0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 03/11/2018 18:23:53It'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
It's just awful how many 'intelligent' people take this century and a half old experiment so ridiculously serious.
Ok then just leave my posts alone then
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,
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.
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?
Ok then just leave my posts alone thenNo.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.
YOU call yourself an EXPERT
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.
Which by the way the way you word this makes it sound like its your proof for the experiment.
Alright I may have been wrong about that
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!
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.
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.
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?
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 minI 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
...and what the right answer is?
...........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...........
I worked it out a while back, it comes in at about the 10th decimal.
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
Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs
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 --
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/11/2018 20:40:58I 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/11/2018 20:40:58Secondly 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) zeroHow 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/11/2018 20:40:58Thirdly all lasers etc are themselves sorts of MMXs Not in any meaningful sense.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/11/2018 20:40:58Demjanov'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.
Modern in vacuo MMXs have zero sensitivity,
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.
Lasers trace out an ellipse over 24 hrs.
An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 06:47:23Modern 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 06:47:23True, 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 06:47:23Lasers 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 06:47:23 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.
An in vacuo MMX has a sensitivity of zero.
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.
An MMX needs to have a dielectric,
Yes, but u need to be aware.
Lasers are sensitive to the aetherwind
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 07:47:24An MMX needs to have a dielectric, That's a matter of definition. Water is a conductor.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 07:47:24Yes, 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.)
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 07:47:24Lasers 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.
Less obvious are lasers masers etalons etc which experience lots of problems, eg walkoff noise stability etc etc (i aint an expert).
A fixed laser describes an ellipse over a day. I thort that everyone knew that.
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 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.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 21:32:12Less 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. Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 21:32:12A 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.
Lasers need to keep a constant orientation to the aetherwind.
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 already did.You don't know how to add velocities together.
NOBODY EVER SAID THE ENERGY WOULD CHANGE. STOP GOING ON ABOUT THIS.
while the energy loss from the current is
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 22:24:23The fact that they had to look for experts re laser stability sort of supports my assertion. No.Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/11/2018 22:24:23Lasers 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.