherwind (in ways understood). An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero.
No it doesn't. However, it's irrelevant because there have been modern experiments using triangular lasers and also optical fibres which are not vacuum experiments. Please stop being silly, and do your homework.
Yes an in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero. I am not sure of thems optical fibre MMXs, u might give me a link or name to google. But i know that Cahill used a fibre optic MMX, & he also used a co-axial cable MMX, both worked well & showed a 450 kmps south to north wind about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.
-
So you as well believe space is not a medium? It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
You are prejudging what I believe because of your lack of understanding of the experiment. I do believe ‘space’ or whatever we decide to call it, is a medium; but not a classical medium such air or water, very different properties.
Dissing an experiment due to it’s age is poor logic, there are many experiments far older than that which are still valid, and as @evan points out the experiment is regularly repeated with greater accuracy.
What I think is ‘awful’ is how many people parrot things they have heard without making the effort to understand what they are posting. Overall you would be better to leave the discussion to someone like @mad aetherist who has at least taken the trouble to research the issues in some depth and has a better understanding of the maths. He may be mad, but at least he is thoroughly mad ;)
I told you to leave my posts alone you number salad internet pest!
You can’t expect him to do that. When you signed up to this forum you agreed that anything you posted would be part of a discussion, these are valid questions.
Calling it number salad sounds like an attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding of basic school geometry.
-
An MMX needs to have a dielectric,
That's a matter of definition.
Water is a conductor.
Yes, but u need to be aware.
Why?
Just in case someone accidentally mounted all the MMX that were ever undertaken on carefully steered gimbals, but never mentioned it?
(The original one was floated on a layer of mercury, so we know it was locally horizontal and thus at an angle to the orbital plane.)
Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind
At best, that's "begging the question"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Unless you can actually show that it's reasonable for you to think it's true then it's also a lie.
-
An MMX needs to have a dielectric,
That's a matter of definition. Water is a conductor.
I dont know what a dielectric is, Cahill said it needs a dielectric, i think a dielectric contains electrons (probly meaning that it slows light).Yes, but u need to be aware.
Why? Just in case someone accidentally mounted all the MMX that were ever undertaken on carefully steered gimbals, but never mentioned it? (The original one was floated on a layer of mercury, so we know it was locally horizontal and thus at an angle to the orbital plane.)
I reckon that with many experiments-instruments we need to be aware of the direction of the aetherwind at that location at that time, including the easily predicted change in the wind. MMXs are an obvious example. Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert). Michelson's MGX (that big long rectangular pipeline) needed four Igor's one at each corner to periodically re-aim the mirrors. LIGO needs large convex mirrors. Oldendays MMXs needed periodic re-aiming re-calibration during each day. Esclangon mentioned this stuff a long time ago. Allais' stuff probly involved gravity moreso than aetherwind, but praps the problem was aetherwind.Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind
At best, that's "begging the question" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question -- Unless you can actually show that it's reasonable for you to think it's true then it's also a lie.
A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that. I will find a link.
Here is one re the book The Detection Of Ether -- http://www.teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/index.htm
-
Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).
You do realise they didn't just buy a cat-toy laser at the local supermarket, don't you?
They found people who are experts in laser stability.
A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.
And so does my left ear.
-
You can’t expect him to do that. When you signed up to this forum you agreed that anything you posted would be part of a discussion, these are valid questions.
Calling it number salad sounds like an attempt to deflect from your lack of understanding of basic school geometry.
I don't recall learning about how much energy it takes to cross a river and back vs with and against it in any courses or books I've read so I don't know why your calling it elementary.
I do believe ‘space’ or whatever we decide to call it, is a medium; but not a classical medium such air or water, very different properties.
Like what properties its a void, the only property I give it is changes in density within it.
But back to the experiment, If by shooting the light down two equal paths in moving space, and returning it on that exact same path, while the energy loss from the current is constant to all paths, because it does travel across all paths, because on any path if you just sit in the river going one mph, then you will experience the same drift downstream as any other boat on any other path, the boats would move in relation to each other it would seem while they all experience the exact same resistance from the current.
-
Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).
You do realise they didn't just buy a cat-toy laser at the local supermarket, don't you? They found people who are experts in laser stability. A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.
And so does my left ear.
The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion. Much of instability must arise from the aetherwind. The experts need to go to the local supermarket & buy a gimbal. Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind. Even then that only avoids about a half of the problem -- even with a constant orientation to the wind the problem then becomes that the wind changes in size -- u karnt do much about that -- but if u are aware then it must help -- eg the change in wind is predictable -- ie there are times of day when the change is at a minimum -- but as long as u know -- thems Einsteinian experts dont know.
-
The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.
No.
Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.
Stop begging the question.
We have things like LIGO. They are so sensitive they can pick up just the signals they were expected to from gravity waves.
They work.
And if your nonsense about variations in ether wind were anything like true then those signals would be washed out, and LIGO wouldn't work.
Since it does, we know that, at best, the ether wind variations must be tiny; less than about 1 in 10^18.
-
I don't recall learning about how much energy it takes to cross a river and back vs with and against it in any courses or books I've read so I don't know why your calling it elementary.
You failed to add to velocities together correctly.
That is school stuff.
Your failure was explained to you.
I already did.
You don't know how to add velocities together.
I also explained how to calculate the energy losses
NOBODY EVER SAID THE ENERGY WOULD CHANGE. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THIS.
but you keep on banging on about this figment of your imagination
while the energy loss from the current is
Why do you do that?
Are you unable to read, or unable to understand?
-
The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion.
No.Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.
Stop begging the question. We have things like LIGO. They are so sensitive they can pick up just the signals they were expected to from gravity waves. They work. And if your nonsense about variations in ether wind were anything like true then those signals would be washed out, and LIGO wouldn't work. Since it does, we know that, at best, the ether wind variations must be tiny; less than about 1 in 10^18.
No, LIGO easily clips out most of the noise, they are looking for a chirp tween say 30 Hz to 300 Hz, & this nett signal is about 1/1000th of the noise, so they must clip 99.9% of the total signal.
The change in the aetherwind is a very gradual daily sort of thing -- much less than 1 Hz -- not a problem.
Cahill has identified a turbulence in the aetherwind, which he calls gravitational waves -- the turbulence passing south to north throo Earth at about 500 kmps -- & being the cause of the Shnoll effects. However this aetherwind turbulence happens at more than 1000 Hz, hencely shouldnt be a problem for LIGO. So, the two kinds of change in aetherwind lay well outside LIGOs target signal.
LIGOs headache is moreso the swing of the aetherwind, the lasers trace out an ellipse, hencely LIGO need large spherical mirrors, & hencely lots & lots of watts -- giving lots of thermal problems -- poor poor LIGO.
-
Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).
You do realise they didn't just buy a cat-toy laser at the local supermarket, don't you?They found people who are experts in laser stability.
A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.
And so does my left ear.
By Kevin Harkness.
Anisotropic one-way speed of light experiment that have been done
Recent one-way experiments favour anistoropy in the speed of light:
https://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0608223v1
1) In August 2006 C E Navia et al report on a search for anisotropic light propagation as a function of laser alignment relative to the Earth's velocity vector. A laser diffraction experiment was conducted to study light propagation in air. The experiment is easy to reproduce and it is based on simple optical principles. Two optical sensors (segmented photo-diodes) are used for measuring the position of diffracted light spots with a precision better than 0.1 µm. The goal is to look for signals of anisotropic light propagation as function of the laser beam alignment to the Earth's motion (solar barycenter motion) obtained by COBE. Two raster search techniques have been used. First, a fixed laser beam in the laboratory frame that scans due to Earth's rotation. Second, an active rotation of the laser beam on a turntable system. The results obtained with both methods show that the course of the light rays are affected by the motion of the Earth, and a predominant quantity of first order with a dc/c = -(betta)(1+2a) cos(theta) signature with a = -0.4106±0.0225 describes well the experimental results. This result differs in a amount of 18% from the Special Relativity Theory prediction and that supplies the value of a = -1/2 (isotropy). See
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608223
2) In April 2006 Carlos. E. Navia and Carlos. R. A. Augusto report results on an "one-way light path" laser diffraction experiment as a function of the laser beam alignment relative to the Earth's velocity vector obtained by COBE measurements of the Doppler shift in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). An amplified Doppler shift is observed in the diffraction images, and the effect is compatible with a "dipole" speed of light anisotropy due to Earth's motion relative to the "CMBR rest frame", with an amplitude of dc/c = 0.00123. This amplitude coincides with the value of the dipole temperature anisotropy dT/T = 0.00123 of the CMBR obtained by COBE. Our results point out that it is not possible to neglect the preferred frame imposed by the cosmology and they are well described by the Ether Gauge Theory (an extension of the Lorentz's ether theory) and it satisfies the cosmological time boundary condition. See
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145v1.pdf
3) In 1991 Roland DeWitte carried out a one-way experiment using electrical signals rather than light. His results confirm wisp theory's prediction that the speed of light is affected by the ether flow passing the Earth.
(See Reasons why Einstein was wrong for further details).
4) In 1990 T. P. Krisher et al carried out a one-way experiment by sending modulated laser light down a fibre optics (fiber optics) cable. However, because of experimental noise the result was inconclusive, and the duration of the test was perhaps too short to detect the sidereal period variation, and could not rule out an ether flow that is at rest with respect to the CMBR.
-
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.
Neither a seismic event nor sound waves can be blamed.
(1) Sound waves and seismic waves don't have the peculiar expansion/contraction characteristics of gravitational waves so they would not produce the same kind of signature. Seismic waves and sound waves cause an expansion and contraction parallel to the direction of movement, whereas gravitational waves cause an expansion and contraction perpendicular to the direction of movement.
(2) The event GW170814 was detected by both of the LIGO detectors (one in Washington state and one in Louisiana) and the Virgo interferometer in Italy all in a span of 14 milliseconds. An earthquake or sound wave would not be able to trigger detectors separated by thousands of miles in such a time span: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101
(3) The event GW170817 was accompanied by the gamma ray burst GRB 170817 (which was detected 1.7 seconds later by multiple observatories). The gravitational wave signal lasted for about 100 seconds, becoming stronger as the two neutron stars neared each other and finally stopped after they collided. If sound waves or seismic waves were to blame, there would be no connection to cosmological events like this nor would the signal look like what was expected of two in-spiraling neutron stars coming closer and closer to each other as they orbited over a period of 100 seconds: https://www.ligo.org/detections/GW170817/paper/GW170817-PRLpublished.pdf
(4) Virgo has environmental sensors capable of detecting seismic or sonic interference. The scientists who run it would therefore know if a gravitational wave detection were accompanied by such a compromising event or not: https://www-sop.inria.fr/apics/sbpi/derosa.pdf
I apologize for derailing your thread, trevorjohnson42. This will be my last post here about gravitational waves.
LIGO Gravitational Wave Event as Observed by Network of Quantum Gravity Detectors
ReginaldT. Cahill – March 2016.
4 Data from Quantum Gravity Detectors
We now reveal the data from the GCP network [9] of Quantum Gravity Detectors, known as Random Event Generators (REG),but with better physics now known as Quantum Gravity Detectors (QGD).The LIGO event occurred at 9:50:45hrs UTC on September 14, 2015. Data from that day was downloaded from [10], which has data every 1 sec recorded against UTC for 47 detectors located in numerous countries.. An issue with these commercial detectors is that the orientation of the diodes is unknown, which means that the effect of the angle depend ence k*v = kv cos() in (3) is unknown. So a detector response may vary from a decreased i, and so decreased signal, or an increased I and an increased signal, or even an unchanged i resulting in no change in signal. For this reason the data from the various detectors is split into three groups, and shown in Figs.5, 6, 7. The data in Figs.5 and 6 show a remarkable coincidence with the LIGO event, subject to the 1 sec nominal timing of the QG Ddata. However the data in Fig.5, Top, also shows another significant effect, namely in-phase responses of the detectors in the 2secs before and after the LIGO event. The LIGO reported data [1] does not reveal data during these times. Overall it is not possible to determine the origin of this event other than it could be consistent with a major Earth centred mass movement.
5 Conclusion
Most of physics of the last 100 years has been confused by the design flaw in the Michelson interferometer, but that is now understood, and the light speed anisotropy of500km/s has been repeatedly measured by using numerous techniques, and so invalidating the key assumption of SR and GR, and the supposed existence of spacetime [5]. A dynamical space does exist, and plays a key role in all phenomena. Dynamical space is the cause of gravity, a quantum phenomenon, as confirmed by experiment [8]. The QGD network, fortuitously run by the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), has confirmed the existence of a space flow event, but whose interpretation by LIGO remains doubtful. Note that the events in the 2sec interval before and after the LIGO event, in Figs.5 and 6, are inconsistent with the black hole merger interpretation. We are now entering an era of new physics.
-
No, LIGO easily clips out most of the noise, they are looking for a chirp tween say 30 Hz to 300 Hz, & this nett signal is about 1/1000th of the noise, so they must clip 99.9% of the total signal.
No
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0028/T970084/000/T970084-00.pdf
-
No, LIGO easily clips out most of the noise, they are looking for a chirp tween say 30 Hz to 300 Hz, & this nett signal is about 1/1000th of the noise, so they must clip 99.9% of the total signal.
No
https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0028/T970084/000/T970084-00.pdf
That article is very complex, but i dont see any numbers that contradict any of my four numbers, & i dont see any wording that contradicts any of my 34 words.
-
<<<SPAM REMOVED>>> is one of the best <<<SPAM REMOVED>>> with high-quality coaching classes. For More Details, Contact us- <<<SPAM REMOVED>>>
-
<<<SPAM REMOVED>>> is one of the best <<<SPAM REMOVED>>> with high-quality coaching classes. For More Details, Contact us- <<<SPAM REMOVED>>>
Not the best attempt at spamming I’ve seen.
Along with your spam, you have been removed.
-
The density of a proton or neutron would slow light down to a crawl as it crossed through the particle. Time, in relation to size of the things inside the particle and their movement, might make it equivalent to the speed of life and light in our universe.
-
The density of a proton or neutron would slow light down to a crawl as it crossed through the particle.
Time, in relation to size of the things inside the particle and their movement, might make it equivalent to the speed of life and light in our universe.
I agree. Einsteinologists have it that de-localized electrons are vibrated by passing photons & provide an em feedback to the photon that slows & modifies the photon.
But in my photaeno-drag theory the photaenos emitted by the passing free photon interfere with photaenos emitted by confined-photons in quarks (ie in protons & neutrons) as well as in electrons (de-localized or knot)(both kinds), & the interference slows the propagation of the photaenos which feeds back to the free photon & slows that to less than c kmps.
Density (or mass) does play a big part in that there slowing. A proton is say 2000 times the mass of an electron, & a neutron say 2001 times, which means that on average the mass of protons & neutrons in the medium (air water glass) is 4001 times the mass of the electrons, & hencely their photaenos have 4001 times the effect of the electron.
Any vibrational feedback slowing effect from de-localized electrons would be additional & praps minor.
Whereas Einsteinologists say that protons & neutrons have no effect on the speed of light.
U say that density would slow light down to a crawl as it crossed through the particle. This might or might not be true.
One old fashioned idea re Fresnel slowing is that the slowing of light in air water glass happens in two stages. The strongest stage is when in or very close to the densest bits (eg the nucleus), plus a weaker or zero slowing stage when in between the dense bits (eg tween the nucleus & electron)(or in the space tween atoms)(or in the space tween molecules).
I dont know whether u have a similar meaning. Anyhow there might be such an effect.
Re the speed of life, time does not exist, what we have is ticking. And life would recognize ticking by virtue of our tickerthalamus, more accurately by virtue of the distance from our sensor to tickerthalamus to brain & finally to the bit of the brain that is me (plus possibly the distance back to the sensor).
This kind of ticking effect would involve total distance, which must be related to d, it aint related to d*d (ie area), nor to d*d*d (ie volume). Hencely a big bullant that is twice the length of a jumping-jack would feel time pass half as fast, not 4 times or 8 times as fast.
-
I agree. Einsteinologists
Mad aetherist what is yoour opinion of the first three paragraphs of the OP. Do you think magnetism works like a fan with one side being the draw and the other the push?
-
I agree. Einsteinologists
Mad aetherist what is your opinion of the first three paragraphs of the OP. Do you think magnetism works like a fan with one side being the draw and the other the push?
Light is just waves of density in space. All waves are expanding density through a medium. Light's medium is space, so all light is is a wave of density in space with a certain frequency.
Protons and neutrons are made of super dense space. There density squeezes the surrounding space of the universe they are in. The region of squeezing creates its gravity field. When two gravity fields touch the same squeezing of space on space occurs and it pulls two objects together based on their mass.
In a magnet, all the electrons in the atoms circle in the same direction, this creates a fan like churning that sends outward waves of density along space in the pattern of the magnetic field.
An electron is a slice of energy that fits an atom's electron shell. It's density as a wave adds to the overall weight of the atom. The electron may collect energy gradually until it is 'full' and needs no more energy. Positively charged protons may vibrate producing waves in the nucleus's gravity field which capture electron's while a neutron with the same weight repels electrons.
I have never studied the exact known relationships tween charge & electromagnetism & electric fields & magnetic fields. There might be four kinds of different fields, dunno. It would take me at least a month to read up on this stuff, & then i might be able to invent an explanation worthy of a Nobel (probly knot, it looks too complicated for me).
I would firstly read up on Williamson's ideas re free photons & confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) giving charge & em fields.
Free photons are an excitation & annihilation of the aether. Charge & electric & magnetic fields are due to photaenos, which are a different kind of excitation & probly annihilation of aether. em fields are somehow at 90 deg or something (ie a different direction), & act in a different way to each other, & at a different time. I dont understand any of that.
Excitation of photaenos can probly take many forms -- vibration, spin, tornado, vortex, pulse etc. But what we measure (in the far-field) is always the nett excitation. For a free photon the photaenic excitations mostly cancel (in the far-field), hencely a free photon is neutral re charge etc in most instances. Not so a confined photon, where the looping happens such that the positive or negative charge always aims mostly inwards or mostly outwards, the outwards being what we measure, the inwards annihilating or disappearing in some way.
Gravity & mass have little or nothing to do with charge-electro-magneto stuff. They are due to the acceleration of the bulk flow of aether into mass where the aether is annihilated, they are not due to any excitation of aether. Inertia is almost a mirror image of gravity, it is due to the acceleration of mass in the aether, but inertia does not involve any annihilation of aether. Hencely gravitational attraction & gravitational mass is not the same thing as inertial resistance & inertial mass.
It might help if u keep in mind that all quantum things have mass (eg photons, & probly photaenos), because all quantum things annihilate aether.
However i would not discount the possibility that em fields do have a link to gravity, if em fields are for example due to an excitation-vibration of aether arising from a quickly changing gravity field. After all excitations are a frantic micro-form of aetheric acceleration whereas gravity is due to a lazy macro-form of aetheric acceleration. Yes, i have never thort of it quiet that way, but if i were to devote the next few days to thinking re this then i would start here. The key is that every quantum thing has mass (& inertia).
That would be funny. I have always said that em stuff cant be unified with gravity. But here above i am now starting to think that they can be unified. And that the unification is of a shocking kind. c.e.m stuff is due to gravity & mass.
Of course it could be put the other way around, ie that gravity is due to c.e.m effects. But that wouldnt be shocking.
I dont understand how electrons can orbit a nucleus the way they are supposed to do. I can sort of imagine that an electron can have a spin. I can imagine how orbit & spin can affect the ordinary static charge field & produce a complicated excitation in the nearfield at least. That excitation giving electric effects & magnetic effects. The measured effect in some instances depending on whether a large number of electrons have somehow aligned orbits or spins or something, ie whether their fields cancel or add.
Bearing in mind that cancellation can take a number of forms, eg at any one location a field might not cancel at any one instant but might cancel over time (if the fluctuation has a high enough frequency).
So if u re-read your OP in the light of my ideas then u can probly figure out what i might say.
But u wont make much progress unless u firstly realize that a photon is not an em field &
an em field is not a photon. Not that your OP said that, but i know that u believe that because everyone else does & u have no reason to give that a second thort, what with it being settled Einsteinian dogma & canon, until now.
As i said above & elsewhere, charge-electro-magneto fields etc are all due to photaenos, they are not due to photons, photaenos being the emitted outer half of the photon.
I aint meaning to sound as if i am talking down to u or anyone, as if i am smarter, i am sure that we can all learn from each other, but i have the advantage of not being brainwashed, & i am happy to try to save everyone else from hurting themselves. U have all been blinded by Einsteinian Triffids, but i aint. Take my hand.
-
What is light?
Light is energy, energy must coexist with matter. There is no light in the space between hot plasma on the Sun and atmosphere on Earth.
All scientists thought light is EM wave or photon particle or both traveling in space at light speed. They are all wrong. There is no wave, no photon, nothing traveling in space at light speed. Energy jumps from matter to matter instantly, becomes light wave traveling in medium at light speed. Light speed in vacuum space is infinite. Therefore, relativity, QM and electromagnetism are all wrong.
By using MIT 10 trillion frame per second high speed camera, scientists can measure light speed in a vacuum glass bottle to prove light speed in vacuum is infinite. But they won't do it, because if the truth is out, they will be in big trouble.
Electromagnetic Radiation
Electrons are on the surface of all matters. Electrons are constantly vibrating due to the thermal energy atoms carried. The higher temperature the higher vibration frequency.
Vibrating electrons carry kinetic energy, that energy can transfer to distant electrons through the repulsion force between line of sight electrons, science call it electromagnetic radiation. In Fact, there is only electrostatic radiation, there is no electromagnetic radiation.
Between 2 electrons at distance r, the repulsion force F=Ke x ee/rr is the conductor of electrostatic radiation. This force is acting as a mass less stiff rod, entangled the two electrons as 1.
There are two kinds of radiation. When an electron vibrating at right angle to the radius of the atom, it produces transverse radiation. When electron vibrating at radius direction, it produces longitudinal radiation. Both radiation must coexist with matter.
In transverse radiation, this force is acting as mass less stiff rod, if 1 electron is moving the other electron will instantly receiving an opposite direction emf.
In longitudinal radiation, this force is acting as mass less stiff rod, instantly transfer emf between electrons.
When radiation/emf moving in a medium, it causes mechanical wave in the medium, science call it EM wave.
The Sun does not radiate EM wave into space, only radiate emf to matters.
-
All scientists thought light is EM wave or photon particle or both traveling in space at light speed. They are all wrong. There is no wave, no photon, nothing traveling in space at light speed. Energy jumps from matter to matter instantly, becomes light wave traveling in medium at light speed. Light speed in vacuum space is infinite. Therefore, relativity, QM and electromagnetism are all wrong.
You seem to have forgotten where I pointed out the time delay that is present when communicating with spacecraft from Earth. So signals must not move at infinite speed through space. I am also waiting for you to present evidence that there is some kind of grand, global conspiracy that lied to the public about these time delays. Nations all over the world have sent spacecraft to other planets, satellites and asteroids, so it absolutely would have to be a conspiracy of global proportions.
The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment has also demonstrated that it takes time for a beam of light to travel through space. There is a retroreflector on the Moon that can reflect laser beams back towards the Earth. Scientists have used the time it takes for the laser beam to reach the Moon and be reflected back to the Earth in order to more accurately calculate how far away the Moon is. One of their discoveries is that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 38 millimeters per year. If the speed of light in space was infinite, this experiment would not have worked.
-
What is light?Light is energy, energy must coexist with matter. There is no light in the space between hot plasma on the Sun and atmosphere on Earth.All scientists thought light is EM wave or photon particle or both traveling in space at light speed. They are all wrong. There is no wave, no photon, nothing traveling in space at light speed. Energy jumps from matter to matter instantly, becomes light wave traveling in medium at light speed. Light speed in vacuum space is infinite. Therefore, relativity, QM and electromagnetism are all wrong.
You are confused , there is two types of light , visible light and invisible light . The invisible light between the sun and the earth is invisible . ???
-
You are confused , there is two types of light , visible light and invisible light . The invisible light between the sun and the earth is invisible .
Light illuminates an area, if there is no matter in the area it illuminates then light itself is invisible and you see nothing. It's source gives off color from the gas illuminating but looking out away from the source you will just see darkness unless something absorbs and reflects the light or is another star.
-
All scientists thought light is EM wave or photon particle or both traveling in space at light speed. They are all wrong. There is no wave, no photon, nothing traveling in space at light speed. Energy jumps from matter to matter instantly, becomes light wave traveling in medium at light speed. Light speed in vacuum space is infinite. Therefore, relativity, QM and electromagnetism are all wrong.
You seem to have forgotten where I pointed out the time delay that is present when communicating with spacecraft from Earth. So signals must not move at infinite speed through space. I am also waiting for you to present evidence that there is some kind of grand, global conspiracy that lied to the public about these time delays. Nations all over the world have sent spacecraft to other planets, satellites and asteroids, so it absolutely would have to be a conspiracy of global proportions.
The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment has also demonstrated that it takes time for a beam of light to travel through space. There is a retroreflector on the Moon that can reflect laser beams back towards the Earth. Scientists have used the time it takes for the laser beam to reach the Moon and be reflected back to the Earth in order to more accurately calculate how far away the Moon is. One of their discoveries is that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 38 millimeters per year. If the speed of light in space was infinite, this experiment would not have worked.
I suggest you to watch all Apollo videos, look for shadows right under the objects. Which means the Sun is over head when they took the videos. Then check out the fabric analysis of the LM. Open your mind, don't lie to yourself.
-
I suggest you to watch all Apollo videos, look for shadows right under the objects. Which means the Sun is over head when they took the videos. Then check out the fabric analysis of the LM. Open your mind, don't lie to yourself.
Yep, you're a conspiracy theorist alright.
That is, however, beside the point. Regardless of how it got there, there is a retroreflector on the Moon that can reflect laser light back to Earth. So my point still stands (as do my points about signal delay from spacecraft).
-
OK, if you think so.
Did you watched Apollo videos?
-
OK, if you think so.
No, I don't just think so. There is a retroreflector on the Moon. Its presence can be detected from Earth:
Did you watched Apollo videos?
The claims of Moon lander conspirators has been soundly refuted. There is nothing about the shadows that is evidence for a hoax. But I am not interested in claims of a Moon landing hoax here.
-
No
you still haven't convinced me that the time taken for light to travel back and forth added together in the M and M experiment should be different for any path. Your comparison of light to a boat on a river only made sense comparing the boat in stagnant water vs a moving current. If all paths have equal resistance from the current you would be creating energy like a beginner out of nothing, as if one path was weaker. You could build a free energy device from a passing void current, actually that's probably possible anyways sort of a water wheel for empty space.
-
No
you still haven't convinced me that the time taken for light to travel back and forth added together in the M and M experiment should be different for any path. Your comparison of light to a boat on a river only made sense comparing the boat in stagnant water vs a moving current. If all paths have equal resistance from the current you would be creating energy like a beginner out of nothing, as if one path was weaker. You could build a free energy device from a passing void current, actually that's probably possible anyways sort of a water wheel for empty space.
Your quote from me isn't relevant to your statement.
-
gravity waves don't even exist.
-
gravity waves don't even exist.
The evidence shows that they do.
This is a science site.
Do you expect us to believe the evidence or a conspiracy theorist?