Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 26/01/2019 00:21:16
-
On the optical dissymmetry of space and the laws of the reflection.
Note (1) by M. Ernest Esclangon, presented by M. Deslandres. (1) meeting of 19 December, 1927.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Ernest_Esclangon-On_the_optical_dissymmetry_of_space_and_the_laws_of_the_reflection_1927.pdf
Esclangon found that the vertical angle of light travelling along & back inside a horizontal telescope (reflecting back off 2 mirrors fixed on its end) varied by up to 0.08 arcsec (ave max 0.036 arcsec) depending on (1) the orientation of the telescope relative to the stars, & (2) the sidereal time of day. Esclangon did not give any possible explanations, but said……….
The following observations that I have the honor to present to the academy appear to reveal an optical dissymmetry of celestial space, such as it appears by ground observations .......……… In summary, the ray which is reflected on itself, in the material system constituted by the optical device and the mirrors, occupies a variable position, which depends, with the degree of precision of these experiments, on the orientation of the optical device compared to the celestial sphere of fixed stars. The difference P-P observed vary between -0.036 arc seconds and +0.036 arc seconds at 3 hours and 15 hours, respectively; they are cancelled around 9 hours and at 21 hours; hours corresponding to the passage about the meridian line of the optical axis of symmetry (as well as there is an axis of symmetry in this dissymmetry of space). What is the origin of this dissymmetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our stellar system? Categorical explanations would be premature; the question for the moment belongs to the purely experimental field.
Doug Marett had a close look at the Esclangon-X & showed that the 0.08 arcsec could be explained by a vertical angle contraction of the 3 mirrors due to an apparent change in horizontal aetherwind of 170 kmps (he said 112 kmps would give 0.036 arcsec). The vertical angle contraction is due to ordinary Lorentz length contraction (LLC) in the horizontal dimensions of the mirrors due to the apparent change in direction of the aetherwind. Marett called this a tilt or twist, he didn’t actually use the words angle contraction, but i think that a good name might be..............
Lorentz Angle Contraction (LAC), even tho i don’t know of Lorentz ever mentioning any such thing. I think that Lodge was the first to mention angle contraction, i think that he called it The Error Of Reflexion. Other names include Optical Dissymmetry of Space – Tilt – Twist – Prismatic Deviation.
Esclangon did not mention aetherwind nor LLC nor LAC. I think he knew of LAC & was pulling their chain.
Marett says that Einstein's relativity does not explain any such vertical change in beam angle.
D Marett – 2010 – The aberration of light and the experiment of Ernest Esclangon.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Esclangon/Aberration_and_Esclangon.html
D Marett – Angle contraction in Esclangon's X.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Esclangon/Esclangon2/Esclangon2.htm
The light enters the telescope near the eyepiece vertically onto a 45 deg mirror (beam splitter)(half mirror), then reflects horizontally to the end of the telescope onto a 35 deg mirror & reflects down onto a 20 deg mirror, & back up onto the 35 deg mirror, & then back & throo the 45 deg half-mirror to the eyepiece. There is a horizontal wire in front of the 45 deg mirror. Initially the wire & its reflection are made to align, & then the telescope is turned horizontally 90 deg & a measurement made of the vertical difference tween wire & reflection of wire.
The beam hits the three mirrors five times. (1) LAC of 1 deg in the 45 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg lower. (2) LAC of 1 deg in the 35 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher. (3) LAC of 1 deg in the 20 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher. (4) LAC of 1 deg in the 35 deg mirror sends the beam 2 deg higher again. (5) LAC of 1 deg in the 45 deg mirror sends the beam 0 deg lower because there is no reflexion (the beam passes throo). This explains the factors in my Excel calculation below which shows that an aetherwind of 143.6 kmps changes the beam by 0.036 arcsec.
deg grade kmps gamma new grade new deg change deg arcsec factor arcsec
45.00 1.000000000 143.60 0.999999885280 0.999999885 45.0000032865 0.0000032865 0.0118313 -2 -0.0236626
35.00 1.428148007 143.60 0.999999885280 1.428147843 35.0000030883 0.0000030883 0.0111178 2 0.0222356
20.00 2.747477419 143.60 0.999999885280 2.747477104 20.0000021125 0.0000021125 0.0076050 2 0.0152100
35.00 1.428148007 143.60 0.999999885280 1.428147843 35.0000030883 0.0000030883 0.0111178 2 0.0222356
45.00 1.000000000 143.60 0.999999885280 0.999999885 45.0000032865 0.0000032865 0.0118313 0 0.0000000
total 0.0360186
Marett says that the needed aetherwind is 112 kmps, but Marett ignored the LAC in the 45 deg mirror which i think is a mistake, it can only be ignored during the last contact. Anyhow this discrepancy is not crucial, we know from the work of Demjanov that the horizontal component of the aetherwind blowing throo Earth varies tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during each day at some latitudes.
In my calcs i ignored two minor effects of the aetherwind, (1) the Huygens effect (affecting the beam reflexion angle), & (2) the Fresnel Drag effect (photons are dragged along in the lenses)(& in the mirrors if they have glass).
Anyhow, the Esclangon-X is further proof of the aether, the aetherwind, & Lorentz Length Contraction (giving Lorentz Angle Contraction). And is further disproof of Einstein's SR & GR.
The Esclangon-X has been ignored, it has been mentioned by praps Courvoisier & Ives & Allais & Marett & now me. It would be interesting to get an Einsteinian take, its a pity that Silberstein didnt have a go back when he was still an Einsteinian (praps he had already ditched Einstein in 1927 when Esclangon wrote that paper).
-
Esclangon did not give any possible explanations, but said……….
The following observations that I have the honor to present to the academy appear to reveal an optical dissymmetry of celestial space, such as it appears by ground observations …………… In summary, the ray which is reflected on itself, in the material system constituted by the optical device and the mirrors, occupies a variable position, which depends, with the degree of precision of these experiments, on the orientation of the optical device compared to the celestial sphere of fixed stars. The difference P-P observed vary between -0.036 arc seconds and +0.036 arc seconds at 3 hours and 15 hours, respectively; they are cancelled around 9 hours and at 21 hours; hours corresponding to the passage about the meridian line of the optical axis of symmetry (as well as there is an axis of symmetry in this dissymmetry of space). What is the origin of this dissymmetry? Does it come from the absolute movement of our stellar system? Categorical explanations would be premature; the question for the moment belongs to the purely experimental field.
In 1927 Michelson & Morley & Miller & Gale & Pearce & Pearson, & Lorentz & Co, were still playing around with a static or semi-static aether, that was dragged or semi-dragged by objects. And Einstein's aetherless SR & GR were gaining ground.
Esclangon didnt know of the background aetherwind blowing at 500 kmps south to north throo Earth approx 20 deg off the spin-axis, RA 4:30 hrs. And Esclangon didnt know that the local wind flows radially into Earth at 11.2 kmps (or tries to), & radially towards the Sun at 42 kmps at Earth's orbit (or tries to). And u have the effect of Earth's 30 kmps orbit, & 0.4 kmps spin.
An axis of symmetry is merely the situation when the horizontal components of the wind blowing along the telescope when in the two cardinal orientations have the same numerical kmps, the two cardinal orientations being 90 deg apart (NE & NW). When this happens the vertical LAC in the mirrors is identical for both orientations, & the change in angle is 0.0000 arcsec (plus error).
I suppose that there might be minor differences in the arcsecs due to the fact that, alltho the LACs might be the same, different orientations can give a different kmps of tailwind or headwind blowing along the telescope (not important)(just saying). We can assume that the vertical kmps components of wind are always equal at all times & all orientations & have no differential effect on LAC & on the arcsecs.
Anyhow, for the unfortunate constipated cardinal orientations chosen by Esclangon, symmetry occurs if the wind blows exactly N or S or exactly E or W, which of course is what happens during every sidereal day as Earth spins (depending on latitude). If Esclangon had been aware of the existence of the background aetherwind he would have chosen say N & W, unfortunately his choice of NW & NE could not have been worse, but he at least got a result albeit a piddly weak 0.036 arcsec.
Had he chosen N & W he might have detected a difference of 480 kmps & 0.402 arcsec, & would have been famous instead of being ignored, & the Esclangon-X would have been a favorite skool-X (compared to the complicated shitty little mickey-mouse faux-MMX nowadays foisted on skoolkids, that is guaranteed to give a null result, & is designed to make skoolkids allergic to aether, & convinces them to change their degree to something not stinking of Einstein).
deg grade kmps gamma new grade new deg change deg arcsec factor arcsec
45.00 1.000000000 480.00 0.999998718226 0.999998718 45.0000367201 0.0000367201 0.1321925 -2 -0.2643850
35.00 1.428148007 480.00 0.999998718226 1.428146176 35.0000345056 0.0000345056 0.1242203 2 0.2484407
20.00 2.747477419 480.00 0.999998718226 2.747473898 20.0000236033 0.0000236033 0.0849717 2 0.1699435
35.00 1.428148007 480.00 0.999998718226 1.428146176 35.0000345056 0.0000345056 0.1242203 2 0.2484407
45.00 1.000000000 480.00 0.999998718226 0.999998718 45.0000367201 0.0000367201 0.1321925 0 0.0000000
Total 0.4024398
-
Esclangon found that the vertical angle of light travelling along & back inside a horizontal telescope (reflecting back off 2 mirrors fixed on its end) varied by up to 0.08 arcsec (ave max 0.036 arcsec) depending on (1) the orientation of the telescope relative to the stars, & (2) the sidereal time of day.
The folks setting up things like LIGO and this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry
did not find such an effect- even though their equipment was much more sensitive.
Which strongly indicates that the original observation wa an error.
Do we know the details of M Esclangon's experimental apparatus?
-
Esclangon found that the vertical angle of light travelling along & back inside a horizontal telescope (reflecting back off 2 mirrors fixed on its end) varied by up to 0.08 arcsec (ave max 0.036 arcsec) depending on (1) the orientation of the telescope relative to the stars, & (2) the sidereal time of day.
The folks setting up things like LIGO and this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry did not find such an effect- even though their equipment was much more sensitive. Which strongly indicates that the original observation was an error. Do we know the details of M Esclangon's experimental apparatus?
Fixed Earthly experiments turn at 1 rpd, hencely any such slow small gradual changes due to any changing LAC etc of mirrors & lenses & lasers & pipelines & tunnels etc are probly not a worry for LIGO, they tend to worry about things that change at say 8,640,000 rpd like their chirps.
However contrary to what u said i say that LIGO did find such an effect, thats why LIGO uses curved mirrors. Flat or flattish mirrors would allow them to use say 1/1000th the wattage, & would reduce their main problem which is temperature. Its the elephant in their tunnel, but sshhhhhhh -- hey everyone look over there, its a blackhole.
Plus their mirrors are as big as they can make them. Thats because a fixed laser beam draws a big ellipse during a day, so even if flat the mirrors would have to be big. LIGO of course would have an Einsteinian excuse for that big ellipse (Einsteinians have an almost limitless menu of relativistic magical corrections)(if need be they even resort to breaking their own original postulates).
But the main reason why LAC isnt an even greater problem for LIGO is that their mirrors hang, they are not fixed. A shape that hangs throo its center of mass must experience less LAC effect than a fixed shape (hanging sort of distributes the effect 2 ways).
Also a shape that has parallel faces must experience less LAC than say the angled triangular prisms in Esclangon's telescope. Triangular diagonals maximize any LAC (but this depends on how the mirror is fixed). LIGO's mirrors are curved but the faces are nearly flat, & are parallel, & a rectangular shape minimizes any LAC (whereas as i said Esclangon's triangular mirrors maximize any LAC).
Esclangon's 2-page paper gives few details of his telescope etc. Marett's paper shows a more detailed longi-section of the telescope, i dont know where he got it, mightbe from a book written by someone who had access to the original records. Marett said that the angles were 45 & 35 & 20 deg, so i used thems.
-
Esclangon found that the vertical angle of light travelling along & back inside a horizontal telescope (reflecting back off 2 mirrors fixed on its end) varied by up to 0.08 arcsec (ave max 0.036 arcsec) depending on (1) the orientation of the telescope relative to the stars, & (2) the sidereal time of day.
The folks setting up things like LIGO and this sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry did not find such an effect- even though their equipment was much more sensitive. Which strongly indicates that the original observation was an error. Do we know the details of M Esclangon's experimental apparatus?
Fixed experiments turn at 1 rpd, hencely any such slow small gradual changes due to any changing LAC etc of mirrors & lenses & lasers & pipelines & tunnels etc are probly not a worry for LIGO, they tend to worry about things that change at say 8,640,000 rpd like their chirps.
However contrary to what u said i say that LIGO did find such an effect, thats why LIGO uses curved mirrors. Flat or flattish mirrors would allow them to use say 1/1000th the wattage, & would reduce their main problem which is temperature. Its the elephant in their tunnel, but sshhhhhhh -- hey everyone look over there, its a blackhole.
Plus their mirrors are as big as they can make them. Thats because a fixed laser beam draws a big ellipse during a day, so even if flat the mirrors would have to be big. LIGO of course would have an Einsteinian excuse for that big ellipse (Einsteinians have an almost limitless menu of relativistic magical corrections)(if need be they even resort to breaking their own original postulates).
Wow!
It's as if you have discovered gravity or tides or something. i say that LIGO did find such an effect, thats why LIGO uses curved mirrors. Flat or flattish mirrors would allow them to use say 1/1000th the wattage,
Would you like to expand on that...
-
Wow! It's as if you have discovered gravity or tides or something.
Courvoisier of course discovered Earth's ground tide, here i mean the ground tide due to LLC, this is a twice per sidereal day thing, LLC changes the Earth's shape, Earth is flattened square to the aetherwind, the shape doesnt change but what changes is that (because Earth's spin-axis is at 20 deg or even 23 deg to the wind) the theusofa gets closer & later further from the spin-axis during each sidereal day, as theusofa moves throo the LLC's flattening.
The LLC-tide is in addition to the Moon-tide, the Moon-tide too affects Earth's shape due to centrifugal force etc, & here the tidal flattening is on a different angle to the LLC-flattening & has two lumps whereas the LLC-flattening has no lumps (but theusofa thinks there are two lumps due to Earth's misaligned spin-axis). Courvoisier simply used a very accurate plumbbob line to measure the LLC-tide (& the Moon-tide). A genius. He measured the aetherwind about 8 different ways, ie using different kinds of experiments. I will look for details later.
By the way, the LLC-tide must be a reason for Mercury's 43 arcsec per century advance of perihelion. U heard it hear first. Einstein's GR reason is of course complete crapp. Its the Sun's LLC-tide not Mercury's, Mercury has almost zero spin & thusly almost zero LLC-tide, but the Sun has a whopper. i say that LIGO did find such an effect, thats why LIGO uses curved mirrors. Flat or flattish mirrors would allow them to use say 1/1000th the wattage,[/b][/color]
Would you like to expand on that.
Because the beams describe an ellipse & because of LAC of the mirrors & because LIGO dont want to have to continuously re-aim the lasers & mirrors during each day they instead do the easy thing and have curved mirrors so that the reflexions dont miss the mirrors.
Once u have curved mirrors then most of the beam is wasted, hencely u need more power, i guess at least 1000 times more (LIGO uses umpteen reflexions tween the main mirrors). And thats why back in the early days they sh1t their pants when they were shocked to find how much light was being lost & they had to install lots of baffles to minimize stray light (in addition to upping power).
With his MGX Michelson had assistants with a radio link on every corner adjusting the small flat corner mirrors sort of hourly throo every day because the reflexion kept drifting off center (horizontally i think)(but praps there was some vertical involved too). It would be easy for LIGO to do this too (ie using their auto electronic correcting hangers), & i bet that they actually do (at least in part), but they aint gonna admit that are they.