Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 26/02/2019 23:43:38
-
I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread, because the effect of the aetherwind on the LC & TD of their torsion balance is probly the cause of their 1 in 2000 sidereal drift found at their lab in Russia.
And this LC & TD effect must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy of 1 in 1000 (which is 10 to 40 times the stated margin for errors).
They have shown that the global discrepancy is linked also to latitude, which supports my aetherwind ideas re LC & TD having a peculiar secondary mechanical macro LC & TD effect (on clocks rods wires etc), eg the change in thickness of the wire in one direction (& hencely a diminishment of its torsion calibration). This secondary macro effect is in addition to the standard well known Lorentz primary micro LC & TD effect (at the sub-atomic & atomic & intra-atomic levels).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyhow Einsteinian teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.
You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.
Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g & G on the surface of Earth. This is well known. I can look it up & start a new thread.
My mention of this (in the OP i think) was because i reckon that one of the main problems (that they are ignorant of) is the aetherwind, plus the effect of the centrifuging of aether.
The aetherwind must affect LC & TD & upset their clocks etc, making their instruments erratic. Plus the changing aetherwind, changing during each day & season etc actually changes the value of g at any one location.
There is tonnes of stuff out there re this......
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf This shows that orientation can make a 0.054% difference in G. But i reckon that the effect is only partly on G, it is partly an effect on their clock etc (instruments).
Experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.
by Mikhail L. Gershteyn∗†, Lev I. Gershteyn†, Arkady Gershteyn†, Oleg V. Karagioz‡
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NW16-189, 167 Albany St., Cambridge, MA02139, U.S.
Tribotech division of National Institute of Aviation Technology 5-12 Pyrieva St.,Moscow 119285, Russia
Abstract.......... In 1687, Isaac Newton published the universal law of gravitation stating that two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and the inverse square of the distance. The constant of proportionality, G, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. As the precision of measurements increased the disparity between the values of G, gathered by different groups, surprisingly increased [1-16]. This unique situation was reflected by the 1998 CODATA decision to increase the relative G uncertainty from 0.013% to 0.15 % [17]. Our repetitive measurements of the gravitational constant (G) show that G varies significantly with the orientation of the test masses relative to the system of fixed stars, as was predicted by the Attractive Universe Theory [18,19]. The distances between the test masses were in the decimeter range. We have observed that G changes with the orientation by at least 0.054%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
In this paper below the authors call for measurements of big G at the poles & at the equator & at more latitudes particularly in the southern hemisphere. Their finding of a latitude & longitude dependence is in accord with my aetherwind ideas, & my centrifuging of aether ideas.
Possible evidence from laboratory measurements for a latitude and longitude dependence of G.
J.P. Mbelek and M. Lachi`eze-Rey Service d’Astrophysique, C.E. Saclay
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France April 22, 2002
Abstract Stability arguments suggest that the Kaluza-Klein (KK) internal scalar field, Φ, should be coupled to some external fields. An external bulk real scalar field, ψ, minimally coupled to gravity is proved to be satisfactory. At low temperature, the coupling of ψ to the electromagnetic (EM) field allows Φ to be much stronger coupled to the EM field than in the genuine five dimensional KK theory. It is shown that the coupling of Φ to the geomagnetic field may explain the observed dispersion in laboratory measurements of the (effective) gravitational constant. The analysis takes into account the spatial variations of the geomagnetic field. Except the high PTB value, the predictions are found in good agreement with all of the experimental data.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/548033/files/0204064.pdf
-
3-Space In-Flow Theory of Gravity: Boreholes, Blackholes and the Fine Structure Constant
Reginald T. Cahill -- School of Chemistry Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University Adelaide Australia
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512109.pdf
Abstract -- A theory of 3-space explains the phenomenon of gravity as arising from the time dependence and inhomogeneity of the differential flow of this 3-space. The emergent theory of gravity has two gravitational constants: GN — Newton’s constant, and a dimensionless constantα. Various experiments and astronomical observations have shown thatα is the fine structure constant ≈1/137. Here we analyse the Greenland Ice Shelf and Nevada Test Site borehole g anomalies, and confirm with increased precision this value ofα. This and other successful tests of this theory of gravity, including the supermassive blackholes in globular clusters and galaxies, and the“dark-matter”effect in spiral galaxies, shows the validity of this theory of gravity. This success implies that the non-relativistic Newtonian gravity was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and that this flaw was inherited by the relativistic General Relativity theory of gravity.
Fig. 7: Results of precision measurements of GN published in the last sixty years in which the Newtonian theory was used to analyse the data. These results show the presence of a systematic effect, not in the Newtonian theory, of fractional size up to ∆GN/GN ≈α/4, which corresponded with the 1998 error bars on GN (outer dashed lines), with the full line being the current CODATA value ofGN=6.6742(10)Ă—10−11 m2s−2kg−1. In 2005 CODATA[20] reduced the error bars by a factor of 10 (innerdashed lines) on the basis of some recent experiments, and so neglecting the presence of the systematic effect.
-
I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread,
That's the thread where I showed that you are mistaken.Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g
I already explained why that's nonsense.
Starting a new thread doesn't make it any better; it just suggests that you are trolling.
-
aetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy
Also speculative (but possibly less so) is that time-varying changes in the density of the (theoretical) Dark Matter passing through the experiment might cause slight discrepancies in the measurement of G.
Although Dark Matter is something like 5 times denser than visible matter, the average density of Dark Matter in the Solar System must be pretty close to a good vacuum.
-
aetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy
Also speculative (but possibly less so) is that time-varying changes in the density of the (theoretical) Dark Matter passing through the experiment might cause slight discrepancies in the measurement of G.
Although Dark Matter is something like 5 times denser than visible matter, the average density of Dark Matter in the Solar System must be pretty close to a good vacuum.
I like the idea that free neutrinos are one kind of DM, because they have mass, double the mass of a free photon, because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 180 deg out of phase, the emitted em fields cancelling, hencely neutrinos have a nett associated em field with zero values at all points at all times, & cant be seen by the human eye.
Free neutrinos can form confined neutrinos by forming a loop, & the resulting dark particle has zero nett charge & zero nett em fields, a second kind of DM.
If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets, or if containing electrons & protons can form a semi-dark planet. This matter would be much denser than common matter.
I wonder whether neutrons are made of neutrinos. I will havtahav a think.
Re DM causing problems with measurements of G, i am thinking that DM would be unlikely to affect measurements unless the DM was mobile on a praps daily or seasonal basis. Here the DM would affect the mass.
My aetherwind etc effects are LC & TD effects that primarily affect measurements of the X by affecting ticking etc & secondarily might affect the actual X itself.
Re DM passing throo an X i suppose that DM would be mobile because it would be little affected by electrostatic or electrodynamic forces, but it would be affected by gravitational forces (pretty weak if particles are small).
-
because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase,
No
If you add together photons that are 90 degrees out of phase you get circularly polarised light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization
Please learn some science
-
because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase,
No If you add together photons that are 90 degrees out of phase you get circularly polarised light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization Please learn some science
Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.
Its interesting how the two photons might join. If the central helical bodies of each photon are considered to act like coils then if the coils have the same handedness & size etc the coils can of course easily fit inside each other. All of us who have used such a binding machine to make lots of such books know that. And if two such coils (photons) are held so that they share the same axis & are also evenly separated then u have your little neutrino. And the two fields then cancel to give a nett zero field(s). I learnt this off Conrad Ranzan, i aint sure whether he invented it, Conrad gets most of his atomic stuff off J G Williamson.
This means that we might have left handed photons & right handed photons. Likewize neutrinos.
I dont know whether lefts can annihilate rights. Or whether there are some strange interactions possible between lefts & rights.
And for that matter whether interactions are possible between photons & neutrinos (doubled photons).
And whether it might be possible for 3 photons to join to make a different kind of neutrino.
Or 4 photons might join.
I feel a Nobel coming on.
-
Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.
That's still wrong.
If they were then they could be split apart again by traveling through an optically active medium.
Sugar crystals would glow
Why don't you learn some science.
-
I feel a Nobel coming on.
Not even good enough for an ig nobel prize.
-
Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.
That's still wrong. If they were then they could be split apart again by traveling through an optically active medium. Sugar crystals would glow. Why don't you learn some science.
Hmmmm -- man u sure make me think, & u have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again. I look at things backwards sometimes, to help overcome prejudices that are so ingrained that they are invisible. When u said "then they could be split apart again" i, naturally, reversed it. I thort no. They cant be split apart again. Because they were together in the beginning. In other words neutrinos are not a coming together of photons, photons are a coming apart of neutrinos. See?
U are a scientist. How many atomic reactions result in a pair of photons? I think that pairs of photons are no longer questioned, they have become family, just as reliable as the chair that the scientist sits on. No-one examines the chair. No-one has a closer look at the pair of free photons.
The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino. The free neutrino comes from the death of a confined neutrino (called a neutron). I will be happy to share our Nobel.
Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).
-
The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.
Not when they result, for example, from the annihilation between an electron and positron...
-
The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.
Not when they result, for example, from the annihilation between an electron and positron...
Yes my wording was sloppy, & my thinking too. Yes if an electron is a confined photon then annihilation will give a say right-handed free photon, & i guess a positron will give a free photon with the opposite helix, eg left handed.
And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force holding the confined neutrinos together to be gravitational, what with the neutrinos having zero nett charge.
-
Yes if an electron is a confined photon
That would violate conservation of electric charge.
And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force
Neutrons are made of a triplet of quarks, not neutrinos. And no, that's not just theoretical. We know it from the results of particle scattering experiments.
-
If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets,
The most popular current theory of Dark Matter is that it consists of some subatomic particle which almost never interacts with normal matter (even less than the ghostly neutrinos).
These hypothetical Dark Matter particles would feel the tug of gravity, but that is not enough to cause them to aggregate - you need one or more forces which can cause Dark Matter particles to interact with each other, and radiate away the energy of their gravitational aggregation.
This theory cannot tell us if there is such a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Dark_matter_aggregation_and_dense_dark_matter_objects
-
Yes if an electron is a confined photon
That would violate conservation of electric charge.And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force
Neutrons are made of a triplet of quarks, not neutrinos. And no, that's not just theoretical. We know it from the results of particle scattering experiments.
Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.
-
If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets,
The most popular current theory of Dark Matter is that it consists of some subatomic particle which almost never interacts with normal matter (even less than the ghostly neutrinos).
These hypothetical Dark Matter particles would feel the tug of gravity, but that is not enough to cause them to aggregate - you need one or more forces which can cause Dark Matter particles to interact with each other, and radiate away the energy of their gravitational aggregation.
This theory cannot tell us if there is such a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Dark_matter_aggregation_and_dense_dark_matter_objects
I had a look at that. It is rubbish.
The only way that dark particles can interact is via gravity. And the only possible dark particle is the neutrino (two kinds)(free & confined).
Except that all particles & all non-particles (photons)(& neutrinos) radiate em radiation, ie photaenos. And neutrinos are affected by feedback from their emitted photaenos (photaenos suffer photaeno drag) (slowing the photon or neutrino).
-
Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
What are "dark quarks"? Something you made up? If neutrons were held together by gravitation, then it would be possible to split them into their individual components. Yet you can't. That's the phenomenon of quark confinement.
And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.
That makes no sense. How is a particle supposed to be capable of hiding its charge? If it has charge, then it must have an electric field associated with it.
-
Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?
-
Hmmmm -- man u sure make me think,
Good.
Now start doing it before you post.
have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again
I keep telling you to learn some science.
Here's another thing you probably didn't think about.
The redefinition of the Kg was fairly widely reported.
They plan to replace the prototype lump of metal with a definition in terms of Planck's constant.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02473.pdf
One aspect of that redefinition is that you need to measure g (and the rate at which it changes with height) to about a part in a billion.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/determination-local-acceleration-gravity-nist-4-watt-balance
And yet, you are claiming that the people who really know about measuring stuff have decided to do away with a physical standard in favour of something they can't measure.
That's clearly nonsense.
-
Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).
Human brains need sugar to function...
-
(Dark Matter cosmology) cannot tell us if there is a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
This topic has been split off to a different thread in "New Theories": "Could Dark Matter particles form a "Dark Planet"?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=76359.0
-
Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
What are "dark quarks"? Something you made up?
Yes i made dark quarks up. A quark is a confined photon. A dark quark is a confined neutrino. A neutrino is a dark photon (a dark pair of photons actually).If neutrons were held together by gravitation, then it would be possible to split them into their individual components. Yet you can't. That's the phenomenon of quark confinement.
I think i read that neutrons are made of three quarks. And dark neutrons might be made of three dark quarks. If quarks aggregate due to gravity then dark quarks might aggregate due to gravity. The issue then is that ordinary Newtonian gravity cant provide much attraction, but i have addressed that elsewhere, i forget where.And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.
That makes no sense. How is a particle supposed to be capable of hiding its charge? If it has charge, then it must have an electric field associated with it.
Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field. The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.
All particles have charge, but not all particles have nett charge. For instance a free photon (a quasi-particle) has no nett charge, but it emits both positive charge & negative charge all the time, but both cancel (at least they both cancel in their effect in the cases of the sorts of things we usually look at).
-
A quark is a confined photon.
That too would violate conservation of electric charge.
If quarks aggregate due to gravity
They don't.
Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field.
That won't work because electric fields extend in all directions at once.
The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.
And thus violate conservation of electric charge as charge cannot be destroyed.
All particles have charge
If that was true, then all particles would interact via the electromagnetic force. Some don't (neutrinos, for example). So not all particles have charge.
-
Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?
I think that i invented dark quarks, ie quarks made from neutrinos (which are dark photons). I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.
-
I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model
That would explain a lot.
-
Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).
Human brains need sugar to function...
Brains need cholesterol especially. I have sardines for lunch.
-
A quark is a confined photon.
That too would violate conservation of electric charge.
How so. The confined photon goes around in a loop such that all or most of the negative or positive charge goes in or out thusly giving a nett charge of zero or the full amount or something in between. If quarks aggregate due to gravity
They don't.
In another thread i mention how gravity at a micro level might be affected by the centrifuging of aether. Williamson explains how. As the confined photon goes round & round in its loop it only ever emits the positive half or the negative half of its charge field.
That won't work because electric fields extend in all directions at once.
J G Williamson doesnt think so. The half that is emitted inwards must annihilate or something.
And thus violate conservation of electric charge as charge cannot be destroyed.
My theory says that charge is the excitation of photaenos that radiate out from the central body of every photon. Inside a loop the inwards photaenos meet head-on, & annihilate, leaving nothing (or leaving non-excited aether).All particles have charge
If that was true, then all particles would interact via the electromagnetic force. Some don't (neutrinos, for example). So not all particles have charge.
No, u are talking about nett charge. There is a difference between having no photaenos (ie zero charge) & having photaenos that cancel (ie zero nett charge).
-
have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again
I keep telling you to learn some science. Here's another thing you probably didn't think about. The redefinition of the Kg was fairly widely reported. They plan to replace the prototype lump of metal with a definition in terms of Planck's constant.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02473.pdf
One aspect of that redefinition is that you need to measure g (and the rate at which it changes with height) to about a part in a billion.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/determination-local-acceleration-gravity-nist-4-watt-balance
And yet, you are claiming that the people who really know about measuring stuff have decided to do away with a physical standard in favour of something they can't measure. That's clearly nonsense.
The new definitions might have some benefits, & much money will now be made by the manufacturers of the needed new equipment.
But the new definitions are fraught, what with being circular, & what with being based on Einsteinian ideas, together with ignoring Einsteinian ideas.
The accuracy is bound to be affected by the aetherwind giving anisotropy of the speed of light, & affecting big G (due to the aetherwind caused by the centrifuging of aether by the spinning Earth)(& by the orbiting Earth).
-
It can be simple. I reckon that what we have is two kinds of matter, (1) matter made by photons & (2) dark matter made by neutrinos (dark photons)(two joined photons). An elementary particle is made when a free photon bites its tail & becomes a confined photon. Likewise an elementary dark particle might be made by a neutrino becoming a confined neutrino.
The first problem is that a dark electron might not have any charge. Likewise a dark proton. If so then all dark elementary particles would mimic neutrons, & they might have praps twice the mass of their non-dark sibling. Hencely we would not have any dark electrons orbiting a dark nucleus, we would just have a small nucleus.
We would not have dark atoms or dark molecules. We would have neutron particles, neutron planets, neutron stars. All with much the same densities, ie very dense. And all would be a kind of blackhole.
A free neutrino probly has twice the mass (or quasi-mass) of a free photon. A neutrino is invisible to the human eye, hencely dark.
Dark particles would form larger DPs by virtue of gravity. Radiating away excess heat would not be a problem. Dark particles would of course radiate electric fields which would of course cancel giving a nett charge of zero. But electric charge radiation does not require energy, or at least it does not carry energy (but can in some instances). This applies to all electric radiation whether cancelling or not. Heat would be radiated away in the same way as for non-dark matter, via the emission of hi energy photons or neutrinos.
Dark matter would aggregate with non-dark matter. But here we have a problem. Would dark particles migrate to the nucleus of an atom? This would in effect create an isotope, & might cause fission.
I think that most dark particles would soon make their way to the center of mass of any large body. I think that Earth has dark matter inside, likewise the Moon & the Sun.
Dark matter can orbit the Sun etc, but i dont see how DM (eg a dark clump) can orbit inside ordinary matter (eg Earth), the DM would meet a lot of resistance.
I dont see the need for an exotic attraction force for DM, gravity would be enough. Or, yes it would need an exotic force, but that force would be due to centrifuging of aether, due to the spins of the dark elementary particles (spinning at say c kmps). This is a faux-gravity if u like.
-
But the new definitions are fraught, what with being circular,
No
If you think they are circular, you have not understood them.
I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.
If you are not prepare to learn, why are you here?
You are clearly not in a position to teach, because you don't know.
-
It can be simple. I reckon that what we have is two kinds of matter, (1) matter made by photons & (2) dark matter made by neutrinos (dark photons)(two joined photons).
That would be simple.
It would also not be possible because it would (once again) violate charge conservation.
-
Having not heard of J.G. Williamson before, I did some research. Is this the person you are referring to? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Williamson5
I thought he might have been some kind of crank at first, but he does seem to have some good credentials. So I looked up the paper you were likely referring to: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
I haven't read the entire thing, but it doesn't seem to suggest that photons have both positive and negative charge at the same time. Instead, it seems to suggest that electric charge is an emergent property of the inherent electric and magnetic fields of confined photons. Although I said that such an idea would violate conservation of charge initially, it could potentially avoid that problem if such confined photons are incapable of spontaneously breaking confinement or if free photons are unable to spontaneously acquire confinement.
It is admittedly an interesting model, but something that radical needs some kind of experimentation to support it. Does the toroidal photon model make unique, testable predictions? I'd also like to know what other experts in the field of particle physics think about its plausibility. They would know better than I do.
Oh, but one potential issue does arise from the fact that electron-positron pairs something annihilate to release three photons instead of two. That would seem to be a problem if the argument is that electrons and positrons are made of one photon each because one photon per electron/positron is released. If there is a third photon involved, the annihilation can't represent something so simple as photons breaking confinement.
He also seems uncertain about the force required to confine the photon.
-
Having not heard of J.G. Williamson before, I did some research. Is this the person you are referring to? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Williamson5
I thought he might have been some kind of crank at first, but he does seem to have some good credentials. So I looked up the paper you were likely referring to: http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf
I haven't read the entire thing, but it doesn't seem to suggest that photons have both positive and negative charge at the same time. Instead, it seems to suggest that electric charge is an emergent property of the inherent electric and magnetic fields of confined photons. Although I said that such an idea would violate conservation of charge initially, it could potentially avoid that problem if such confined photons are incapable of spontaneously breaking confinement or if free photons are unable to spontaneously acquire confinement.
It is admittedly an interesting model, but something that radical needs some kind of experimentation to support it. Does the toroidal photon model make unique, testable predictions? I'd also like to know what other experts in the field of particle physics think about its plausibility. They would know better than I do.
Oh, but one potential issue does arise from the fact that electron-positron pairs something annihilate to release three photons instead of two. That would seem to be a problem if the argument is that electrons and positrons are made of one photon each because one photon per electron/positron is released. If there is a third photon involved, the annihilation can't represent something so simple as photons breaking confinement.
He also seems uncertain about the force required to confine the photon.
Yes new ideas open up more difficult questions. But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas. If u a scientist has read JGWs stuff then u are now more knowledgeable re his ideas than i could ever be (plus i havent read his stuff for yonks). Miles Mathis has mixed feelings re JGWs stuff.
Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.
A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.
On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?
The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.
Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.
A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.
Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting. One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons. If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?
-
But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.
A hypothesis being the only existing explanation for a given phenomenon is not evidence that said hypothesis is correct or even good.
Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting. One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons. If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?
If that was what was happening, you would expect the two photons resulting from the split to have half the energy of the photon that did not split. In the actual decay, all three photons have the same energy.
-
:-\ Incorporating the word mad in your handle appears to be due to some quite accurate self assesment. You appear to be quite an astute observer of your own limitations. It is a pity this doesn't carry over into your attempts at science.
-
But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.
You refer to "this field" which seems to be trying to explain the apparent changes in G on a (sidereal) daily basis reported in the paper you cite.
But that paper lacks any decent error analysis.
In particular, it doesn't explain how circadian effects- the temperature would be the biggest would affect teh reading.
Without that there is no real evidence of an effect.
So, making up stories about photons disappearing up their own backsides to explain the effect is absurd.
-
But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.
You refer to "this field" which seems to be trying to explain the apparent changes in G on a (sidereal) daily basis reported in the paper you cite.
But that paper lacks any decent error analysis. In particular, it doesn't explain how circadian effects- the temperature would be the biggest would affect teh reading. Without that there is no real evidence of an effect.
So, making up stories about photons disappearing up their own backsides to explain the effect is absurd.
Papers i read say that the various values for G found by different teams differ by a factor of 10 times the calculated error & one paper says 40 times i think.
Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.
Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp, most tests seem to be in vacuum chambers.
The problem (as for all of science) as usual is that it is impossible to do an assessment of possible error of the whole underlying theory (here the big G theory), u dont know what u dont know (here mainly the effect of the varying daily etc aetherwind affecting length & ticking)(including the effect of orientation in relation to the wind).
Some papers devote much wordage to the analysis of seismic effects on their pendulums & torsion balances etc. Which reminds me that because the aetherwind blowing throo Earth is 20 deg off Earth's axis then Earth's spin must create a pulsation of Earth's shape due to the daily change of length contraction due to the changing wind at any one location. For example at Obninsk the horizontal component of the aetherwind varys tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps daily.
I calculate that a 300 kmps aetherwind changes Earth's 12,742,000,000 mm diameter by 6,380 mm. And a 200 kmps wind gives 2,835 mm. A difference of 3,544 mm. Thats the possible size of the pulsation of the diameter during 24 hrs.
In addition that pulsation will have some kind of harmonic vibration, due to the speed of sound or something in Earth. That harmonic might magnify that there 3,544 mm.
-
:-\ Incorporating the word mad in your handle appears to be due to some quite accurate self assesment. You appear to be quite an astute observer of your own limitations. It is a pity this doesn't carry over into your attempts at science.
Dont forget that mad also means annoyed, or excited, or wildly desirous to do something.
I should have picked atheist aetherist. That looks classy.
-
Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.
Do you mean this paper?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf
which you refered to?
It still doesn't have an error analysis.
Do you know what an error analysis actually looks like?
-
Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp,
That paper does mention temperature controil.
They say it is kept within 0.1C.
But they don't then calculate how much difference that makes to the pendulum swing.
It's possible that a 0.1C change is enough to explain the "effect" they saw.
-
Re that russian paper i am fairly certain that they did a good instrument precision analysis.
Do you mean this paper?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf
which you refered to?
It still doesn't have an error analysis.
Do you know what an error analysis actually looks like?
Yes they mention experimental error but give no details. I think that for an error analysis u estimate the possible error of each measurement appearing in the fundamental equation covering the apparatus & X & theory u are using, & then u crunch those numbers, keeping an eye on the pluses & minuses to make sure u dont let them cancel & make things look better than they are, & this gives u a maximum likely spread of error, & then u divide by 100 or something to account for the benefits of averaging where a happy cancellation of pluses & minuses can give u numbers that make sense, ie numbers u know u are looking for, & to make your experiment look better than it is, & then u can place error bars over your graphs of results, & if that graph looks sick u can discard them & repeat the X until u get good looking numbers.
I suppose that there are at least two kinds of errors. There's errors where u get a spread of results for the X, a kind of bell curve praps. U of course can usually run a curve throo the middle of this cloud of dots to give an average.
But that there cloud of dots & that there curve might itself be too hi or too low because the instrument has a defect. That defect & all of the possible defects (eg error in measurement of length of arm or something) might have its own error analysis i suppose.
And then we come to error in the theory, ie in the equation itself.
-
Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp,
That paper does mention temperature controil. They say it is kept within 0.1C. But they don't then calculate how much difference that makes to the pendulum swing. It's possible that a 0.1C change is enough to explain the "effect" they saw.
Yes. But u can bet that they did preliminary tests noting the effect of temp, giving a curve, & allowing them to correct future results accordingly.
As u say if u are writing a paper where the sidereal day is the main issue then temp is always a bugbear.
Miller devoted tons of time to tests re the effect of temp on his MMX. Having a temp curve is essential.
-
But a new idea here has a low bar to jump, it merely has to be better than all other ideas, & here that field amounts to zero ideas.
A hypothesis being the only existing explanation for a given phenomenon is not evidence that said hypothesis is correct or even good.
Yes, but its still the best one out there. Anyhow, trying to explain given phenomenon is boring, i prefer to invent an explanation & then see if i can invent a related phenomenon -- eg the centrifuging of aether, giving the phenomenon of faux-gravity, which at a micro level gives us the real strong force -- & which gives macro phenomena too, deserving of Nobels there too. Re getting 3 photons from 2 (ie from an electron positron annihilation), that is interesting. One thing that i can think of is that a confined photon can break in two to give two free photons. If free photons can have a large range of energies then a hi energy confined photon or a hi energy free photon might divide to make 2 or even more lo energy photons. Would that work?
If that was what was happening, you would expect the two photons resulting from the split to have half the energy of the photon that did not split. In the actual decay, all three photons have the same energy.
Very interesting. I will have to have a re-read of Williamson's stuff.
-
Yes, but its still the best one out there.
Not necessarily. It isn't even the only model of the electron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
i prefer to invent an explanation & then see if i can invent a related phenomenon -- eg the centrifuging of aether, giving the phenomenon of faux-gravity, which at a micro level gives us the real strong force -- & which gives macro phenomena too, deserving of Nobels there too.
You think you deserve a Nobel prize for untested hypotheses?
-
Yes, but its still the best one out there.
Not necessarily. It isn't even the only model of the electron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
i prefer to invent an explanation & then see if i can invent a related phenomenon -- eg the centrifuging of aether, giving the phenomenon of faux-gravity, which at a micro level gives us the real strong force -- & which gives macro phenomena too, deserving of Nobels there too.
You think you deserve a Nobel prize for untested hypotheses?
Einstein got a Nobel for an already tested hypothesis where thems old tests (Michelson & Morley 1887) showed that the hypothesis (SR) was wrong.
Most around here think that Einstein got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. No. They need to read the award wordage.
Actually the centrifuging of aether by a spinning or orbiting body was previously "proven", by DePalma in say 1979, & by Podkletnov in say 1990, who detected a change in ticking near spinning discs or wheels. But i think that i only became aware of that later, or i was already aware but hadnt connected the dots when i thort of the centrifuging of aether.
-
Einstein got a Nobel for an already tested hypothesis where thems old tests showed that the hypothesis was wrong.
Do you have a citation for that?
Actually the centrifuging of aether by a spinning or orbiting body was previously "proven", by DePalma in say 1979, & by Podkletnov in say 1990, who detected a change in ticking near spinning discs or wheels. But i think that i only became aware of that or i was already aware but hadnt connected the dots when i thort of the centrifuging of aether.
Since when did anyone prove anything about centrifuging aether? Be careful how you answer that. Make sure that your response includes a test that demonstrates that any observed effects had anything to do with aether specifically.
-
Einstein got a Nobel for an already tested hypothesis where thems old tests showed that the hypothesis was wrong.
Do you have a citation for that?
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.
There is probably no physicist living today whose name has become so widely known as that of Albert Einstein. Most discussion centres on his theory of relativity. This pertains essentially to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly. The theory in question also has astrophysical implications which are being rigorously examined at the present time.
Throughout the first decade of this century the so-called Brownian movement stimulated the keenest interest. In 1905 Einstein founded a kinetic theory to account for this movement by means of which he derived the chief properties of suspensions, i.e. liquids with solid particles suspended in them. This theory, based on classical mechanics, helps to explain the behaviour of what are known as colloidal solutions, a behaviour which has been studied by Svedberg, Perrin, Zsigmondy and countless other scientists within the context of what has grown into a large branch of science, colloid chemistry.
A third group of studies, for which in particular Einstein has received the Nobel Prize, falls within the domain of the quantum theory founded by Planck in 1900. This theory asserts that radiant energy consists of individual particles, termed “quanta”, approximately in the same way as matter is made up of particles, i.e. atoms. This remarkable theory, for which Planck received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918, suffered from a variety of drawbacks and about the middle of the first decade of this century it reached a kind of impasse. Then Einstein came forward with his work on specific heat and the photoelectric effect. This latter had been discovered by the famous physicist Hertz in 1887. He found that an electrical spark passing between two spheres does so more readily if its path is illuminated with the light from another electrical discharge. A more exhaustive study of this interesting phenomenon was carried out by Hallwachs who showed that under certain conditions a negatively charged body, e.g. a metal plate, illuminated with light of a particular colour – ultraviolet has the strongest effect – loses its negative charge and ultimately assumes a positive charge. In 1899 Lenard demonstrated the cause to be the emission of electrons at a certain velocity from the negatively charged body. The most extraordinary aspect of this effect was that the electron emission velocity is independent of the intensity of the illuminating light, which is proportional only to the number of electrons, whereas the velocity increases with the frequency of the light. Lenard stressed that this phenomenon was not in good agreement with the then prevailing concepts.
An associated phenomenon is photo-luminescence, i.e.phosphorescence and fluorescence. When light impinges on a substance the latter will occasionally become luminous as a result of phosphorescence or fluorescence. Since the energy of the light quantum increases with the frequency, it will be obvious that a light quantum with a certain frequency can only give rise to the formation of a light quantum of lower or, at most, equal frequency. Otherwise energy would be created. The phosphorescent or fluorescent light hence has a lower frequency than the light inducing the photo-luminescence. This is Stokes’ rule which was explained in this way by Einstein by means of the quantum theory.
Similarly, when a quantum of light falls on a metal plate it can at most yield the whole of its energy to an electron there. A part of this energy is consumed in carrying the electron out into the air, the remainder stays with the electron as kinetic energy. This applies to an electron in the surface layer of the metal. From this can be calculated the positive potential to which the metal can be charged by irradiation. Only if the quantum contains sufficient energy for the electron to perform the work of detaching itself from the metal does the electron move out into the air. Consequently, only light having a frequency greater than a certain limit is capable of inducing a photo-electric effect, however high the intensity of the irradiating light. If this limit is exceeded the effect is proportional to the light intensity at constant frequency. Similar behaviour occurs in the ionisation of gas molecules and the so-called ionisation potential may be calculated, provided that the frequency of the light capable of ionising the gas is known.
Einstein’s law of the photo-electrical effect has been extremely rigorously tested by the American Millikan and his pupils and passed the test brilliantly. Owing to these studies by Einstein the quantum theory has been perfected to a high degree and an extensive literature grew up in this field whereby the extraordinary value of this theory was proved. Einstein’s law has become the basis of quantitative photo-chemistry in the same way as Faraday’s law is the basis of electro-chemistry.**
Einstein's relativity is krapp, some aspects are numerically correct for the wrong reasons. The slowing of light near mass is i think his best work, albeit using false science.
Brownian motion is complete krapp. The true explanation will involve EZ water.
Einstein's work on the photo electric effect added little to old well known theory & discoveries.
-
Firstly, where did you get that from?
Secondly, how does it support your assertion?
-
Actually the centrifuging of aether by a spinning or orbiting body was previously "proven", by DePalma in say 1979, & by Podkletnov in say 1990, who detected a change in ticking near spinning discs or wheels. But i think that i only became aware of that or i was already aware but hadnt connected the dots when i thort of the centrifuging of aether.
Since when did anyone prove anything about centrifuging aether? Be careful how you answer that. Make sure that your response includes a test that demonstrates that any observed effects had anything to do with aether specifically.
Before DePalma's ticking test there was no proof. Afterwards there was a proof of sorts. But DePalma knew little about aether & nothing about centrifuging of aether. Likewise Podkletnov.
Both lots of tests were only rough, & the results were hundreds of times larger than my theory would possibly give, so for sure something smells fishy. Some pimply under grad could get an easy Nobel here. Today i cant even find Podkletnov's wordage or statement re his ticking tests.
-
Both lots of tests were only rough, & the results were hundreds of times larger than my theory would possibly give, so for sure something smells fishy.
It sounds like you are saying, "The tests don't agree with my predictions, therefore the tests are suspicious." That isn't what you are saying, is it? Please say no.
-
Firstly, where did you get that from? Secondly, how does it support your assertion?
I googled nobel 1921 award ceremony. I think it is on the official site.
The award was essentially for three groups of studies, the first group alluded to must have been "his theory of relativity", the second must have been re "the so-called Brownian movement", & the third group was for "Einstein's law of the photo-electrical effect" or some such.
-
When I said, "How does that support your assertion?", I meant, "How does it show that his hypotheses were falsified by experiments that had already been done in the past?"
-
Both lots of tests were only rough, & the results were hundreds of times larger than my theory would possibly give, so for sure something smells fishy.
It sounds like you are saying, "The tests don't agree with my predictions, therefore the tests are suspicious." That isn't what you are saying, is it? Please say no.
The tests found that ticking was affected, which agrees with my theory.
However the size of the effect as far as i can remember was much much greater than i expected.
But my theory doesnt have an equation for the size of ticking dilation near a spinning body. Any such equation would i suppose use the ordinary equation for gamma, the first difficulty here being that i then need to know V, but i dont have an equation giving that V for the speed of the aether inflow at the equator of the spinning body.
Aetherists believe that the aether inflow into Earth due to Earth's resting mass is equal to the escape velocity, 11.2 kmps. But i dont know what the kmps might be near the equator of a spinning disc or wheel.
So in a sense i havent got a prediction for ticking dilation near a spinning disc or wheel.
Re V kmps, this must of course involve the mass & the rps & the angular inertia.
-
When I said, "How does that support your assertion?", I meant, "How does it show that his hypotheses were falsified by experiments that had already been done in the past?"
Einstein's 1905 STR was falsified in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, who measured an aetherwind. An aetherwind shows that there is an aether. If an aether then SR & GR are partly or wholly wrong, as Einstein said hizself.
-
Einstein's 1905 STR was falsified in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, who measured an aetherwind. An aetherwind shows that there is an aether. If an aether then SR & GR are partly or wholly wrong, as Einstein said hizself.
Now how did I know you were going to bring that up again? We've been through this before. When you mention this, I tell you about the significantly more precise experiments which have failed to detect any such aether. Then you claim that the experiments don't work in a vacuum. Then I clarify that the method used to detect the aether did not involve fringeshift as in the MMX, but rather relied on frequency shifts that must necessarily occur if the speed of light changes. You never did give me a response to that one.
-
Einstein's 1905 STR was falsified in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, who measured an aetherwind. An aetherwind shows that there is an aether. If an aether then SR & GR are partly or wholly wrong, as Einstein said hizself.
Now how did I know you were going to bring that up again? We've been through this before. When you mention this, I tell you about the significantly more precise experiments which have failed to detect any such aether. Then you claim that the experiments don't work in a vacuum. Then I clarify that the method used to detect the aether did not involve fringeshift as in the MMX, but rather relied on frequency shifts that must necessarily occur if the speed of light changes. You never did give me a response to that one.
Yes i remember. The whole issue has been settled by Demjanov's twin media MMX which is 1000 times as sensitive is the original MMXs. All it takes is one measurement of aetherwind to "prove" aether. One measurement (or more) that fails to find an aetherwind simply means that the X is flawed.
Say i use a stud finder to show that a wall has (hidden) studs. I mark all of the studs with pencil, showing noggins, doubled studs, & strange signals that might be wiring or something non-stud. And a second person using my stud finder draws an identical layout, confirming my own.
Then along comes Kryptid with a new improoved laser stud finder, & proves to the 17th decimal that there are no studs anywhere in that wall. And says that my studs are all due to temperature effects.
Me myself i would reckon that the newfangled laser finder is a dud, or that the battery is flat, & i would be correct.
The issue cant possibly be whether there is an aetherwind, aetherwind & aether are proven, the only issue is what kind of krappy theory is being used with thems modern MMXs.
The upside might be that we now have better evidence for gamma. There might be genuine science hiding here.
Using lasers or masers or etalons to measure the aetherwind is fraught. The length of a laser crystal is affected by the aetherwind. The frequency too.
But i think that with a laser(s) there might be a 3rd order change, praps at about the 13th decimal, in which case it would be possible to calibrate the instrument & get a number for the kmps of the aetherwind. I daresay that any such small systematic recurring cyclic reading (proving aetherwind) has been sidestepped by calling it a systematic noise. Am i correct? Yes of course i am correct.
If u quote me one such test i will have a closer look. Handy hint. Find one that doesnt mention systematic noise, else i might die laughing.
-
Prof Reg Cahill reckons that vacuum resonators too give null results as for ordinary vacuum MMXs.......
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0312082.pdf
Reginald T Cahill – Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves – 2003.
A more general analysis shows that when the arm AB has angle θ−ψ relative to the projection of the velocity of absolute motion we obtain (58). Then on rotation through 900 the factor cos(2(θ−ψ)) changes by 2, so giving (58) the factor of 2 seen in (67). The major significance of this result is that this time difference is not zero when a gas is present in the interferometer, as confirmed by all gas-mode interferometer experiments. Of course this result also shows that vacuum-mode experiments, with n =1, will give null results, as also confirmed by experiment [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. So gas-mode Michelson interferometers are â€blind’ to the effects of absolute motion, but they play a key role in confirming the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, and by using vacuum they separate this effect from the refractive index effect.
It was Miller who first introduced the parameter k as he appreciated that the operation of the Michelson interferometer was not fully understood, although of course he never realised that k is related to the refractive index of the gas present in the interferometer. This is very fortunate since being a multiplicative parameter a re-scaling of old analyses is all that is required. ∆t is non-zero when n =1 because the refractive index effect results in incomplete cancellation between the geometrical effect and the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect. This incomplete cancellation arises whether we include the Fresnel drag effect or not, so its role in gas-mode Michelson interferometers is not critical. Leaving it out simply changes the overall sign in (58). Of course it was this cancellation effect that Fitzgerald and Lorentz actually used to arrive at the length contraction hypothesis, but they failed to take the next step and note that the cancellation would be incomplete in a gas operated Michelson interferometer.
In a bizarre development modern Michelson interferometer experiments use resonant vacuum cavities rather than interference effects, but for which the analysis here is easily adapted, and with the same consequences.
That denies these experiments the opportunity to see absolute motion effects. Nevertheless the experimentalists continue to misinterpret their null results as evidence against absolute motion. Of course these experiments are therefore restricted to merely checking the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, and this is itself of some interest.
-
3.8 The New Bedford Experiment: 1963
In 1964 from an absolute motion detector experiment at New Bedford, latitude 420N, Jaseja et al [14] reported yet another â€null result’. In this experiment two He-Ne masers were mounted with axes perpendicular on a rotating table, see Fig.16. Rotation of the table through 900 produced repeatable variations in the frequency difference of about 275kHz, an effect attributed to magnetorestriction in the Invar spacers due to the earth’s magnetic field.
Observations over some six consecutive hours on January 20, 1963 from 6:00 am to 12:00 noon local time did produce a â€dip’ in the frequency difference of some 3kHz superimposed on the 275kHz effect, as shown in Fig.17 in which the local times have been converted to sidereal times. The most noticeable feature is that the dip occurs at approximately 17 − 18:00hr sidereal time (or 9 − 10:00 hrs local time), which agrees with the direction of absolute motion observed by Miller and also by DeWitte (see Sect.3.9).
It was most fortunate that this particular time period was chosen as at other times the effect is much smaller, as shown for example for the February data in Fig.9 which shows the minimum at 18:00hr sidereal time. The local times were chosen by Jaseja et al such that if the only motion was due to the earth’s orbital speed the maximum frequency difference, on rotation, should have occurred at 12:00hr local time, and the minimum frequency difference at 6:00 hr local time, whereas in fact the minimum frequency difference occurred at 9:00 hr local time.
As for the Michelson-Morley experiment the analysis of the New Bedford experiment was also bungled. Again this apparatus can only detect the effects of absolute motion if the cancellation between the geometrical effects and Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction effects is incomplete as occurs only when the radiation travels in a gas, here the He-Ne gas present in the maser.
This double maser apparatus is essentially equivalent to a Michelson interferometer. Then the resonant frequency ν of each maser is proportional to the reciprocal of the out-and-back travel time. For maser 1 ν1 = m V 2 − v 2 2LV r 1 − v 2 c 2 , (73) for which a Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction occurs, while for maser 2 ν2 = m √ V 2 − v 2 2L . (74)
Here m refers to the mode number of the masers. When the apparatus is rotated the net observed frequency difference is δν = 2(ν2 − ν1), where the factor of â€2’ arises as the roles of the two masers are reversed after a 900 rotation. Putting V = c/n we find for v << V and with ν0 the at-rest resonant frequency, that δν = (n 2 − 1)ν0 v 2 c 2 + O( v 4 c 4 ). (75) If we use the Newtonian physics analysis, as in Jaseja et al [14], which neglects both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and the refractive index effect, then we obtain δν = ν0v 2/c2 , that is without the n 2 − 1 term, just as for the Newtonian analysis of the Michelson interferometer itself.
Of course the very small magnitude of the absolute motion effect, which was approximately 1/1000 that expected assuming only an orbital speed of v = 30 km/s in the Newtonian analysis, occurs simply because the refractive index of the He-Ne gas is very close to one7 . Nevertheless given that it is small the sidereal time of the obvious ’dip’ coincides almost exactly with that of the other observations of absolute motion.
The New Bedford experiment was yet another missed opportunity to have revealed the existence of absolute motion. Again the spurious argument was that because the Newtonian physics analysis gave the wrong prediction then Einstein relativity must be correct. But the analysis simply failed to take account of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, which had been known since the end of the 19th century, and the refractive index effect which had an even longer history. As well the authors failed to convert their local times to sidereal times and compare the time for the â€dip’ with Miller’s time.
Figure 16: Schematic diagram for recording the variations in beat frequency between two optical masers: (a) when at absolute rest, (b) when in absolute motion at velocity v. PM is the photomultiplier detector. The apparatus was rotated back and forth through 90 deg.
Figure 17: Frequency difference in kHz between the two masers in the 1963 New Bedford experiment after a 900 rotation. The 275kHz difference is a systematic repeatable apparatus effect, whereas the superimposed â€dip’ at 17−18:00hr sidereal time of approximately 3kHz is a real time dependent frequency difference. The full curve shows the theoretical prediction for the time of the â€dip’ for this experiment using the Miller direction for ˆv (α = 5.2 hr, δ = −670 ) with |v| = 433km/s and including the earth’s orbital velocity and sun gravitational in-flow velocity effects for January 20, 1963. The absolute scale of this theoretical prediction was not possible to compute as the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture was unknown.
-
Yes i remember. The whole issue has been settled by Demjanov's twin media MMX which is 1000 times as sensitive is the original MMXs. All it takes is one measurement of aetherwind to "prove" aether. One measurement (or more) that fails to find an aetherwind simply means that the X is flawed.
Unless Demjanov's experiment is the one that is flawed. Show me a link to the experiment you speak of. I did find this interesting little item about one of Demjanov's papers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
To quote:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief. Please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
Reason: Matters have been brought to the attention of the editors warranting further review of this article. This further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published. The Editors and Publisher apologize to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.
Of course, I strongly suspect that you will respond to that with arguments involving the words "conspiracy", "mafia", "suppression" or other related terminology.
The issue cant possibly be whether there is an aetherwind
Of course it can.
aetherwind & aether are proven
Oh really? I thought you agreed that there is no such thing as proof in science?
the only issue is what kind of krappy theory is being used with thems modern MMXs.
The "theory" is based on the equation for the frequency of light: frequency = velocity / wavelength. Where is the flaw in that?
The length of a laser crystal is affected by the aetherwind.
By how much?
The frequency too.
Which is exactly why such an experiment would detect the aether.
I daresay that any such small systematic recurring cyclic reading (proving aetherwind) has been sidestepped by calling it a systematic noise. Am i correct? Yes of course i am correct.
Demonstrate it.
If u quote me one such test i will have a closer look. Handy hint. Find one that doesnt mention systematic noise, else i might die laughing.
And yet if I posted one where systematic noise wasn't mentioned at all, I suspect you'd complain about exactly that. The systematic noise in the following experiment is extraordinarily tiny (on the order of 10-17: 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. Such a noise level is far too small to be compatible with a positive interpretation of the original Michelson-Morley experiments.
-
In a bizarre development modern Michelson interferometer experiments use resonant vacuum cavities rather than interference effects, but for which the analysis here is easily adapted, and with the same consequences.
Based on what reasoning?
-
http://vixra.org/author/v_v_demjanov
V.V. Demjanov
[14] viXra:1307.0093 submitted on 2013-07-19 02:37:10, (59 unique-IP downloads)
On the Concept Long-Range Action
Authors: S.V. Akimenko, V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[13] viXra:1307.0049 replaced on 2013-07-10 07:47:36, (241 unique-IP downloads)
Relativistic Explanation of the Experiments by Bradley (1728) and of the Michelson (1881)
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[12] viXra:1303.0164 replaced on 2013-04-08 08:52:52, (228 unique-IP downloads)
How "Conscientious Apologetics" SRT Today Refutes the Per-Versions a Theory of Relativity, that Have Invented Einstein
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[11] viXra:1208.0067 replaced on 2012-09-06 05:01:33, (194 unique-IP downloads)
Secrets of the Two of Concepts of Relativity Theory
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[10] viXra:1203.0003 submitted on 2012-03-01 07:34:13, (204 unique-IP downloads)
Why Positive Experiments by Galaev, as Well as Miller, Have Yielded "Negative" Results of Detection of Aether
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[9] viXra:1201.0057 submitted on 2012-01-12 07:35:06, (141 unique-IP downloads)
The Compatibility of Non-Negative Outcome of Michelson&Morley Experiments with Lorentz-Invariant Transformations of the Light Speed in Moving Optical Media
Authors: V. V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[8] viXra:1105.0036 submitted on 24 May 2011, (160 unique-IP downloads)
The World "Axis of Good" (2005) (Pra-Centenary of Special Relativity)
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: History and Philosophy of Physics
[7] viXra:1104.0082 submitted on 27 Apr 2011, (104 unique-IP downloads)
Experiments on Electron Bremsstrahlung When Passing Through Narrow Slits and Their Interpretation in Terms of Inverse Photoelectric Effect
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Quantum Physics
[6] viXra:1101.0100 submitted on 31 Jan 2011, (599 unique-IP downloads)
Chemical Potential of Equilibrium Electromagnetic Radiation and the Means for Electromagnetic Waves to Propagate in Free Space
Authors: S.V.Akimenko, V.V.Demjanov
Category: Condensed Matter
[5] viXra:1009.0057 replaced on 6 Apr 2011, (312 unique-IP downloads)
Why Over 30 Years Aether Wind Was not Detected in Michelson-Type Experiments with Resonators
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[4] viXra:1008.0075 submitted on 26 Aug 2010, (164 unique-IP downloads)
Why Trimmer et Al. "Did not Detect" Aether Wind in 1973?
Authors: V.V.Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[3] viXra:1008.0003 submitted on 2 Aug 2010, (259 unique-IP downloads)
Why Shamir and Fox Did not Detect "Aether Wind" in 1969?
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[2] viXra:1007.0038 submitted on 24 Jul 2010, (248 unique-IP downloads)
Michelson-Type Interferometer Operating at Effects of First Order with Respect to V/c
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
[1] viXra:1006.0002 submitted on 2 Jun 2010, (337 unique-IP downloads)
Detector of Aether Operating on Transverse Doppler Effect
Authors: V.V. Demjanov
Category: Relativity and Cosmology
-
What and how the Michelson interferometer measures V.V.Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk, Russia∗ (Dated: March 7, 2011)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.2899.pdf
Michelson interferometer operating at effects of first order with respect to v/c (the third method of measuring the speed of ”aether wind”)
V.V.Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk, Russia∗ (Dated: 19 April 2010)
In the first version of this paper (arXiv: 1003.2899v1, 15.03.2010) there is described first, traditional method of measuring the non-zero shift of interference fringe in the Michelson interferometer, operating on the effects of second order with respect to υ/c, and are revealed hidden causes of the failure to measure the shift of interference fringe in the period from 1881 till 1960. It is shown that at the latitude of Obninsk within a 24-hour observation period the horizontal projection of aether wind velocity varies from 140 km/s to 480 km/s. The second version of this paper (arXiv: 1003.2899v2, 15.04.2010) is supplemented with a second method of finding the velocity of the aether wind − through measuring the largest seasonal decrease in the ratio of the summer shift of the interference fringe to the winter one (equaled ∼ 12%). It gave the same interval of values of the projections of the aether wind velocity as the first method. Below the third method of measuring the aether wind is described that appears to be in agreement with the first two methods. More than hundred years there persists a belief that Michelson-type interferometer can not be adjusted such as to detect effects of the first order with respect to υ/c. Below I show that it is possible to measure the interference fringe shift (and thus the ”aether wind”) on the first order Michelson interferometer, and more successfully than on the interferometer of the second order. In contrast to the traditional approach, in the interferometer of the first order the light after splitting on a semi-transparent plate propagates in both arms to the reflecting mirrors in one optical medium (with dielectric permittivity ε1), and returns after reflection from the mirrors through another optical medium (with dielectric permittivity ε2). The shift of the interference fringe is reliably detected in the experiment when turning the interferometer by 90◦ . It was found to be proportional to ε1 − ε2. Experimental data are interpreted in the bounds of the Fresnel drag of light by a moving optical medium neglecting terms quadratic in υ/c. The horizontal projection υ of the Earth’s velocity relative to luminiferous aether thus found lies in the range 140 km/s < υ < 480 km/s depending on the time of the day and night at the latitude of Obninsk. This is the third method of measuring the speed of aether wind. It gives the same range of values as two earlier described methods operating at second order with respect to υ/c.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0103103.pdf
-
Yes i remember. The whole issue has been settled by Demjanov's twin media MMX which is 1000 times as sensitive is the original MMXs. All it takes is one measurement of aetherwind to "prove" aether. One measurement (or more) that fails to find an aetherwind simply means that the X is flawed.
Unless Demjanov's experiment is the one that is flawed. Show me a link to the experiment you speak of. I did find this interesting little item about one of Demjanov's papers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109016375
To quote:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief. Please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
Reason: Matters have been brought to the attention of the editors warranting further review of this article. This further review has revealed that the theoretical and experimental claims made by the author cannot be supported and the article should not have been published. The Editors and Publisher apologize to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.
Of course, I strongly suspect that you will respond to that with arguments involving the words "conspiracy", "mafia", "suppression" or other related terminology.
The issue cant possibly be whether there is an aetherwind
Of course it can.aetherwind & aether are proven
Oh really? I thought you agreed that there is no such thing as proof in science?
the only issue is what kind of krappy theory is being used with thems modern MMXs.
The "theory" is based on the equation for the frequency of light: frequency = velocity / wavelength. Where is the flaw in that?
The length of a laser crystal is affected by the aetherwind.
By how much?
The frequency too.
Which is exactly why such an experiment would detect the aether.
I daresay that any such small systematic recurring cyclic reading (proving aetherwind) has been sidestepped by calling it a systematic noise. Am i correct? Yes of course i am correct.
Demonstrate it.
If u quote me one such test i will have a closer look. Handy hint. Find one that doesnt mention systematic noise, else i might die laughing.
And yet if I posted one where systematic noise wasn't mentioned at all, I suspect you'd complain about exactly that. The systematic noise in the following experiment is extraordinarily tiny (on the order of 10-17: 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. Such a noise level is far too small to be compatible with a positive interpretation of the original Michelson-Morley experiments.
Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.
Note that viXra did not censor his papers.
-
http://vixra.org/pdf/1009.0057v3.pdf
Why over 30 years absolute motion was not detected in Michelson-type experiments with resonators
V.V. Demjanov Ushakov State Maritime Academy, Novorossiysk∗ (Dated: April 5, 2011)
We show that measured by S.Herrmann et al., Phys.Rev.D 80, 105011 (2009) small (but finite) value of relative variation (δν/ν > 0) of the resonance frequency of an evacuated optical resonator, when changing its orientation in space, can not serve as an indication of the absence of a preferred direction concerned with the absolute motion of the setup. On the contrary, the finiteness δν/ν > 0 testifies to spatial anisotropy of the velocity of light. In order to detect the absolute motion and determine the value and direction of its velocity, the volume of the resonator should be regarded, at any degree of evacuation, as being an optical medium, with its refractive index n > 1 to be necessarily taken into account, irrespective of the extent to be the medium’s tenuity. In this event the residual pressure of the evacuated medium should be controlled: that will ensure the magnitude of ¡iÂżn¡/iÂż to be known at least to the first significant digit after 1.00000... If the working body is a gas then, as in the case of the fringe shift in the interferometer, the shift δν of the resonance frequency of the volume resonator is proportional to n 2 − 1 = ∆ε and to the square of the velocity υ of absolute motion of the resonator. At sufficiently large values of optical density, δν is proportional to n 2 − 1 2 − n 2 = ∆ε(1 − ∆ε), and at n > 1.5 it may possess such a great value that there even becomes possible a jump of the automatic laser frequency trimmer from the chosen m-mode of the reference resonator to its adjacent m ± 1 modes. Taking into account the effect of the medium permittivity by introducing in calculation the actual value n > 1 in experiments with resonators performed by the scheme of the Michelson experiment enabled us to estimate the absolute speed of the Earth as several hundreds kilometers per second.
-
Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.
The very fact that his papers are published on viXra does not bode well for the reliability of the results.
Note that viXra did not censor his papers.
Of course! If arXiv pulled one of his papers, that's not evidence that he was wrong, that is instead evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth! Right...
-
In a bizarre development modern Michelson interferometer experiments use resonant vacuum cavities rather than interference effects, but for which the analysis here is easily adapted, and with the same consequences.
Based on what reasoning?
Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.
Demjanov does the math, & gets an equation for calibration.
-
Have a look at Demjanov's papers above -- the Why Over 30 Years paper mentions resonators. Demjanov also does a calibration which shows that resonators show 400 kmps to 600 kmps.
The very fact that his papers are published on viXra does not bode well for the reliability of the results.Note that viXra did not censor his papers.
Of course! If arXiv pulled one of his papers, that's not evidence that he was wrong, that is instead evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the truth! Right...
Yes any mention of an aetherwind is not allowed. I dont think that Demjanov was given any details.
http://cosmology.info/newsletter/2010acg07newsletter.pdf
I. The stringent rules now applied for arXiv candidate papers are impacting ever more seriously on the listing of papers by new authors or on topics that are even slightly off-centre. There is a definite “old boys’ club” emerging in the arXiv hierarchy, and this is reinforced by the requirement that any submission be endorsed by approved endorsers in the specific category in which the paper is to be archived. Where would an author gain access to such endorsers? At the suggestion of Chuck Gallo, arXiv We would like to appeal to those of you who are approved endorsers to let us have your names, contact details, and categories in which are permitted to endorse. We will display these in a list, and authors trying to get onto arXiv can make direct requests for endorsement to the relevant persons. If you are willing to participate, please send your details to the editor.
-
Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.
They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.
-
Einstein's 1905 STR was falsified in 1887 by Michelson & Morley, who measured an aetherwind.
That experiment famously failed to measure an ether wind.
Why do you say it measured it?
Do you not understand error margins?
-
Re temp effects, i had a look throo a number of papers & no-one has bothered to mention temp, but i guess that they control temp,
That paper does mention temperature controil. They say it is kept within 0.1C. But they don't then calculate how much difference that makes to the pendulum swing. It's possible that a 0.1C change is enough to explain the "effect" they saw.
Yes. But u can bet that they did preliminary tests noting the effect of temp, giving a curve, & allowing them to correct future results accordingly.
As u say if u are writing a paper where the sidereal day is the main issue then temp is always a bugbear.
Miller devoted tons of time to tests re the effect of temp on his MMX. Having a temp curve is essential.
OK, so you don't know what an error analysis is.
And, there's no evidence that they made any attempt to look at temperature effects- it looks like they just assumed "0.1C is good enough".
-
Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.
They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.
I need to know the details of the X.
-
I need to know the details of the X.
I posted a link to the paper at the bottom of reply #59.
Since I feel like I'm getting sick, I'm going to take my leave from this thread. I don't know if I'll be back or not.
-
Apparently Cahill reckons that the reasons why vacuum mode MMX fringeshifts are nearnuff null are much the same reasons why frequency changes are nearnuff null in nearnuff vacuum resonatorXs.
They operate on different principles. A faster moving wave with the same wavelength as a slower moving wave will necessarily be measured as having a different frequency. Explain how performing the experiment in a vacuum nullifies this.
I had a look at thems resonator isotropy Xs, ie finding isotropy to about 17 decimals. I dont understand them. But i dont like the look ovem.
An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose). Photons are i think sticky, they like to arrange themselves in formations, ie with the same wavelength. The length of the etalon will favor photons that have a wavelength that is an exact multiple of the length of the etalon. In that case the photons going each way can form a 2-way formation, here they not only stick together when going the same way, but also stick together when going in opposite directions.
I dont see how an etalon can produce a favoured wavelength unless certain waves are physically massaged to achieve formations, mostly by an automatic retardation or advancement of the photon, due to the inherent stickyness of photons. This massaging can i suppose happen gradually over multiple reflexions. After say 100 reflexions most of the waves will be in synch.
If there is an aetherwind then these sticky formations must be stressed & less efficient. This would be especially so if the wind was a tailwind-headwind.
Lets look at an etalon rotating horizontally on a table in the lab. When aligned with the horizontal component of the aetherwind (V kmps) the photons going with the wind have a tailwind, & reflecting back they have a headwind. Lets say that the solid etalon suffers length contraction in accordance with the standard Lorentz gamma (ie as per V/c*V/c). This LC is the same numerically for a headwind & for a tailwind.
A photon going with the wind has the same wavelength in the aether after reflection when returning with a headwind. Because the photon does not feel the wind, it merely propagates (at c') in what it thinks is a stationary aether.
According to aether theory photons propagate at c kmps in the aether. Therefore the velocities in the lab frame (the etalon's frame) are c+V when a tailwind & c-V when a headwind.
However aether theory is wrong, it does not recognise that photons are slowed by the nearness of mass.
There are two kinds of nearness, firstly the severe nearness due to propagating throo say air water glass, & secondly the weaker nearness of propagating near mass. Both slowings are due to photaeno drag (see my explanation elsewhere), differing only in severity.
The standard science explanation for the slowing of light in air water glass posits that the slowing is due to the feedback of em fields emitted by electrons that are excited by the photons passing. That might indeed play a part. Em fields are photaenos, & photaenos are em fields. This electron aspect of the issue of slowing is probly not crucial.
For efficient stickyness i reckon that all of the waves havtahit an end mirror at the max point of the sine wave, or all ovem havtahit at the min point. That way the waves going in opposite directions will superpose exactly (max on max)(min on min).
I daresay that there might be lots of trains of photons trapped in the etalon, each of a certain wavelength. However in thems resonatorXs there is a laser feeding one fixed wavelength into the etalon.
The etalon therefor needs to have an exact length of some multiple of the laser wavelength. And the photons are already in formation when they enter the etalon, ie they are already in synch, no massaging needed.
If there is an aether tailwind then there is a problem. It is possible to have photons hitting the end mirror at a max (or a min) of the wave, & then hitting the other end at a max (or a min), & in between the maxes & mins will be in synch if going the same way, but will not be in synch with the maxes & mins of photons going the opposite way. Not fatal but not ideal.
The real problem arises if the tailwind kmps is gradually changing. If the tailwind increases then the wavefront of the formation gets to the end mirror sooner, & the waves here will no longer be at their max (or min). Likewise the returning waves will take a longer time to get to that end mirror, & the waves here will no longer be at their max (or min). The total time taken to go to&fro will be slightly longer.
Such an increase in the tailwind will make the etalon less efficient. If the change is very gradual then the etalon will gradually massage the laser beam so that maxes & mins continue to happen at the end mirrors. The time gained in reaching one end will almost exactly match the time lost in returning, so that makes it easier.
However due to the larger tailwind the etalon will have contracted in length. The time taken to go to&fro will be slightly shorter, offsetting the aforementioned "slightly longer", praps exactly.
Cancelling exactly or not, the shorter length makes things worse for the etalon. More massaging needed.
If the wind increases a lot the etalon will drop a half wavelength, a sudden jump. The longer the etalon (mm) then the larger the contraction (mm) & the sooner the jump. Very short etalons might be better here, ie more stable or something.
If the laser is parallel to the etalon then a changing tailwind is less of a problem. The shorter contracted laser emits a shorter wavelength. Hencely the shorter etalon works well (contrary to what i said earlier). The two contractions cancelling probly exactly.
All of the above is magnified if the etalon has air (or some kind of gas). Hencely etalons have vacuum. Much more stable. But the instability of air is not due to the air, it is due to the aetherwind, ie the changing aetherwind, ie the changing horizontal component of the wind (if the etalon etc is sitting horizontally).
Luckily the horizontal aether tailwind in a lab changes only slowly, varying from a low of say 140 kmps to a high of say 480 kmps over 12 hours (depending on latitude) as the Earth spins. Thats a change of 0.0079 kmp/s/s.
An etalon rotated at 1 rpm suffers 113.3333 km/s/s. However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon. Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.
So, a vacuum etalon is not going to "detect" aetherwind. A gas etalon would detect aetherwind. Einsteinologists have decided to reduce noise & improve stability by reducing the sensitivity of their etalons in their resonanceXs looking for anisotropy of the speed of light. In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity but show much pride in trumpeting almost zero noise. The noise has been relegated to about the 17th decimal.
But Demjanov had a closer look at that there noise. No vacuum is ever perfect. Demjanov calculated that for a vacuum at the 9th decimal & noise at the 17th decimal the change in horizontal aetherwind might be 600 kmps.
This calibration was based mainly on the Fresnel Drag suffered by photons in the partial vacuum, based on the standard Fresnel equation. We know that the equation gives good numbers at 6 mps & Demjanov assumes that it gives good numbers at 600,000 mps.
A few extra thorts.
Why not position the laser vertically, so that its LC wouldnt change during rotation.
A rotating resonatorX is also a SagnacX, but they allowed for that (a minor effect here they said).
Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).
-
I don't see how any of that addresses what I said about a change in the speed of a wave affecting its frequency. Again, how would a laser beam being sent through a vacuum somehow prevent its frequency from being changed as it moved through the aether? The experiment was also performed over a period of 13 months, so the sensor would have tested for the direction and speed of aether wind from every possible point in Earth's orbit. It would therfore have experienced both a tailwind and a headwind at different points during the experiment.
But since you bring up length contraction affecting the lasers, by what factor are you suggesting that it changes?
An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose).
I could only see that as being a problem if the wavelength of the laser is similar in size to that of the optical cavity. The optical cavities in the experiment had frequencies of about 10 kilohertz, whereas the lasers operated at a frequency of 282 terahertz. That would make the cavities about 28.2 billion times larger than the wavelength of the laser beams. So that wouldn't even remotely be a problem.
However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon. Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.
The experiment I posted a link to had a laser beam split into multiple laser beams such that they go in two different directions that are set at right angles to each other, so I don't know what you were trying to get at with this nonsense. It sounds like you are implying that the scientists who design these devices don't even know why they make them the way that they do.
In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity
How do you figure that? Noise is reduced by using a vacuum and suspending the device so that vibrations are minimized. How is that going to reduce how sensitive the device is to changes in light frequency?
Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).
So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence
-
I don't see how any of that addresses what I said about a change in the speed of a wave affecting its frequency. Again, how would a laser beam being sent through a vacuum somehow prevent its frequency from being changed as it moved through the aether?
I dont understand lasers & etalons & how they combine in a resonatorX. The frequency of a beam is constant in the aether. But the apparent frequency will of course depend on the observer's speed relative to that aether (not important here).
The aetheric explanation for a zero change in frequency in a vacuum resonatorX is basically the same as the explanation for a zero fringeshift in a vacuum MMX – there is auto compensation.
In a VMMX the light takes the same time in both arms because the arm with the tailwind-headwind is Lorentz length contracted due to the aetherwind V kmps in accordance with V/c*V/c in the Lorentz gamma.
In a VRX the laser mounted parallel to the etalon rotates with the etalon & the wavelengths emitted by the laser change during rotation due to the LLC of the axial length of the laser due to the changing kmps of the axial component of the wind blowing throo the laser. I presume that the frequency changes somehow match changes in some kind of frequency output from the etalon, the etalon frequencies being likewize affected by matching LLC in the etalon.
So a varying kmps or angle of the aetherwind wont have a direct effect on a wave's frequency, but does have an indirect effect due to LLC of the laser itself, & the etalon itself.The experiment was also performed over a period of 13 months, so the sensor would have tested for the direction and speed of aether wind from every possible point in Earth's orbit. It would therefore have experienced both a tailwind and a headwind at different points during the experiment.
Yes there is an annual cycle to the horizontal component of the aetherwind, because Earth's spin-axis is not parallel to the background aetherwind which blows at say 500 kmps south to north 20 deg off Earth's axis. But most of the RX effect will be found or not found in any one 24 hr period, thusly proving or disproving an aetherwind (& hencely an aether) can be accomplished in 24 hrs. An analysis of a full year's results would allow an accurate estimate of the kmps & angle of that there background aetherwind (not really needed here)(but only possible if u are aware of the underlying geometry).
But it does remind me of something i forgot to mention yesterday. A favourite Einsteinian ploy is to average away any embarrassing numbers. I notice that VRXs report daily averages, a good trick if u want a big fat zero.But since you bring up length contraction affecting the lasers, by what factor are you suggesting that it changes?
Say that the horizontal component of the aetherwind changes from a 140 kmps tailwind to a 480 kmps tailwind during each sidereal 12 hrs. To calculate the LLC u need to insert V into V/c*V/c in the LLC equation for gamma.
Here if u insert V=340 kmps (the diff tween 140 & 480) then that would be wrong. This would be a kind of Einsteinian way, where 340 kmps would be the Einsteinian relative V (u could call this the ELC).
Here is the correct way, the Lorentz way (u could call this the LLC). I insert V=140 into the equation & get a LLC. Then i insert V=480 & get a LLC. And the diff is the change.
The change tween 00 kmps & 340 kmps is smaller than the change tween 140 & 480, which is smaller than the change tween 1140 & 1480 which is smaller than the change tween 2140 & 2480, yet the change in wind is 340 kmps in all four cases.
This treatment of V is the essence of the difference tween the numbers arising from Einsteinian LC & neoLorentz LC. Likewise of course re ticking dilation.
The 140 kmps & 480 kmps are horizontal components of aetherwinds measured by Demjanov during 24 hrs on June 22 1970 at Obninsk which is at say latitude 53 deg.
The spread at the Equator might be say 00 kmps & 505 kmps depending on time of year.
At a pole it might be 00 kmps & 60 kmps (or it might be 30 kmps & minus 30 kmps) depending on time of year. If the wind is blowing vertically then there will be zero kmps horizontally. At a pole u will of course allways have Earth's orbital 30 kmps giving a tailwind or headwind.
Re that calculation i used to get the LLC, ie inserting 140 kmps & then inserting 480 kmps. The correct way is to insert the full vector of the aetherwind (ie say 500 kmps) & calculate the LLC along the 500 kmps vector & then use geometry to calculate the horizontal component for a 140 kmps wind & then likewise for a 480 kmps wind & then subtract to get the difference. But if u do it my way u will get the same number. Both ways work ok.An etalon i think favours photons of a certain wavelength (or multiples i suppose).
I could only see that as being a problem if the wavelength of the laser is similar in size to that of the optical cavity. The optical cavities in the experiment had frequencies of about 10 kilohertz, whereas the lasers operated at a frequency of 282 terahertz. That would make the cavities about 28.2 billion times larger than the wavelength of the laser beams. So that wouldn't even remotely be a problem.
I dont understand how the etalon-cavity works. If the length of a cavity is not important, then in any case my description of the stickyness of photons to photons still applies. I pointed out that an etalon could suddenly jump by a half a wavelength during rotation (praps a number of times)(& then back again later in the revolution). Demjanov said the same thing, except he said a full wavelength, eg from 380,000 to 380,001 or to 379,999.However as i said this also affects the laser (if parallel).
Ask the Einsteinologists why they like to have the laser parallel to the etalon. Their response will be hey everyone look over there its a blackhole.
The experiment I posted a link to had a laser beam split into multiple laser beams such that they go in two different directions that are set at right angles to each other, so I don't know what you were trying to get at with this nonsense. It sounds like you are implying that the scientists who design these devices don't even know why they make them the way that they do.
I reckon that if the laser were fixed vertically instead of horizontally then it would make a big difference to the results. If fixed horizontally but not parallel then it would make a difference but smaller.
Are u saying that the splitting of the laser beam automatically negates my criticism? Praps it might. In the end they have now achieved almost zero sensitivity
How do you figure that? Noise is reduced by using a vacuum and suspending the device so that vibrations are minimized. How is that going to reduce how sensitive the device is to changes in light frequency?
I said noise, but my meaning was that it was signal not noise. Einsteinologists are expert at calling embarrassing signals noise. But even if their identification of noise is 100% correct then that still leaves a possible signal at the 17th decimal.
According to Demjanov a perfect vacuum will give zero signal, ie the sensitivity is zero, ie null result guaranteed. But he estimates that the vacuum in most VRXs is only good to about the 9th decimal, ie n is not exactly 1, ie there is Fresnel drag, ie the Fresnel drag is not zero kmps.
Consequently Demjanov inserts them decimals into his calibration equation & gets an aetherwind of 600 kmps. He got this without arguing about the correctness of the identification of noise/signal, he merely assumed that the VRX is compatible with a signal at the 17th decimal.Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).
So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence? ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence
I reckon that photons bounce back or not. If not then they go throo or not. If not then they are absorbed in some fashion. If they are absorbed then they might be emitted either with little delay or with a longer delay.
I dont know much about absorption, it seems that there are a few kinds, mostly due to electrons, involving spins or orbits or bonds etc.
Bouncing back might happen moreso for heavier denser atoms & molecules & lattices. The photaenos emanating from the central helical body of a photon would have a large reach & in effect make a photon "almost infinite". Hencely the rebound would not be much affected by slight irregularities in the surface of the mirror, photaenos would respond to the average surface over a largish area. Even so for some substances photons would not rebound, they would be absorbed or penetrate. For substances where photons mostly penetrate the photons would mostly rebound if the attack angle is widened. It all makes sense.
-
In a VMMX the light takes the same time in both arms because the arm with the tailwind-headwind is Lorentz length contracted due to the aetherwind V kmps in accordance V/c*V/c in the Lorentz gamma.
Let's find out if the numbers pan out. Let's say we start with a laser that is 1 meter long emitting a laser beam with a wavelength of 0.00001 meters. One arm is heading parallel to the aether at a velocity of 500,000 m/s while the other is perpendicular to it.
The length contraction due to the Lorentz factor is L = L0 √(1-(v2/c2)). Inserting 500,000 m/s, we get:
L = 1 √(1-(500,0002/299,792,4582))
L = 1 √(1-(250,000,000/89,875,517,873,681,764))
L = 1 √(1-(2.781625 x 10-6))
L = 1 √(0.999997218375)
L = 0.9999986
So the laser apparatus would contract to be 99.99986% of its original length. The wavelength and frequency emitted by the laser would presumably change by the same amount. But does this match the frequency shift for the laser caused by the changing relative speed of light in the aether? Since frequency is velocity divided by wavelength, a laser beam traveling into an aether headwind at 500,000 m/s would have a frequency of (299,792,458 - 500,000)/0.00001 = 299,292,458/0.00001 = 29,929,245,800,000 hertz. Without the wind, the frequency would simply be 299,792,458/0.00001 = 29,979,245,800,000 hertz.
Divide these two frequencies and you find that the laser beam in the headwind has 99.833217% the frequency of a stationary laser. This number does not match the frequency shift caused by length contract and therefore could not be masked by it.
In terms of your argument that a laser beam traveling upwind and then downwind will take the same time to cover the same distance as that from a stationary laser would, let's see about it. We'll assume that the laser cavity is 1 meter in length. So the time it takes for beam from the stationary laser to travel from one end of the cavity to the other (1 meter there and 1 meter back) is simply 2 meters divided by the speed of light, which is 6.6712819039630409915115342894984 x 10-9 seconds.
In the case of a 500,000 m/s tailwind, the laser beam will take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s + 500,000 m/s)) = 1/300,292,458 = 3.330086964754872398427002785398 x 10-9 seconds to travel from one end of the cavity to the other. On the return journey, it experiences a headwind instead of a tailwind, causing it to take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s - 500,000 m/s)) = 1/299,292,458 = 3.3412134962652483545041418985573 x 10-9 seconds to come back. Add these two values together and you get a total trip time of 6.6713004610201207529311446839553 x 10-9.
Subtract the two times and you get a difference of about 1.8557057 x 10-14 seconds. The laser beam in a stationary device takes about 99.99972% as long to take its trip as the one in the moving device. So the tailwind-headwind combination does not compensate and make the travel times equal for each laser beam.
But it does remind me of something i forgot to mention yesterday. A favourite Einsteinian ploy is to average away any embarrassing numbers. I notice that VRXs report daily averages, a good trick if u want a big fat zero.
Explain how such averaging would get rid of any positive results in this particular experiment. If the device is constantly rotating (making a complete revolution several hundred times per day in this particular experiment), then it's true that it should measure a different aether wind speed during different times of the day. The speed of the device through space at some points would be the Earth's rotational speed plus the Earth's orbital speed, but it would be the Earth's rotational speed minus the Earth's orbital speed at other points. Since the rotational and orbital speeds of the Earth are not the same value, averaging these numbers out would not give you a zero over a day's worth of measuring.
then in any case my description of the stickyness of photons to photons still applies.
What is this photon "stickiness"? Is it something else you made up?
But even if their identification of noise is 100% correct then that still leaves a possible signal at the 17th decimal.
Of course. I don't deny this. However, it would mean that any previous claims of detecting an aether wind above such an error threshold in less-sensitive experiments has been ruled out (or at least can be considered much less likely, as nothing is perfect).
According to Demjanov a perfect vacuum will give zero signal, ie the sensitivity is zero, ie null result guaranteed.
Yes, you have said this before. However, what we are trying to figure out is why such a thing should be the case. Length contraction obviously wouldn't have anything to do with it, as that would happen whether or not the experiment was done in a vacuum.
-
I dont know much about absorption, ... It all makes sense.
Well...
-
In terms of your argument that a laser beam traveling upwind and then downwind will take the same time to cover the same distance as that from a stationary laser would, let's see about it. We'll assume that the laser cavity is 1 meter in length. So the time it takes for beam from the stationary laser to travel from one end of the cavity to the other (1 meter there and 1 meter back) is simply 2 meters divided by the speed of light, which is 6.6712819039630409915115342894984 x 10-9 seconds.
In the case of a 500,000 m/s tailwind, the laser beam will take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s + 500,000 m/s)) = 1/300,292,458 = 3.330086964754872398427002785398 x 10-9 seconds to travel from one end of the cavity to the other. On the return journey, it experiences a headwind instead of a tailwind, causing it to take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s - 500,000 m/s)) = 1/299,292,458 = 3.3412134962652483545041418985573 x 10-9 seconds to come back. Add these two values together and you get a total trip time of 6.6713004610201207529311446839553 x 10-9.
Subtract the two times and you get a difference of about 1.8557057 x 10-14 seconds. The laser beam in a stationary device takes about 99.99972% as long to take its trip as the one in the moving device. So the tailwind-headwind combination does not compensate and make the travel times equal for each laser beam.
Yes i agree, i think u misquoted me or i wasnt clear. I will reply to this part first & the rest later today.
I said that in a VMMX (a michelson morley experiment done in vacuum) the light takes the same time in both arms (& hencely u get a null result)(ie zero fringeshift) because of (1) LLC in the arm that is parallel to the aetherwind (this arm has a tailwind or headwind)(of say 500 kmps), & this shortening results in photons taking less time to go up & back. The full explanation for the zero fringeshift etc involves (2) the photons in that arm take longer to go up & back because the headwind hurts more than the tailwind helps, & (3) the photons in the arm with a sidewind take longer to go up & back because they have to crab into the wind (like a plane on a windy day) & hencely have to travel throo more aether. (1)(2)(3) cancel exactly.
In the northern hemisphere the horizontal wind varies over a sidereal day from a tailwind of 140 kmps to a tailwind of 480 kmps measured at Obninsk (latitude 53 deg i think). The full vector is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis RA 4:30. Hencely (4)(5) photons in both arms of the VMMX will have to crab downwards & thusly take longer in both arms, but (4)&(5) cancel exactly i suppose (anyhow they are allways ignored).
In a non-vacuum MMX (ie in air usually) the photons are (6)(7) slowed to c/n, which affects both arms equally, however the slowing in (2) is magnified moreso than the slowing in (3). And because of the air we now have to take into account (8 ) Fresnel Drag slowing the photons during tailwind, (9) Fresnel Drag fasting the photons during headwind, here (8 ) has a greater effect than (9) i think. And (10) Fresnel Drag magnifies slowing in (3). And (11)(12) Fresnel Drag also affects (4)&(5), equally i think.
So in an air MMX u can get a fringeshift. I say can because at latitudes above 70 deg the aetherwind can be vertical in which case a horizontal MMX will measure zero fringeshift. Except that a continuously rotating MMX will always give a systematic linear non-periodic evergrowing fringeshift that can be very large for some designs especially if the rotation is more rapid. Demjanov explains the (geometric) reasons for this parasitic SLNPEGFS, & he designed his twin-media MMX such that his SLNPEGFS was nearly zero. Of course anyone can reduce it to zero simply by stopping the rotation for each reading, but apparently this starting-stopping upsets most MMXs & Michelson Miller Morley & Co preferred to accept the need for the arithmetic corrections.
Demjanov (1968) & Cahill (2002) formulated the calibration equation needed for converting fringeshift to kmps. They used (1)(2)(3)(6)(7)(8 )(9) & ignored (4)(5)(10)(11)(12).
Re Fresnel Drag, Fresnel's equation appears ok for water at 6 m/s, but Demjanov's & Cahill's use of that equation for air at say 480,000 m/s might be suspect.
-
Science has no good explanation for reflexion of light at a mirror, they posit some kind of absorption by the electrons of atoms, & then some kind of emission. I reckon that reflexion is a bouncing back (with no absorption or emission) due to the photaenos of the free photon being blocked by the photaenos emanating from the confined photons (electrons & quarks etc) in the atoms of the mirror, the main blocking being by photaenos from the quarks in the nucleus (the quarks in most atoms outnumbering the electrons by say 6 to 1)(if one neutron per proton)(& outmassing by say a total of 4000 to 1).
So how does that explanation work with phosphorescence? ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence
I reckon that photons bounce back or not. If not then they go throo or not. If not then they are absorbed in some fashion. If they are absorbed then they might be emitted either with little delay or with a longer delay.
I dont know much about absorption, it seems that there are a few kinds, mostly due to electrons, involving spins or orbits or bonds etc.
Bouncing back might happen moreso for heavier denser atoms & molecules & lattices. The photaenos emanating from the central helical body of a photon would have a large reach & in effect make a photon "almost infinite". Hencely the rebound would not be much affected by slight irregularities in the surface of the mirror, photaenos would respond to the average surface over a largish area. Even so for some substances photons would not rebound, they would be absorbed or penetrate. For substances where photons mostly penetrate the photons would mostly rebound if the attack angle is widened. It all makes sense.
I dont know much about absorption, ... It all makes sense.
Well...
I havnt looked it up, but absorption & re-emission smells fishy. How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)? My bounce theory makes more sense.
Both theories i think have a problem re what happens to a photon slightly inside the surface. Here the photon has exited the say air & has entered the say glass -- why isnt it reflected off the internal glass.
Then when exiting the glass & re-entering the air, i think some photons are reflected by the air, how can that be? My bouncing theory doesnt explain that. But neither does absorption-re-emission theory i think.
-
(ie zero fringeshift)
Why do you keep talking about fringe shift? The experiment in the link looks for changes in frequency using a frequency counter.
(1)(2)(3) cancel exactly.
Please demonstrate this mathematically. Not that it matters even if they do cancel out. The device isn't looking for differences in travel time between the two arms anyway. It's looking for changes in the frequency of the laser beams using a frequency counter.
LIGO itself should have actually detected an aether if it was there. Kip Thorne explains in "Black Holes and Time Warps" the principle behind a gravitational wave interferometer like LIGO. A laser beam is sent through a beam splitter that sends half of the beam off in one direction and half off at a 90 degree angle to the first. They are then reflected by mirrors back towards the beam splitter where they form interference patterns with each other. In one direction, this interference is destructive and there is no longer a beam. In the other direction (at 90 degrees to the first), the interference is constructive and you now have a full-strength beam.
By placing a photodetector in the path of the self-destructive half of the beam, you can guarantee that any frequency shifts experienced by one laser beam can be detected because the two interfering beams would no longer perfectly cancel. Thus, some of the light gets to leak through. Travel time and fringe shift are irrelevant here. In the case of LIGO passing through the aether, one arm traveling parallel to the aether wind would experience a frequency shift whereas the arm perpendicular to the aether wind would not. When these two beams are recombined, their differences in frequency would prevent perfect cancellation and thus resulting in a detected signal. It isn't something that could have been ignored. It would have been an anomaly that would call for an explanation.
-
(ie zero fringeshift)
Why do you keep talking about fringe shift? The experiment in the link looks for changes in frequency using a frequency counter.
I know, i was surprised that your wordage was directed at the VMMX (not the VRX).(1)(2)(3) cancel exactly.
Please demonstrate this mathematically. Not that it matters even if they do cancel out. The device isn't looking for differences in travel time between the two arms anyway. It's looking for changes in the frequency of the laser beams using a frequency counter.
Yes, i will do an Excel for (1)(2)(3) tomorrow.LIGO itself should have actually detected an aether if it was there. Kip Thorne explains in "Black Holes and Time Warps" the principle behind a gravitational wave interferometer like LIGO. A laser beam is sent through a beam splitter that sends half of the beam off in one direction and half off at a 90 degree angle to the first. They are then reflected by mirrors back towards the beam splitter where they form interference patterns with each other. In one direction, this interference is destructive and there is no longer a beam. In the other direction (at 90 degrees to the first), the interference is constructive and you now have a full-strength beam.
By placing a photodetector in the path of the self-destructive half of the beam, you can guarantee that any frequency shifts experienced by one laser beam can be detected because the two interfering beams would no longer perfectly cancel. Thus, some of the light gets to leak through. Travel time and fringe shift are irrelevant here. In the case of LIGO passing through the aether, one arm traveling parallel to the aether wind would experience a frequency shift whereas the arm perpendicular to the aether wind would not. When these two beams are recombined, their differences in frequency would prevent perfect cancellation and thus resulting in a detected signal. It isn't something that could have been ignored. It would have been an anomaly that would call for an explanation.
Yes & no. I dont understand that there description of how LIGO works (or would work), but i will comment by assuming that its a standard MMX, & assuming that where u say frequency shift u mean fringeshift.
Firstly an MMX in vacuum gives zero fringeshift.
However i think that when Demjanov & Cahill say that a VMMX gives a null rezult they actually understand but dont mention that actually there would be a weak 3rd order fringeshift (even in vacuum)(i seem to remember that i have calculated it in Excel).
LIGO would presumably detect this weak fringeshift which when using 4 km arms would i suppose not be so weak. But all fringeshifts big or small in a fixed MMX or fixed VMMX would occur very gradually & very smoothly over 6 hrs which is 0.000023 hertz. LIGO must automatically filter that out. They probly dont even notice. Actually they probly do notice, but aint saying.
-
assuming that where u say frequency shift u mean fringeshift.
I don't. When I say a frequency shift, I literally mean a change in frequency. No more, no less.
LIGO must automatically filter that out. They probly dont even notice.
It isn't looking for fringe shifts at all, so that's irrelevant. LIGO detects a signal when something causes the crests and troughs of the lasers to mismatch and it can detect such a mismatch down to one ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton. If the local speed of light changes for one beam more than it changes for the other beam, then the frequencies of the beams are no longer identical at the point of recombination. This means that you would get a sequence where some of the troughs perfectly cancel out the crests, then they partially cancel out the crests, then the crests perfectly add up to create a full-strength signal, then the crests and troughs partially cancel again and so on.
This anomalous signal would vary in a predictable manner where it becomes strongest at one time of the day (where the Earth's rotation adds to its orbital velocity) and weakest at the opposite time of the day (where the rotation subtracts from the orbital velocity). You'd also get a predictable change of signal throughout the year, where it is strongest when the Earth's velocity adds to the Sun's velocity through the Milky Way and weakest when it subtracts from it. This would rule out the possibility of the signal being caused by random noise. Since it would be detectable by both LIGO installations as well as VIRGO, they would also know that it wasn't caused by local environmental effects or glitches.
LIGO also has sensors which can detect such things as vibrations and temperature. This would allow for any signal to be back-checked against their readings to see if it was caused by such noise. Any aether signal would not be capable of being correlated to such readings and as such could not be explained by them.
Actually they probly do notice, but aint saying.
And now you need to demonstrate that this is what is actually happening.
-
I havnt looked it up, but absorption & re-emission smells fishy. How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)? My bounce theory makes more sense.
"I havnt looked it up"
You can stop advertising your ignorance directly like that. We already know you haven't done any research
"but absorption & re-emission smells fishy."
Only to you, and that's because you haven't looked it up.
"How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)?"
Conservation of momentum and energy.
You would know that it you weren't too stubborn/ lazy to look stuff up.
"My bounce theory makes more sense."
Only to you, and that's because you haven't looked it up.
Are you starting to see some sort of connection here?
-
assuming that where u say frequency shift u mean fringeshift.
I don't. When I say a frequency shift, I literally mean a change in frequency. No more, no less.
LIGO must automatically filter that out. They probly dont even notice.
It isn't looking for fringe shifts at all, so that's irrelevant. LIGO detects a signal when something causes the crests and troughs of the lasers to mismatch and it can detect such a mismatch down to one ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton. If the local speed of light changes for one beam more than it changes for the other beam, then the frequencies of the beams are no longer identical at the point of recombination. This means that you would get a sequence where some of the troughs perfectly cancel out the crests, then they partially cancel out the crests, then the crests perfectly add up to create a full-strength signal, then the crests and troughs partially cancel again and so on.
This anomalous signal would vary in a predictable manner where it becomes strongest at one time of the day (where the Earth's rotation adds to its orbital velocity) and weakest at the opposite time of the day (where the rotation subtracts from the orbital velocity). You'd also get a predictable change of signal throughout the year, where it is strongest when the Earth's velocity adds to the Sun's velocity through the Milky Way and weakest when it subtracts from it. This would rule out the possibility of the signal being caused by random noise. Since it would be detectable by both LIGO installations as well as VIRGO, they would also know that it wasn't caused by local environmental effects or glitches.
LIGO also has sensors which can detect such things as vibrations and temperature. This would allow for any signal to be back-checked against their readings to see if it was caused by such noise. Any aether signal would not be capable of being correlated to such readings and as such could not be explained by them.Actually they probly do notice, but aint saying.
And now you need to demonstrate that this is what is actually happening.
No i see the opposite. If LIGO could detect & isolate an aetherwind signal & if none then they would have already done a paper trumpeting a null result for aetherwind (praps at the 19th decimal). And if they could & indeed did find an aetherwind signal then they would not have done any paper trumpeting a non-null result. But as i said the truth must be that they cant detect & isolate any such very gradual fringeshift.
They might be able to in a technical sense, but i think that it would mean a different set up or running of their whole contraption especially their auto corrections & filterings. And they would havtahav a good idea of what they were looking for. An aetherwind chirp is predictable, if u know the primary vector of the background aetherwind. For example some of your remarks re the effect of Earth's spin & orbit would not apply at some latitudes, because the primary vector is 20 deg off Earth's axis RA 4:30.
-
I havnt looked it up, but absorption & re-emission smells fishy. How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)? My bounce theory makes more sense.
"I havnt looked it up"
You can stop advertising your ignorance directly like that. We already know you haven't done any research
"but absorption & re-emission smells fishy."
Only to you, and that's because you haven't looked it up.
"How does the electron know the correct angle for emission (ie reflexion)?"
Conservation of momentum and energy.
You would know that it you weren't too stubborn/ lazy to look stuff up.
"My bounce theory makes more sense."
Only to you, and that's because you haven't looked it up.
Are you starting to see some sort of connection here?
I dont understand.
(1) Every time an electron absorbs a photon there must be conservation of momentum & energy no matter which direction the photon came from. Am i correct or wrong?
(2) And every time an electron emits a photon there must be conservation of momentum & energy no matter which direction the photon is sent. Am i correct or wrong?
(3) But u are telling me that if an electron absorbs & then almost instantly emits a photon then there can only be conservation of momentum & energy if the photon is emitted at the mirror-image angle of it's absorption.
Well, i'll be a monkey's uncle. Apparently (1) & (2) no longer apply at mirrors. Who would have thort? Live & learn!
Electrons are amazing little buggers.
-
Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?
I think that i invented dark quarks, ie quarks made from neutrinos (which are dark photons). I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.
You post long, rambling, multi-coloured text with no apparent substance to them. Why would I expect you to study. You could be doing something useful like weeding. Probably more suitable for you than reading.
-
Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?
I think that i invented dark quarks, ie quarks made from neutrinos (which are dark photons). I am not in a hurry to do more reading re the standard atomic or sub-atomic model, not enough time, & far too many rubbish particles (about half of them), & u have to wade throo all of that krapp re virtual particles etc, but of course there is good stuff in there too.
You post long, rambling, multi-coloured text with no apparent substance to them. Why would I expect you to study. You could be doing something useful like weeding. Probably more suitable for you than reading.
My words are a model of sensible new theories. More facts & good ideas per square inch than any others i have read here. Mostly i refer to my heroes, mostly re aether & aetherwind.
But i am especially happy re my own contributions, eg that ........
(1) photaenos are em radiation & em radiation is photaenos.......
(2) photaenos explain slowing of light in air water glass...
(3) photaenos explain slowing of light near mass (ie Einsteinian slowing)(Einstein was right but for wrong reasons).....
(4) photaenos explain bending of light near mass....
(5) photaenos explain refraction at interfaces & diffraction at edges ...
(6) photaenos explain reflexion of light.......
(7) centrifuging of aether due to macro spinning & macro orbiting creates pseudo-macro-gravity & affects g & big G....
(8 ) coe due to micro spinning & micro orbiting affects pseudo-micro-gravity & gives the strong force...
(9) confined neutrinos (confined dark photons) give us dark particles & dark matter.....
(10) EZ water causes blurring of eyesight due to EZ zones at each dot (haze) in the eyeball....
(11) plus my espousing of the ideas of geniuses like Pollack Catt Cahill Crothers Demjanov Michelson & Co..
(12) plus my weeding of noxious standard science (gravity waves)(SR & GR)......
All in color. My new theories (& others') are amazingly simple & shockingly lethal to the standard dogma & canon. I think that i an amateur have already achieved more than all u professionals combined. And just by spending 4 or 5 years of detailed reading of good science. I too believed that Einstein was a genius, the bigbang was true, etc etc. I forget what started me off. And i am still learning.
-
No i see the opposite. If LIGO could detect & isolate an aetherwind signal & if none then they would have already done a paper trumpeting a null result for aetherwind (praps at the 19th decimal).
That isn't what LIGO was built for, so they have no motivation to write such a paper (especially when the results would be unsurprising to the majority of scientists). That would be like scientists who did an experiment investigating the molecular dynamics of combustion writing a paper showing how their results refute the existence of phlogiston.
And if they could & indeed did find an aetherwind signal then they would not have done any paper trumpeting a non-null result.
Given that this would be an important, unexpected result, why would they keep such a discovery under wraps? No mafia or conspiracy arguments, please.
But as i said the truth must be that they cant detect & isolate any such very gradual fringeshift.
Quit it with the "fringe shift" talk already. That has nothing to do with the mechanism by which LIGO would find an aether wind signal. Being gradual also has nothing to do with it. If it takes six hours for the signal to build to full strength, then at the end of that six hours you have a full strength signal that is detectable by the photodetector. It would be recorded as data. It takes millions of years to get a mountain but that doesn't mean you can't see the mountain once it is finally there.
They might be able to in a technical sense, but i think that it would mean a different set up or running of their whole contraption especially their auto corrections & filterings.
The signal from a frequency shift would allow a full strength signal to get through to the photodetector at times because there would be times when the peaks of both waves add together instead of canceling out. That would represent a signal many, many times stronger than a gravitational wave detection. So they can't just filter it out. Filtering out a time-varying signal like the aether wind would require them to know what the pattern of the signal was in advance. Since they wouldn't be expecting such a signal, they wouldn't know to filter it out.
And they would havtahav a good idea of what they were looking for.
In order to properly interpret the signal, perhaps. But that wouldn't keep them from recognizing that they were getting a predictable signal of some unknown origin that couldn't be attributed to the thermal or vibrational noise from their other sensors.
For example some of your remarks re the effect of Earth's spin & orbit would not apply at some latitudes, because the primary vector is 20 deg off Earth's axis RA 4:30.
I don't understand how that would keep any detections from occurring. The arms of LIGO would be changing their orientations and directions into the aether throughout the day and year. The speed and direction of the aether relative to one arm should therefore always be different relative to the other arm.
-
But as i said the truth must be that they cant detect & isolate any such very gradual fringeshift.
Quit it with the "fringe shift" talk already. That has nothing to do with the mechanism by which LIGO would find an aether wind signal. Being gradual also has nothing to do with it. If it takes six hours for the signal to build to full strength, then at the end of that six hours you have a full strength signal that is detectable by the photodetector. It would be recorded as data. It takes millions of years to get a mountain but that doesn't mean you can't see the mountain once it is finally there.
Do LIGO record intensity or flux of the combined light from the two arms? And versus time? And if so then isnt that in effect a measurement of fringeshift?
-
Do LIGO record intensity or flux of the combined light from the two arms? And versus time?
Yes, because because that's what you would need to do in order to see the stress-strain GW pattern of a black hole or neutron star inspiral.
And if so then isnt that in effect a measurement of fringeshift?
Not as I understand it. Not in the same way as the MMX did, anyway. This doesn't involve looking at fringe patterns on a viewing surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_shift
There would technically be two beams upon recombination for LIGO, as the original laser beams are sent through the beam splitter a second time, resulting in the two beams becoming four beams. However, two of the beams are headed back towards the laser while the other two are headed towards the detector. The device is set up such that the two beams towards the laser contructively interfere while those towards the detector destructively interfere. A change in the frequency of any of the beams results in imperfect construction/destruction, creating a signal.
-
Do LIGO record intensity or flux of the combined light from the two arms? And versus time?
Yes, because because that's what you would need to do in order to see the stress-strain GW pattern of a black hole or neutron star inspiral.
And if so then isnt that in effect a measurement of fringeshift?
Not as I understand it. Not in the same way as the MMX did, anyway. This doesn't involve looking at fringe patterns on a viewing surface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_shift
There would technically be two beams upon recombination for LIGO, as the original laser beams are sent through the beam splitter a second time, resulting in the two beams becoming four beams. However, two of the beams are headed back towards the laser while the other two are headed towards the detector. The device is set up such that the two beams towards the laser contructively interfere while those towards the detector destructively interfere. A change in the frequency of any of the beams results in imperfect construction/destruction, creating a signal.
Its a while since i read LIGOs stuff, i might have a closer look.
But re auto recording of light, thats what both Demjanov did in 1968-72 & Cahill in 2002-15, to give their modern MMX fringeshifts. They didnt have any oldfashioned dark/bright fringes anywhere, nor did they measure the movement of any such fringes.
All of which reminds me that LIGO has a noise or false signal to GW signal ratio of 1000 to 1.
Whereas Bored Chemist is insisting that the oldendays MMXs had giant error bars much bigger than the signals. He is getting good at that.
Firstly insist that they were null.
Then insist that even if not null that their MMX error bars if properly done would have been off the page.
Then insist that (even if the raw results were consistent & concentrated) that their signals were due to temp.
Then when shown that the results accord with the sidereal day not solar day he responds with hey everyone look over there a black hole.
Then when shown that lots of MMXs done by different teams using different gizmos gave the same consistent concentrated results he tags the A-team who say that these are all trumped by the new modern vacuum pseudo MMXs that give a null result. Here it is like the building inspector who insists that a wall has no studs because he forgot to put batteries in his newfangled laser stud finder, & he wont listen to the guys who located the studs by drilling.
-
Whereas Bored Chemist is insisting that the oldendays MMXs had giant error bars much bigger than the signals. He is getting good at that.
I am in good company.
M + M pointed it out.
-
Whereas Bored Chemist is insisting that the oldendays MMXs had giant error bars much bigger than the signals. He is getting good at that.
I am in good company. M + M pointed it out.
I think that Michelson & Morley mentioned possible/probable error & it was a small fraction of the nett signal, but didnt draw error bars. And likewise i think Miller & Morley mentioned error, but likewise smallish, & didnt draw error bars.
But as i said smallish. But what did u read?
Shankland (1953?) mentioned temperature effects re Miller & Morley (which is rubbish)(they had tested temp very well).
And Roberts (2005?) mentioned a systematic error re Miller & Morley (which i think was merely the evergrowing linear nonperiodic fringeshift), plus he mentioned that their error bars would be off the page (which is rubbish).
Reg Cahill (2003?) drew error bars for at least one of thems old MMXs, but i dont know whether these were his own estimates or whether he was using old numbers.
Anyhow for sure over the years Michelson & Co did lots of MMXs & MGXs & FresnelXs etc & often did a detailed error analysis, so they were on top of all of that, but of course drawing error bars was not the standard practice back then.
But the error bars on modern Xs make me laugh. How do u draw error bars for your krapp theories & stupid Xs.
-
(1)(2)(3) cancel exactly.
Please demonstrate this mathematically. Not that it matters even if they do cancel out. The device isn't looking for differences in travel time between the two arms anyway. It's looking for changes in the frequency of the laser beams using a frequency counter.
In terms of your argument that a laser beam traveling upwind and then downwind will take the same time to cover the same distance as that from a stationary laser would, let's see about it. We'll assume that the laser cavity is 1 meter in length. So the time it takes for beam from the stationary laser to travel from one end of the cavity to the other (1 meter there and 1 meter back) is simply 2 meters divided by the speed of light, which is 6.6712819039630409915115342894984 x 10-9 seconds.
In the case of a 500,000 m/s tailwind, the laser beam will take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s + 500,000 m/s)) = 1/300,292,458 = 3.330086964754872398427002785398 x 10-9 seconds to travel from one end of the cavity to the other. On the return journey, it experiences a headwind instead of a tailwind, causing it to take (1 meter/(299,792,458 m/s - 500,000 m/s)) = 1/299,292,458 = 3.3412134962652483545041418985573 x 10-9 seconds to come back. Add these two values together and you get a total trip time of 6.6713004610201207529311446839553 x 10-9.
Subtract the two times and you get a difference of about 1.8557057 x 10-14 seconds. The laser beam in a stationary device takes about 99.99972% as long to take its trip as the one in the moving device. So the tailwind-headwind combination does not compensate and make the travel times equal for each laser beam.
Yes i agree, i think u misquoted me or i wasnt clear. I will reply to this part first & the rest later today.
I said that in a VMMX (a michelson morley experiment done in vacuum) the light takes the same time in both arms (& hencely u get a null result)(ie zero fringeshift) because of (1) LLC in the arm that is parallel to the aetherwind (this arm has a tailwind or headwind)(of say 500 kmps), & this shortening results in photons taking less time to go up & back. The full explanation for the zero fringeshift etc involves (2) the photons in that arm take longer to go up & back because the headwind hurts more than the tailwind helps, & (3) the photons in the arm with a sidewind take longer to go up & back because they have to crab into the wind (like a plane on a windy day) & hencely have to travel throo more aether. (1)(2)(3) cancel exactly.
In the northern hemisphere the horizontal wind varies over a sidereal day from a tailwind of 140 kmps to a tailwind of 480 kmps measured at Obninsk (latitude 53 deg i think). The full vector is say 500 kmps south to north say 20 deg off Earth's axis RA 4:30. Hencely (4)(5) photons in both arms of the VMMX will have to crab downwards & thusly take longer in both arms, but (4)&(5) cancel exactly i suppose (anyhow they are allways ignored).
In a non-vacuum MMX (ie in air usually) the photons are (6)(7) slowed to c/n, which affects both arms equally, however the slowing in (2) is magnified moreso than the slowing in (3). And because of the air we now have to take into account (8 ) Fresnel Drag slowing the photons during tailwind, (9) Fresnel Drag fasting the photons during headwind, here (8 ) has a greater effect than (9) i think. And (10) Fresnel Drag magnifies slowing in (3). And (11)(12) Fresnel Drag also affects (4)&(5), equally i think.
So in an air MMX u can get a fringeshift. I say can because at latitudes above 70 deg the aetherwind can be vertical in which case a horizontal MMX will measure zero fringeshift. Except that a continuously rotating MMX will always give a systematic linear non-periodic evergrowing fringeshift that can be very large for some designs especially if the rotation is more rapid. Demjanov explains the (geometric) reasons for this parasitic SLNPEGFS, & he designed his twin-media MMX such that his SLNPEGFS was nearly zero. Of course anyone can reduce it to zero simply by stopping the rotation for each reading, but apparently this starting-stopping upsets most MMXs & Michelson Miller Morley & Co preferred to accept the need for the arithmetic corrections.
Demjanov (1968) & Cahill (2002) formulated the calibration equation needed for converting fringeshift to kmps. They used (1)(2)(3)(6)(7)(8 )(9) & ignored (4)(5)(10)(11)(12).
Re Fresnel Drag, Fresnel's equation appears ok for water at 6 m/s, but Demjanov's & Cahill's use of that equation for air at say 480,000 m/s might be suspect.
I used Excel to calculate the time in each of the 2 arms of an MMX with arms one light second long. For a 500 kmps aetherwind (v). For three cases (1) in vacuum, (2) in air but ignoring Fresnel Drag, & (3) in air including Fresnel Drag.
fresnel c + v time to go c - v time to average reduced c time
drag d c/n + v one lightsec c/n - v return time taken using taken nett time taken
kmps c/n + v + d tailwind c/n - v - d headwind sec Pythagoras sec sec
300292.45800 0.99833357 299292.45800 1.00166921 1.0000013908 299792.0410 1.0000013908 0.0000000000000
300211.12449 0.99833312 299211.12449 1.00166967 1.0000013923 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000007550
0.2713 300211.39576 0.99833221 299210.85323 1.00167058 1.0000013953 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000037756
tailwind tailwind headwind headwind headw+tailw crosswind crosswind
For all three cases the arm length of one light second was contracted by gamma in the arm with a tailwind-headwind, but the arm with the crosswind was not contracted.
As can be seen, in vacuum the delay in the arm with the tailwind/headwind exactly equaled the delay in the arm with the crosswind (ie the nett time difference was 0.00000000000000 sec).
In air there was a non-zero time difference even if Fresnel Drag is ignored, &
that difference is 5 times greater (5.0011 actually) when Fresnel Drag is not ignored.
The Fresnel Drag in the arm with a crosswind was ignored, it is too small to bother with.
I used c = 299,792.458 kmps & n for air = 1.000271373.
[edit 10march2019] The Fresnel equation might be ok for water at 6 m/s but that doesnt mean that Fresnel is ok at 600,000 m/s. E Falkner -- Classical Ether Theory Explains the Fizeau Experiment.
https://www.scribd.com/document/78584947/Emil-Falkner-Classical-Ether-Theory-Explains-the-Fizeau-Experiment
Galina Weinstein -- Albert Einstein and the Fizeau 1851 Water Tube Experiment.
-
I used Excel to calculate the time in each of the 2 arms of an MMX with arms one light second long. For a 500 kmps aetherwind (v). For three cases (1) in vacuum, (2) in air but ignoring Fresnel Drag, & (3) in air including Fresnel Drag.
fresnel c + v time to go c - v time to average reduced c time
drag d c/n + v one lightsec c/n - v return time taken using taken nett time taken
kmps c/n + v + d tailwind c/n - v - d headwind sec Pythagoras sec sec
300292.45800 0.99833357 299292.45800 1.00166921 1.0000013908 299792.0410 1.0000013908 0.0000000000000
300211.12449 0.99833312 299211.12449 1.00166967 1.0000013923 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000007550
0.2713 300211.39576 0.99833221 299210.85323 1.00167058 1.0000013953 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000037756
tailwind tailwind headwind headwind headw+tailw crosswind crosswind
For all three cases the arm length of one light second was contracted by gamma in the arm with a tailwind-headwind, but the arm with the crosswind was not contracted.
As can be seen, in vacuum the delay in the arm with the tailwind/headwind exactly equaled the delay in the arm with the crosswind (ie the nett time difference was 0.00000000000000 sec).
In air there was a non-zero time difference even if Fresnel Drag is ignored, &
that difference is 5 times greater (5.0011 actually) when Fresnel Drag is not ignored.
The Fresnel Drag in the arm with a crosswind was ignored, it is too small to bother with.
I used c = 299,792.458 kmps & n for air = 1.000271373.
I think I understand your data with the exception of "reduced c using Pythagoras". What does that represent?
-
I used Excel to calculate the time in each of the 2 arms of an MMX with arms one light second long. For a 500 kmps aetherwind (v). For three cases (1) in vacuum, (2) in air but ignoring Fresnel Drag, & (3) in air including Fresnel Drag.
fresnel c + v time to go c - v time to average reduced c time
drag d c/n + v one lightsec c/n - v return time taken using taken nett time taken
kmps c/n + v + d tailwind c/n - v - d headwind sec Pythagoras sec sec
300292.45800 0.99833357 299292.45800 1.00166921 1.0000013908 299792.0410 1.0000013908 0.0000000000000
300211.12449 0.99833312 299211.12449 1.00166967 1.0000013923 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000007550
0.2713 300211.39576 0.99833221 299210.85323 1.00167058 1.0000013953 299710.7074 1.0000013916 0.0000000037756
tailwind tailwind headwind headwind headw+tailw crosswind crosswind
For all three cases the arm length of one light second was contracted by gamma in the arm with a tailwind-headwind, but the arm with the crosswind was not contracted.
As can be seen, in vacuum the delay in the arm with the tailwind/headwind exactly equaled the delay in the arm with the crosswind (ie the nett time difference was 0.00000000000000 sec).
In air there was a non-zero time difference even if Fresnel Drag is ignored, &
that difference is 5 times greater (5.0011 actually) when Fresnel Drag is not ignored.
The Fresnel Drag in the arm with a crosswind was ignored, it is too small to bother with.
I used c = 299,792.458 kmps & n for air = 1.000271373.
I think I understand your data with the exception of "reduced c using Pythagoras". What does that represent?
In the arm with crosswind the photon goes at c but it has to crab/sidle into the wind to get to the nearest bit of the end mirror in that arm, & then likewise coming back, & so we have a triangle with hypotenuse = c (or = c/n) & opposite is 500 kmps (or c/600) so the effective speed of the photon is the adjacent side which is (c*c - c*c/600*600)^0.5 (or) (c/n*c/n - c*c/600*600)^0.5.
I wasnt sure whether the Fresnel Drag is handled by having ++ & then - - (which is what i did)(& which is what i show in my calcs above), or whether + - & - + (which i did too)(& for which the delay was negative & the size of the delay was only -2.9989 times instead of the +5.0011 times shown in my calcs).
I did some more Excel calcs & i found that these ratios -3 & +5 change by less than 1% for a large range of kmps (eg 100 kmps) & a large range of n (eg n=1.001000).
-
I think that Michelson & Morley mentioned possible/probable error & it was a small fraction of the nett signal, but didnt draw error bars. And likewise i think Miller & Morley mentioned error, but likewise smallish, & didnt draw error bars.
But as i said smallish. But what did u read?
Rather unoriginally, I read their paper on their experiment.
https://history.aip.org/exhibits/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
There's a transcription here
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether
What they found was "Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit the displacement should be about 2 D (v^2 /V^2)...
hence the displacement to be expected was about 0.4 fringes. The actual displacement was certainly less than one twentieth part of this and probably less than one fortieth"
So, even though they only considered the orbital speed of the Earth (about 30 km/s) (and not the much larger movement of the Sun rond the galaxy about 200 km/s) they expected to see a fringe shift, but didn't.
They did not see any ether effect.
And, because their experiment would have observed the effect from the Sun's orbit the experiment was much more sensitive than they thought.
The reason they did not see the effect of the ether wind is simple.
It does not exist.
-
In the arm with crosswind the photon goes at c but it has to crab/sidle into the wind to get to the nearest bit of the end mirror in that arm, & then likewise coming back, & so we have a triangle with hypotenuse = c (or = c/n) & opposite is 500 kmps (or c/600) so the effective speed of the photon is the adjacent side which is (c*c - c*c/600*600)^0.5 (or) (c/n*c/n - c*c/600*600)^0.5.
I wasnt sure whether the Fresnel Drag is handled by having ++ & then - - (which is what i did)(& which is what i show in my calcs above), or whether + - & - + (which i did too)(& for which the delay was negative & the size of the delay was only -2.9989 times instead of the +5.0011 times shown in my calcs).
I did some more Excel calcs & i found that these ratios -3 & +5 change by less than 1% for a large range of kmps (eg 100 kmps) & a large range of n (eg n=1.001000).
Alright. I'm going to see if I can replicate these values using a spreadsheet myself. A cursory look at it does seem to indicate that you might actually be right about the travel times being equal in a vacuum.
-
In a VMMX the light takes the same time in both arms because the arm with the tailwind-headwind is Lorentz length contracted due to the aetherwind V kmps in accordance with V/c*V/c in the Lorentz gamma.
Let's find out if the numbers pan out. Let's say we start with a laser that is 1 meter long emitting a laser beam with a wavelength of 0.00001 meters. One arm is heading parallel to the aether at a velocity of 500,000 m/s while the other is perpendicular to it. The length contraction due to the Lorentz factor is L = L0 √(1-(v2/c2)). Inserting 500,000 m/s, we get: = 0.9999986. So the laser apparatus would contract to be 99.99986% of its original length. The wavelength and frequency emitted by the laser would presumably change by the same amount.
Yes i think that most of us would agree that starting with zero kmps aetherwind & then introducing a 500 kmps say headwind would give a LLC of the laser & hencely a shorter wavelength & higher frequency. But i have a few thorts, & i think i might change my mind.
Yes i see a problem. The LLC is 0.999 998 609 (ie gamma), which has the effect of shortening the time taken for a photon to go up & back by that same factor (actually the headwind-tailwind effect adds to the time but the size of this addition is smaller than what Excel can handle)(Excel can only handle about 16 decimals i think)(thats why elsewhere i call it a 3rd order effect), but the headwind-tailwind effect re the time taken to go up & back is twice as powerfull as the LLC effect (ie it equals 2*gamma) & the resulting time actually increases to 1.000 001 391 sec (ie 1/gamma) despite the LLC. U can see this in the Excel numbers that i posted yesterday.
Hencely the laser frequency drops in a 500 kmps headwind (likewise tailwind) by the inverse of the LLC (ie by 1/gamma). And the wavelength must increase by the same factor.
But wait. When the laser has a 500 kmps crosswind the time taken for a photon to go up & back is also slowed, due to the photon having to crab/sidle into the wind a little, in vacuum the factor being 1.000001391 (as shown yesterday). In vacuum the two slowings in effect cancel, & the laser's frequency doesnt change if rotated in an aetherwind.
However lasers have some gas inside, & hencely the frequency must change a little during rotation. For a gas with a density of 1% of air i think the n would be 1.00000271373, & the numbers would be as follows.
1.000 001 390 860 76 slowing due to headwind-tailwind effect if 1% air in laser.
1.000 001 390 823 02 slowing due to crosswind, if 1% air in laser.
0.000 000 000 037 74 nett slowing, giving a lower frequency, & longer wavelength.
0.000 000 000 003 774 nett slowing if 0.1% air in laser.
Hmmmm. One little problem. Photons do not suffer LLC. During a crosswind the laser has its full length (ie no LLC), & the photons are crabbing (& the wavelengths are in effect shorter measured axially along the laser), hencely there are a max of photons (waves) standing in the laser (the photons/waves going both ways), an equal number in each direction.
Now if we rotate the laser to get a headwind or tailwind the laser contracts, plus the photons/waves are no longer crabbing, hencely we must have ejected a lot of waves (because photons dont contract). Where did they go? What does this do to the laser's frequency? The (sticky) waves wont go without a fight.
And then later in the rotation it all happens in reverse. Two maximums & two minimums per rev.
And during a headwind or tailwind there must be an equal number of photons/waves in each direction, because as i said earlier photons do not suffer LLC (but a laser can i guess emit a changing wavelength).
Its all very complicated. Still thinking. I must read up on lasers.
But does this match the frequency shift for the laser caused by the changing relative speed of light in the aether? Since frequency is velocity divided by wavelength, a laser beam traveling into an aether headwind at 500,000 m/s would have a frequency of (299,792,458 - 500,000)/0.00001 = 299,292,458/0.00001 = 29,929,245,800,000 hertz. Without the wind, the frequency would simply be 299,792,458/0.00001 = 29,979,245,800,000 hertz. Divide these two frequencies and you find that the laser beam in the headwind has 99.833217% the frequency of a stationary laser.
This number does not match the frequency shift caused by length contract and therefore could not be masked by it.
Yes, but i will comment later today. Still thinking.
-
But does this match the frequency shift for the laser caused by the changing relative speed of light in the aether? Since frequency is velocity divided by wavelength, a laser beam traveling into an aether headwind at 500,000 m/s would have a frequency of (299,792,458 - 500,000)/0.00001 = 299,292,458/0.00001 = 29,929,245,800,000 hertz. Without the wind, the frequency would simply be 299,792,458/0.00001 = 29,979,245,800,000 hertz. Divide these two frequencies and you find that the laser beam in the headwind has 99.833217% the frequency of a stationary laser.
This number does not match the frequency shift caused by length contract and therefore could not be masked by it.
Ok say a laserbeam in vacuum & zero wind passes me with 100,000c hertz & the headwind is upped to c/600 & the beam now passes me with 100,000(c-c/600) hertz. I dont think that thats the way it works.
A photon in vacuum will tell u that it has the same speed & frequency & wavelength at all times & places (ignoring the effect of the nearness of mass here). The photon reckons that there is never any aetherwind, in its own little world the wind is always zero kmps.
This also applies while the aether is accelerating as it flows towards mass (where it is annihilated). Here if the photon is also propagating towards that mass the front of the photon is always propagating faster than the rear, the photon is stretching (giving redshift), but the photon is not aware of any of that.
However the front of the photon is slowed due to the nearness of that mass (in general accord with GR), but that slowing is trumped by the fasting due to the acceleration of the aether.
This also applies while the photon is propagating away from that mass, having past it, the front of the photon is always propagating faster than the rear, the photon is stretching (giving a second dose of redshift), but the photon is not aware of that. And here the rear of the photon is slowed due to the nearness of that mass, & here that GR slowing adds to the stretching (so in effect the GR effect of the nearness of mass can be ignored alltogether in total in relation to the stretching & redshift).
In the meantime whilst photons are quietly stretching & redshifting as they navigate the cosmos huge masses of writhing Einsteinologists are annually frothing & ejaculating over their adored gods with their shiny new Nobel medallions & are chanting their mantra re their expanding universe dogma & bigbang canon & end up speaking in tongues & sounding like Bored Chemist. But i digress.
But getting back to that laserbeam, if there is no wind i think that what i see is a stationary beam, ie the waves are still. And if an aether headwind i think that what i see is again a stationary beam, & in both cases i see the crests in the same places, ie the wavelength never changes (wind or not).
But in any case my original main point was that by having the laser parallel to the etalon u then have similar or identical changes happening in both the laser & etalon during rotation, hencely how can the etalon be interrogating the aetherwind.
-
It seems that you were correct and that the travel times are equal for photons in a vacuum but not in air.
Nevertheless, LIGO doesn't require a difference of travel times to detect the aether. The frequency shift caused by a change in the speed of light in one of the arms is enough to cancel out the perfect destructive interference and produce a signal. In regards to your claim that LIGO would filter out noise caused by the aether wind, this statement from the official LIGO website shows why that isn't the case: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq
LIGO uses several techniques to sift through the constant vibrational noise we encounter in order to confirm a gravitational wave detection. Some of these are:
-Measuring all known noise sources (e.g., earthquakes, winds, ocean waves, traffic, farming activities, even molecular vibrations in LIGO's mirrors) with seismometers, magnetometers, microphones, and gamma ray detectors, and then filtering out the vibrations caused by these sources from our data.
This shows that they have to subtract noise from their detectors by running it against noise measurements from a variety of other sensors. Since they obviously don't have any aether noise detectors, any signal caused by the aether would not be filtered out.
But in any case my original main point was that by having the laser parallel to the etalon u then have similar or identical changes happening in both the laser & etalon during rotation, hencely how can the etalon be interrogating the aetherwind.
Because there are also beams propagating at right angles to that particular beam (for both LIGO and the vacuum experiment I posted). Since length contraction and aether wind affects those beams differently, a measurable difference in frequency should result.
A photon in vacuum will tell u that it has the same speed & frequency & wavelength at all times & places
Maybe from the point of view of the photon. Since you posit that the photon can appear to move at different velocities depending on what the viewer's velocity is, then the measured frequency of that photon can change too. Waves of the same wavelength moving by me faster are going to appear as a higher frequency (more waves passing per unit time).
-
But it does remind me of something i forgot to mention yesterday. A favourite Einsteinian ploy is to average away any embarrassing numbers. I notice that VRXs report daily averages, a good trick if u want a big fat zero.
Explain how such averaging would get rid of any positive results in this particular experiment. If the device is constantly rotating (making a complete revolution several hundred times per day in this particular experiment), then it's true that it should measure a different aether wind speed during different times of the day. The speed of the device through space at some points would be the Earth's rotational speed plus the Earth's orbital speed, but it would be the Earth's rotational speed minus the Earth's orbital speed at other points. Since the rotational and orbital speeds of the Earth are not the same value, averaging these numbers out would not give you a zero over a day's worth of measuring.
Yes Demjanov measured that the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during 24 hours. Therefor a full rotation of a VRX should feel a change of at least 140 kmps at mid latitudes, & if the full vector of the wind is 500 kmps then at some latitudes (near the Equator is the best place) that full 500 kmps will be (can be)(should be) detected in the horizontal at some times of day. Whilst nearer the Poles (within say 25 deg) it is possible for the horizontal wind to be zero at some times of day (at some times of the year).
One must be aware that clever averaging can help to get rid of unwanted signal. Hell, Munera even points out where Michelson & Morley accidentally & wrongly averaged away over 1 kmps of wind from their 1887 MMX fringeshifts, & they claimed 6 kmps instead of the actual 8 kmps (they were looking for 30 kmps)(so they called their 6 kmps null).
An even more brazen trick is to attribute an unwanted signal to some other cause, & then subtract it. This works especially well if looking for a zero signal. I saw one instance of this in a modern VRX (cant remember which)(but i would soon find it again).then in any case my description of the stickyness of photons to photons still applies.
What is this photon "stickiness"? Is it something else you made up?
Yes i dont remember reading about it. Photaenos (em radiation), little tornadic swirls of aether, emanate from the central helical body of a photon, & these dictate a photon's speed (ie c kmps). Photaenos interact with each other, they interfere etc, here i mean mainly with photaenos emitted by other photons, they fight for the same space, for the same use of the available aether. In addition to this that same kind of interaction can result in waves of photons forming formations, a kind of stickyness.
-
It seems that you were correct and that the travel times are equal for photons in a vacuum but not in air.
Nevertheless, LIGO doesn't require a difference of travel times to detect the aether. The frequency shift caused by a change in the speed of light in one of the arms is enough to cancel out the perfect destructive interference and produce a signal. In regards to your claim that LIGO would filter out noise caused by the aether wind, this statement from the official LIGO website shows why that isn't the case: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq
LIGO uses several techniques to sift through the constant vibrational noise we encounter in order to confirm a gravitational wave detection. Some of these are:
-Measuring all known noise sources (e.g., earthquakes, winds, ocean waves, traffic, farming activities, even molecular vibrations in LIGO's mirrors) with seismometers, magnetometers, microphones, and gamma ray detectors, and then filtering out the vibrations caused by these sources from our data.
This shows that they have to subtract noise from their detectors by running it against noise measurements from a variety of other sensors. Since they obviously don't have any aether noise detectors, any signal caused by the aether would not be filtered out.
I wouldnt call a 0.00002315 hertz signal a signal needing filtering. When they are looking for 50 hertz to 500 hertz. And i havent seen any evidence of LIGO possibly getting any such aetherwind signal, bearing in mind that an ordinary vacuum MMX gives zero fringeshift to i think the 16th decimal --- but LIGO might be able to detect such a small 3rd order signal, if LIGO were re-designed to be a proper MMX, even if having vacuum instead of air. But even so as i said an aetherwind signal would manifest as a 12 hr signal, ie only 0.00002315 hertz.But in any case my original main point was that by having the laser parallel to the etalon u then have similar or identical changes happening in both the laser & etalon during rotation, hencely how can the etalon be interrogating the aetherwind.
Because there are also beams propagating at right angles to that particular beam (for both LIGO and the vacuum experiment I posted). Since length contraction and aether wind affects those beams differently, a measurable difference in frequency should result.
I saw one such VRX that used a 2nd laser parallel to that right angled etalon. In any case it would take a carefull analysis of what happens to the laser beam after reflecting off thems systems of mirrors.A photon in vacuum will tell u that it has the same speed & frequency & wavelength at all times & places
Maybe from the point of view of the photon. Since you posit that the photon can appear to move at different velocities depending on what the viewer's velocity is, then the measured frequency of that photon can change too. Waves of the same wavelength moving by me faster are going to appear as a higher frequency (more waves passing per unit time).
Not exactly. What we have is an observer sitting in the lab & a laser sitting in the lab (albeit rotating). We dont have an observer whizzing past the lab.
-
One must be aware that clever averaging can help to get rid of unwanted signal.
An even more brazen trick is to attribute an unwanted signal to some other cause, & then subtract it.
And you have evidence that such things happened with the vacuum experiment I posted?
Yes i dont remember reading about it. Photaenos (em radiation), little tornadic swirls of aether, emanate from the central helical body of a photon, & these dictate a photon's speed (ie c kmps). Photaenos interact with each other, they interfere etc, here i mean mainly with photaenos emitted by other photons, they fight for the same space, for the same use of the available aether. In addition to this that same kind of interaction can result in waves of photons forming formations, a kind of stickyness.
What experimental evidence exists for this effect?
I wouldnt call a 0.00002315 hertz signal a signal needing filtering.
But even so as i said an aetherwind signal would manifest as a 12 hr signal, ie only 0.00002315 hertz.
That's not how it works. If you sat in a room that raised its temperature 1 degree per hour, you wouldn't be able to feel how fast the temperature is rising. Stay in there long enough, however, and you'd definitely notice that you were overheating. It's the same thing with LIGO. It might take 6 or 12 hours to get a full strength signal, but it still does eventually get to that full strength signal.
In any case it would take a carefull analysis of what happens to the laser beam after reflecting off thems systems of mirrors.
Right. Measuring frequency differences between the beams to high precision would count.
Not exactly. What we have is an observer sitting in the lab & a laser sitting in the lab (albeit rotating). We dont have an observer whizzing past the lab.
Both the observer and the lab are presumably whizzing past the aether.
-
One must be aware that clever averaging can help to get rid of unwanted signal. An even more brazen trick is to attribute an unwanted signal to some other cause, & then subtract it.
And you have evidence that such things happened with the vacuum experiment I posted?
I will have a look.Yes i dont remember reading about it. Photaenos (em radiation), little tornadic swirls of aether, emanate from the central helical body of a photon, & these dictate a photon's speed (ie c kmps). Photaenos interact with each other, they interfere etc, here i mean mainly with photaenos emitted by other photons, they fight for the same space, for the same use of the available aether. In addition to this that same kind of interaction can result in waves of photons forming formations, a kind of stickyness.
What experimental evidence exists for this effect?
Slowing of light in air water glass & near mass. Refraction, diffraction, bending of light near mass. Reflexion of light. The Catt TEM. EM radiation. The 5c speed of em in the near field. Stickyness of photons, forming waves & wave fronts & wave trains.I wouldnt call a 0.00002315 hertz signal a signal needing filtering. But even so as i said an aetherwind signal would manifest as a 12 hr signal, ie only 0.00002315 hertz.
That's not how it works. If you sat in a room that raised its temperature 1 degree per hour, you wouldn't be able to feel how fast the temperature is rising. Stay in there long enough, however, and you'd definitely notice that you were overheating. It's the same thing with LIGO. It might take 6 or 12 hours to get a full strength signal, but it still does eventually get to that full strength signal.
No. LIGO are not looking for a 12 hr temp kind of effect, they are looking for a 50 hertz to 500 hertz temp kind of effect.In any case it would take a carefull analysis of what happens to the laser beam after reflecting off thems systems of mirrors.
Right. Measuring frequency differences between the beams to high precision would count.
Not exactly. What we have is an observer sitting in the lab & a laser sitting in the lab (albeit rotating). We dont have an observer whizzing past the lab.
Both the observer and the lab are presumably whizzing past the aether.
Yes but if an observer sitting near the laser sees a static standing wave front wave train kind of beam then that beam will look the same no matter what the aetherwind.
-
Slowing of light in air water glass & near mass. Refraction, diffraction, bending of light near mass. Reflexion of light. The Catt TEM. EM radiation. The 5c speed of em in the near field. Stickyness of photons, forming waves & wave fronts & wave trains.
And what experiment was done to confirm that these phenomena (of the ones that are actually confirmed phenomena, that is) were caused by photon stickiness in particular?
No. LIGO are not looking for a 12 hr temp kind of effect, they are looking for a 50 hertz to 500 hertz temp kind of effect.
That's not what they are looking for, no. But the instrument would still be able to record such a signal because the sensors are running for months on end. Last time I checked, 12 hours is less than a month. What difference does the rate of aether wind speed change matter anyway when pretty much any aether wind speed above zero will cause a frequency shift that can be detected?
Yes but if an observer sitting near the laser sees a static standing wave front wave train kind of beam then that beam will look the same no matter what the aetherwind.
If aether wind doesn't affect the properties of light then any experiment that used light to detect it could not have found it.
-
One must be aware that clever averaging can help to get rid of unwanted signal.
An even more brazen trick is to attribute an unwanted signal to some other cause, & then subtract it.
And you have evidence that such things happened with the vacuum experiment I posted?
I had a look at the 2009 Eisele et al paper. Its too difficult to follow. They dont make a good start, they start by saying that local Lorentz invariance needs an inertial laboratory -- & Eisele's laboratory was not inertial, it was sitting on Earth.
The laser waves frequencies are kept equal to the cavity frequencies. What in hell does that mean? How can that be a proper experiment. Does a trained monkey keep banging a red light whenever it comes on.
They have precision frequency locking of the laser wave to the cavities. Why not just shoot holes in it?
To compensate for this effect, the tilt of the base plate of the rotation table is stabilized using an air spring system...
Tilt is mentioned 15 times & half mentioned a few times. They had lots of worries re tilt. They had lots of troubles re tilt. In the end tilt was the main cause of uncertainty or error. And aetherists know that the full vector of the aetherwind is mainly vertical & that of course tilt must then be a big issue.
A single laser performs the interrogation of the two cavities by splitting its wave in two individually frequency tunable waves by means of acousto-optical frequency shifters.... What in hell is that supposed to mean? How many trained monkeys do they use? What is their expenditure on peanuts? What is interrogating what? Why not say that the cavities are interrogating the lasers?
The waves frequencies are then stabilized to two TEMoo modes of the respective cavities...... I bet that their gizmo could drive itself to the pizza shop & back. It might be the first gizmo to get its own Nobel. The monkeys wont like that.
In the RMS model, conventionally, the assumed preferred frame is at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation field.... The CMB has a direction about 90 deg off the known aetherwind. So they are looking the wrong way. In any case Herouni has shown that the CMB is zero, it dont exist, its the Earth's oceans.
The VRX gizmo & the associated stupid theory are so complicated that no one really knows what is going on. They are testing at least 100 postulates. But have no doubt that not only have they nailed the one they intended, but that their accuracy is good to 17 decimals.
One thing for sure, their theory is not even good to one decimal. They dont have a clue as to how a cavity behaves in the aetherwind, & they have no idea how a laser behaves in the aetherwind. Because any such paper (there are a few) are banned in mainstream journals. But they love krapp papers like this talking about the non-behavior of cavities & lasers in a non-aether universe, all based on the perfect ignorance of ignoramuses (with all due respect to the monkeys).
Laboratory Test of the Isotropy of Light Propagation at the 1017 Level
Ch. Eisele, A. Yu. Nevsky, and S. Schiller
Institut fu¨r Experimentalphysik, Heinrich-Heine-Universita¨t Du¨sseldorf, 40225 Du¨sseldorf, Germany
(Received 13 June 2008; revised manuscript received 7 August 2009; published 25 August 2009)
We report on the results of a strongly improved test of local Lorentz invariance, consisting of a search
for an anisotropy of the resonance frequencies of electromagnetic cavities. The apparatus comprises two
orthogonal standing-wave optical cavities interrogated by a laser, which were rotated approximately
175 000 times over the duration of 13 months. The measurements are interpreted as a search for an
anisotropy of the speed of light, within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl (RMS) and the standard model
extension (SME) photon sector test theories. We find no evidence for an isotropy violation at a 1
uncertainty level of 0.6 parts in 1017 (RMS) and 2 parts in 1017 for seven of eight coefficients of the SME.
-
The VRX gizmo & the associated stupid theory are so complicated that no one really knows what is going on.
You think that just because you don't understand the set-up and terminology that those who built it must not either?
Here is another article which describes the apparatus. Perhaps it will help clarify some points you didn't understand: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2007/Eisele%20et%20al%20A%20crossed%20optical%20cavities%20apparatus%20for%20a%20precision%20test%20of%20the%20isotropy%20of%20light%20propagation%202007.pdf
-
In any case Herouni has shown that the CMB is zero, it dont exist, its the Earth's oceans.
Have you some extraordinary evidence to go with that?
In particular, can you explain why this sees the CMB, even though it's not even in orbit around the Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.
-
Why does this "^" get left out people write 1017 when they apparently mean 10^17 quite a large difference !
-
Because, if you copy + paste 1017 the formatting gets lost and it is rendered as 1017
-
In any case Herouni has shown that the CMB is zero, it dont exist, its the Earth's oceans.
Have you some extraordinary evidence to go with that?
In particular, can you explain why this sees the CMB, even though it's not even in orbit around the Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.
WMAP aint on Earth. But duzzenmadder. U can google lots of CMB stuff by Robitaille & by Crothers, & re Herouni -- there are papers & also youtube stuff.
The radiation is from Earth's oceans.
-
The radiation is from Earth's oceans.
WMAP aint on Earth.
Then how the **** does WMAP see the radiation in space then?
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.
-
The VRX gizmo & the associated stupid theory are so complicated that no one really knows what is going on.
You think that just because you don't understand the set-up and terminology that those who built it must not either?
Here is another article which describes the apparatus. Perhaps it will help clarify some points you didn't understand: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2007/Eisele%20et%20al%20A%20crossed%20optical%20cavities%20apparatus%20for%20a%20precision%20test%20of%20the%20isotropy%20of%20light%20propagation%202007.pdf
Thanx for that link, i will look at it & report back. In the meantime here is what Cahill thinks of modern dual cavity VRXs (or semiVRXs, as the masers/lasers do have some gas). Cahill shows once again that when examined more closely with an expert aetheric eye that the Xs actually proov aether.
Reginald T Cahill – 2003 – Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0312082.pdf
See Section 3:8 re The New Bedford Experiment – 1963 – re
Test of Special Relativity or Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers – 1964 – Jaseja et al.
Cahill shows that the 3 kHz dip in their data (Fig 17) corresponds to the standard absolute motion of MMXs.
If we use the Newtonian physics analysis, as in Jaseja et al [14], which neglects both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction and the refractive index effect, then we obtain δν = ν0v 2/c2 , that is without the n 2 − 1 term, just as for the Newtonian analysis of the Michelson interferometer itself. Of course the very small magnitude of the absolute motion effect, which was approximately 1/1000 that expected assuming only an orbital speed of v = 30 km/s in the Newtonian analysis, occurs simply because the refractive index of the He-Ne gas is very close to one7 . Nevertheless given that it is small the sidereal time of the obvious ’dip’ coincides almost exactly with that of the other observations of absolute motion. The New Bedford experiment was yet another missed opportunity to have revealed the existence of absolute motion. Again the spurious argument was that because the Newtonian physics analysis gave the wrong prediction then Einstein relativity must be correct. But the analysis simply failed to take account of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, which had been known since the end of the 19th century, and the refractive index effect which had an even longer history. As well the authors failed to convert their local times to sidereal times and compare the time for the â€dip’ with Miller’s time8 .
[7 It is possible to compare the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture in the maser with the value extractable from this data: n 2 = 1 + 302/(1000 Ă— 4002 ), or n = 1.0000028.]
Figure 17: Frequency difference in kHz between the two masers in the 1963 New Bedford experiment after a 900 rotation. The 275kHz difference is a systematic repeatable apparatus effect, whereas the superimposed â€dip’ at 17−18:00hr sidereal time of approximately 3kHz is a real time dependent frequency difference. The full curve shows the theoretical prediction for the time of the â€dip’ for this experiment using the Miller direction for ˆv (α = 5.2 hr, δ = −670 ) with |v| = 433km/s and including the earth’s orbital velocity and sun gravitational in-flow velocity effects for January 20, 1963. The absolute scale of this theoretical prediction was not possible to compute as the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture was unknown.
-
The radiation is from Earth's oceans.
WMAP aint on Earth.
Then how the **** does WMAP see the radiation in space then?
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.
Read Robitaille Crothers Herouni. They explain that the horns do not exclude radiation from Earth's oceans. The only horn that managed to do that was the horn designed & built by Herouni, which was well away from any sea & was in a deep hollow on a high mountain. Plus Herouni's detector was an inverted dish, sitting below the rim of the main dish. CMB = zero. Game over. Thank u linesmen thank u ball boysngirls.
-
The radiation is from Earth's oceans.
Right, because the oceans are the only part of the Earth's surface that emit thermal radiation. Everyone knows that the surrounding land is at absolute zero. ::)
Cahill shows once again that when examined more closely with an expert aetheric eye that the Xs actually proov aether.
Looking at Figure 17 in the paper, the error bars are so large that it's possible that the actual data points lie on almost a straight line through them. Not only that, but the first three error bars are completely outside of what the absolute motion model predicts. Hardly a compelling case for aether. Then I would have to ask, what does an analysis of this 1963 data have to do with the data from LIGO or the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment?
The fact that this Reginald T. Cahill person is also an advocate for the expanding Earth theory (and says that it's caused by a black hole at the center of the Earth) does not bode well for his credibility...
-
The radiation is from Earth's oceans.
Right, because the oceans are the only part of the Earth's surface that emit thermal radiation. Everyone knows that the surrounding land is at absolute zero. ::)
I dont understand that stuff, but Robitaille says that the two main bonds in water have a strength of 100 to 1, & their radiations must have a ratio of 100 to 1, which results in 300 kelvin & 3 kelvin.Cahill shows once again that when examined more closely with an expert aetheric eye that the Xs actually proov aether.
Looking at Figure 17 in the paper, the error bars are so large that it's possible that the actual data points lie on almost a straight line through them.
Yes but there is a clear trend in thems points, bearing in mind that thems points are probly averages themselves.Not only that, but the first three error bars are completely outside of what the absolute motion model predicts. Hardly a compelling case for aether.
Yes but the real aetherwind effect must be a twice a day thing, ie with two sine waves per day, ie two maximums & two minimums per day, ie 6 hrs tween a max & a min (nearly anyhow), so with a min at 18.3 hr Cahill must be looking for a max at 12.3 hr, so he should be introducing an inflexion at 15.3 hr.
But he doesnt know the size of the swing tween a max & a min, so if we like we can draw his curve half as deep, his main point being that there is a dip near 18 hr.Then I would have to ask, what does an analysis of this 1963 data have to do with the data from LIGO or the Eisele-Nevsky-Schiller experiment?
The Jaseja is similar to Eisele, so much of what Cahill says might apply. Bearing in mind that in 2003 Eisele was still in short pants.
Re LIGO, Cahill has made some comments re LIGO in some papers, he has wrongly suggested that LIGO put some air in their pipes because vacuum gives a null result, but here he was talking in terms of LIGO being a proper MMX, & i think he wasnt being serious.The fact that this Reginald T. Cahill person is also an advocate for the expanding Earth theory (and says that it's caused by a black hole at the center of the Earth) does not bode well for his credibility...
Cahill isnt an expanding Earthist. U might be confusing him with Miles Mathis.
Re Cahill believing in any kind of black hole at the center of the Earth, thats news to me -- i have read all of his papers & he doesnt touch on that kind of thing in relation to anything. He might infer something like that in his borehole anomaly paper, but he certainly doesnt use thems words.
But i do, i am ok with there being some dark matter at the center of Earth (& i have said so in naked scientists).
-
I dont understand that stuff
And apparently neither does Cahill, if he really said what the following statement implies:
but Robitaille says that the two main bonds in water have a strength of 100 to 1
100 to 1... of what? The two bonds in water are the exact same type. Their strengths are equal to each other.
their radiations must have a ratio of 100 to 1, which results in 300 kelvin & 3 kelvin.
That isn't how temperature works...
Yes but there is a clear trend in thems points, bearing in mind that thems points are probly averages themselves.
Even looking at the points alone, they don't match up well with Cahill's curve. The first three points are way off.
his main point being that there is a dip near 18 hr.
The size of the error bars would make that an ambiguous observation at best.
The Jaseja is similar to Eisele, so much of what Cahill says might apply.
Care to make a similar graph to demonstrate this?
Cahill isnt an expanding Earthist. U might be confusing him with Miles Mathis.
Then what is this paper about? http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0126 He says in the abstract that the expanding Earth has been observed.
-
but Robitaille says that the two main bonds in water have a strength of 100 to 1
100 to 1... of what? The two bonds in water are the exact same type. Their strengths are equal to each other.their radiations must have a ratio of 100 to 1, which results in 300 kelvin & 3 kelvin.
That isn't how temperature works...
Robitaille – The Structure of Liquid Water. (especially at 7:50 is good).
Robitaille – 2009 – Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF
......Water should then be capable of sustaining thermal emissions over two very distinct regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. The first of these regions occurs in the infrared and is generated by the hydroxyl bond. A second thermal emission region exists in the far infrared or microwave region. These emissions are produced by the hydrogen bond. They represent energies which are a factor of about 80 times (k2=k1 = 78) lower than the frequencies observed for the hydroxyl bonds. Although knowledge of emission frequencies cannot be easily correlated with temperatures, this result implies that the thermal photons produced by the hydrogen bonding network might be detectable at apparent temperatures which are 80 fold below the real temperatures of the water system.
The thermodynamics of hydrogen bond rearrangements in the liquid phase have recently been examined [14]. This work gives a value of 1.5 0.5 kcal/mol ( 6.3 kJ/mol) for the rearrangement energy. As these energies are directly associated with the formation and breaking of hydrogen bonds, it implies that the true energy of these bonds is closer to 1.5 0.5 kcal/mol in the liquid state, not the 5 kcal/mol obtained from dimer studies [6]. Therefore, the appropriate force constant for the hydrogen bond in liquid water could be nearly 3 fold lower, yielding a ratio of force constants (k2=k1) in a range of 80–240. Consequently, the hydrogen bonding system in water could produce a thermal spectrum reporting a temperature which is 80–240 fold lower than the true temperature of the water system...........
..............Reflecting on the paucity of supportive data, in this very difficult experimental region of the far infrared, it seems that much more needs to be learned about the emissions due to hydrogen bonds in nature. In particular, the lack of a signal specifically assigned to hydrogen bonds from water on Earth gives cause for concern. This is because the microwave background [21] was assigned to the universe [22] when virtually nothing was known about the spectroscopic signature of the hydrogen bond. Consideration of these findings reveals why the author has advanced [15, 16] that the microwave background [21] does not correspond to an astrophysical signal [22], but instead is generated by the oceans [15, 16, 23]. Water has the means to generate thermal emissions in the far infrared and microwave regions. The fundamental oscillator involved is best represented by the dimer subunit and its associated hydrogen bond within liquid water itself. In the gas phase, the dimer is known to have a fundamental frequency in the far infrared [7], very close to the region sampled by the COBE FIRAS instrument [13]. It is quite reasonable to expect that the emissions from the oceans occur in the same region. In summary, the microwave background can be understood as follows: photons are being produced by the oceans and they are then scattered in the atmosphere such that a completely isotropic signal is observed [15]. The isotropy of the microwave background was first reported by Penzias and Wilson [21]. The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures. This explains why the microwave background is independent of seasonal changes [21]. Satellite data obtained by COBE strengthen the idea that the Earth does produce the microwave background [24, 25]. This hypothesis has not been refuted either by the three year [26] or five year WMAP findings.
-
I see that I called Robitaille Cahill by mistake in my previous post.
In summary, the microwave background can be understood as follows: photons are being produced by the oceans and they are then scattered in the atmosphere such that a completely isotropic signal is observed
If it was true that scattering of photons from the oceans into the atmosphere resulted in a completely isotropic signal, then all telescopes everywhere should be able to see this signal because they all see the same sky. That would include the Herouni detector.
If it is argued that Herouni's detector can't detect the signal because it is too far from the ocean, then that would imply that the strength of the signal becomes weaker the further one is from the ocean. The satellites around Earth mapping the microwave background should therefore receive weaker signals when they are over land than when they are over the ocean and the maps they produce would reflect this. Land-based telescopes should also therefore see weaker signals when they are further from the oceans. That means that the South Pole Telescope (which is in the middle of Antarctica) should be seeing something quite different from AMiBA (which is on one of the Hawaiian islands).
The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures.
This is wrong because the strength of chemical bonds (and therefore their frequencies) does change with temperature. The more thermal energy there is in a material, the weaker the chemical bonds become. That is why sufficient heat can decompose substances. The strength (and therefore frequency) of hydrogen bonds is almost linearly correlated with temperature. Temperatures in ocean waters vary from around 272 kelvins in the Arctic Ocean to around 297 kelvins in very hot days off the coast of San Diego. That's a difference of approximately 9%, which would also represent a difference in hydrogen bond strength (and thus frequency) of a similar amount.
On the other hand, the temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background are around 0.001%. That's far smaller. So if the CMBR was caused by the oceans, those temperature variations should be much, much larger.
The strength of hydrogen bonds also varies over time as the distances between the water molecules change. Hydrogen bonds constantly form, strengthen, weaken and break in the liquid state. That would produce large frequency variations. It would be considerably more constant in ice.
Seeing as how this thread is eating up so much of my time when I have other things to do, I'm going to leave it at that.
-
In any case Herouni has shown that the CMB is zero, it dont exist, its the Earth's oceans.
Have you some extraordinary evidence to go with that?In particular, can you explain why this sees the CMB, even though it's not even in orbit around the Earth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe
You really need to start reality checking your ideas.
WMAP did not measure the CMB, it measured the CMB differential.
https://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards
How well do the claims stack up?
However, this year, an expert in radiology published two papers6,7 which prompted another8 in the journal Progress in Physics9 claiming that the analysis was flawed under standard radiological (analysis of radio waves) methodology. He argued that the maps contain no information of cosmological significance, certainly no information about the creation and history of the early universe.
WMAP was not equipped with an instrument that could measure the absolute intensity of any microwave signal it might encounter. Whereas COBE not only took a differential radiometer, it also took an absolute spectrometer—FIRAS. WMAP was only equipped with a differential radiometer, which could only measure the differences in the signals coming from any two parts of the sky. So the data can never specify the equivalent temperature of any particular region of the cosmos.
-
In summary, the microwave background can be understood as follows: photons are being produced by the oceans and they are then scattered in the atmosphere such that a completely isotropic signal is observed
If it was true that scattering of photons from the oceans into the atmosphere resulted in a completely isotropic signal, then all telescopes everywhere should be able to see this signal because they all see the same sky. That would include the Herouni detector.
It must be a matter of degree.If it is argued that Herouni's detector can't detect the signal because it is too far from the ocean, then that would imply that the strength of the signal becomes weaker the further one is from the ocean. The satellites around Earth mapping the microwave background should therefore receive weaker signals when they are over land than when they are over the ocean and the maps they produce would reflect this. Land-based telescopes should also therefore see weaker signals when they are further from the oceans. That means that the South Pole Telescope (which is in the middle of Antarctica) should be seeing something quite different from AMiBA (which is on one of the Hawaiian islands).
If COBE is at 900 km & if the signal mostly diffracts over the edges of its horn then what COBE is directly over wouldnt matter much.
I havnt looked into BICEP & AMIBA.The signal is independent of temperature variations on the globe, since the hydrogen bonding energy system is already fully occupied at earthly temperatures.
This is wrong because the strength of chemical bonds (and therefore their frequencies) does change with temperature. The more thermal energy there is in a material, the weaker the chemical bonds become. That is why sufficient heat can decompose substances. The strength (and therefore frequency) of hydrogen bonds is almost linearly correlated with temperature. Temperatures in ocean waters vary from around 272 kelvins in the Arctic Ocean to around 297 kelvins in very hot days off the coast of San Diego. That's a difference of approximately 9%, which would also represent a difference in hydrogen bond strength (and thus frequency) of a similar amount.
Robitaille says that COBE has gotten rid of bad frequencies & has calibrated out bad numbers at other frequencies (see below). He reckons the error aint 1 mK, it is 64 mK.
And the ocean's radiation comes from the surface which is EZ water.On the other hand, the temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background are around 0.001%. That's far smaller. So if the CMBR was caused by the oceans, those temperature variations should be much, much larger.
See above.The strength of hydrogen bonds also varies over time as the distances between the water molecules change. Hydrogen bonds constantly form, strengthen, weaken and break in the liquid state. That would produce large frequency variations. It would be considerably more constant in ice.
BICEP & KECK might be in a different boat what with being surrounded by ice. Ice of course aint EZ water, but the surface of ice might have some EZ water.Seeing as how this thread is eating up so much of my time when I have other things to do, I'm going to leave it at that.
However we have covered a lot of ground. It made me have a closer look at Fresnel, & MMXs.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF
COBE: A Radiological Analysis -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille – 2009.
The COBE Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) operated from 30 to 3,000 GHz (1–95 cm1) and monitored, from polar orbit ( 900 km), the 3 K microwave background. Data released from FIRAS has been met with nearly universal admiration. However, a thorough review of the literature reveals significant problems with this instrument. FIRAS was designed to function as a differential radiometer, wherein the sky signal could be nulled by the reference horn, Ical. The null point occurred at an Ical temperature of 2.759 K. This was 34 mK above the reported sky temperature, 2.7250.001 K, a value where the null should ideally have formed. In addition, an 18 mK error existed between the thermometers in Ical, along with a drift in temperature of 3 mK. A 5 mK error could be attributed to Xcal; while a 4 mK error was found in the frequency scale. A direct treatment of all these systematic errors would lead to a 64 mK error bar in the microwave background temperature. The FIRAS team reported 1 mK, despite the presence of such systematic errors. But a 1 mK error does not properly reflect the experimental state of this spectrophotometer. In the end, all errors were essentially transferred into the calibration files, giving the appearance of better performance than actually obtained. The use of calibration procedures resultedincalculatedIcalemissivitiesexceeding1.3atthehigherfrequencies,whereas an emissivity of 1 constitutes the theoretical limit. While data from 30–60 GHz was once presented, these critical points are later dropped, without appropriate discussion, presumably because they reflect too much microwave power. Data obtained while the Earth was directly illuminating the sky antenna, was also discarded. From 300–660 GHz, initial FIRAS data had systematically growing residuals as frequencies increased. This suggested that the signal was falling too quickly in the Wien region of the spectrum. In later data releases, the residual errors no longer displayed such trends, as the systematic variations had now been absorbed in the calibration files. The FIRAS team also cited insufficient bolometer sensitivity, primarily attributed to detector noise, from 600–3,000 GHz. The FIRAS optical transfer function demonstrates that the instrument was not optimally functional beyond 1,200 GHz. The FIRAS team did not adequately characterize the FIRAS horn. Established practical antenna techniques strongly suggest that such a device cannot operate correctly over the frequency range proposed. Insufficient measurements were conducted on the ground to document antenna gain and field patterns as a full function of frequency and thereby determine performance. The effects of signal diffraction into FIRAS, while considering the Sun/Earth/RF shield, were neither measured nor appropriately computed. Attempts to establish antenna side lobe performance in space, at 1,500 GHz, are well outside the frequency range of interest for the microwave background (<600 GHz). Neglecting to fully evaluate FIRAS prior to the mission, the FIRAS team attempts to do so, on the ground, in highly limited fashion, with a duplicate Xcal, nearly 10 years after launch. All of these findings indicate that the satellite was not sufficiently tested and could be detecting signals from our planet. Diffraction of earthly signals into the FIRAS horn could explain the spectral frequency dependence first observed by the FIRAS team: namely, too much signal in the Jeans-Rayleigh region and not enough in the Wien region. Despite popular belief to the contrary, COBE has not proven that the microwave background originates from the universe and represents the remnants of creation.
-
Read Robitaille Crothers Herouni. They explain that the horns do not exclude radiation from Earth's oceans. The only horn that managed to do that was the horn designed & built by Herouni, which was well away from any sea & was in a deep hollow on a high mountain.
His mountain wasn't as high as my satellite.
Stop being silly, and answer the question.
If this radiation is from the oceans, how come you can see if while in space pointing away from the Earth?
It was an interesting (if fanciful) idea before we had satellite measurements of the CMBR, but now we know it's wrong.
And teh fact that you can't see that says a lot about your ability to think logically.
-
Cahill isnt an expanding Earthist. U might be confusing him with Miles Mathis.
Then what is this paper about? http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0126 He says in the abstract that the expanding Earth has been observed.
Thanx for that link. I dont remember that paper. Its weird. It looks like Cahill has a gravity equation theory that indicates that there is a black hole inside Earth. This ties in with his borehole anomaly stuff. And then as an add-on Cahill mentions that having a black hole could result in the creation of matter, inside Earth. And then as an add-on mentions that such a creation of matter would lead to an expanding Earth. This was i think in relation to an expanding Earth workshop at Erice in 2011. I think that this paper was just a sop. Something-anything that might possibly support an expanding Earth. I dont know how Cahill jumps from his idea of a black hole in Earth to somehow that matter is made near or in a blackhole. This idea has no basis in any of his quantum foam stuff as far as i can see.
And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth. I believe that there can be dark matter in Earth. But dark matter is not a proper black hole, DM simply doesnt much emit photons, it only emits dark photons (neutrinos). And it might block the passage of photons, but it wouldnt suck them in from distance. And DM can be small or very small, but a BH cant. Weird.
-
And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth.
OK, so you have worked out that Cahill is talking nonsense.
That'sa good start.
Now, can you have another think about the CMBR?
If as some nut-job claims, it's emission from the Earth's oceans, how come it is still exactly the same when you are on a satellite, far from Earth, and have an antenna pointing away from the Earth and its oceans?
How come the intensity and spectrum of that radiation remain very nearly the same no matter where you look?
-
And i cant see how u can have a black hole in Earth.
OK, so you have worked out that Cahill is talking nonsense. That's a good start. Now, can you have another think about the CMBR? If as some nut-job claims, it's emission from the Earth's oceans, how come it is still exactly the same when you are on a satellite, far from Earth, and have an antenna pointing away from the Earth and its oceans?
How come the intensity and spectrum of that radiation remain very nearly the same no matter where you look?
Firstly here below are some links to Robitaille's stuff & some of Crother's stuff, which answers your questions.
Later i will return & i will spell out the salient bits.
“The Theory of Heat Radiation ” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality -- Pierre-Marie Robitaille 1 and Stephen J. Crothers 2
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-04.PDF
Robitaille P.-M.
“Calibration of Microwave Reference Blackbodies and Targets for Use in Satellite Observations: An Analysis of Errors in Theoretical Outlooks and Testing Procedures”
http://www.ptep-online.com/2010/PP-22-01.PDF
“The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets”
http://www.ptep-online.com/2010/PP-22-02.PDF
Water, Hydrogen Bonding, and the Microwave Background
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L2.PDF
Global Warming and the Microwave Background
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-17-L3.PDF
COBE: A Radiological Analysis Pierre-Marie Robitaille
http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF
On the Nature of the Microwave Background at the Lagrange 2 Point.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2007/PP-11-11.PDF
COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction? by Stephen J. Crothers
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1101.0009v1.pdf
-
Never mind citing his whole back catalog.
Answer the question.
How does a dish that's nowhere near Earth and pointing away from it see the ocean?
-
I had a look at the last of those papers.
This "The assignment of a 2.725 K temperature to the Penzias and Wilson signal constitutes a violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission [30, 31]. The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30]. This is a condition which cannot be met by the
universe. Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the temperature should be considered erroneous;"
is factually incorrect
This " Not a single artifact has been reported over the
entire frequency range [8] which could be attributed to
an earthly signal of oceanic origin. At the same time,
it is well established that water is a powerful absorber
of microwave radiation. Consequently, it is reasonable
to expect that the oceans cannot be microwave silent
relative to this problem;"
is baloney.
Of course you don't see stuff from the Earth or the ocean- you point the antenna at the sky.
You are going to have to come up with something much better than that
-
I had a look at the last of those papers. This
"The assignment of a 2.725 K temperature to the Penzias and Wilson signal constitutes a violation of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission [30, 31]. The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30]. This is a condition which cannot be met by the universe. Therefore, the absolute magnitude of the temperature should be considered erroneous;"
is factually incorrect.
No it sounds correct to me. Its a bit like the science mafia's silly million deg temp assigned to the Sun's corona when it is more like 5000 deg.This " Not a single artifact has been reported over the entire frequency range [8] which could be attributed to an earthly signal of oceanic origin. At the same time, it is well established that water is a powerful absorber of microwave radiation. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that the oceans cannot be microwave silent relative to this problem;"
is baloney. Of course you don't see stuff from the Earth or the ocean- you point the antenna at the sky. You are going to have to come up with something much better than that.
Robitaille's paper has tons of wordage re the diffraction of Earth's atmospheric radiation over the COBE shields. I had a slow re-read of -- COBE: A Radiological Analysis. http://www.ptep-online.com/2009/PP-19-03.PDF What a wonderfull work, 39 pages full of info. I could quote the best bits, except that these would themselves fill 10 pages. But here below is a part of 2.2.5......
The testing of the COBE FIRAS antenna pattern was inadequate. Proper tests were never performed to document the interaction of the FIRAS horn with the Sun/Earth/RFI shield. Furthermore, the team conducted no computational modeling of the horn-shield interaction as a function of frequency. This type of documentation would have been central in establishing the reliability of the FIRAS findings. Without it, the FIRAS team did not eliminate the possibility that the Earth itself is producing the microwave background. The RF shield on COBE could accomplish little more than prevent terrestrial/solar photons, in the visible or near-infrared range, from directly illuminating the dewar which contains FIRAS. The central issue for the Sun/Earth shield appears to be the conservation of helium in the dewar, not the elimination of RF interference [87]. The shield is not corrugated [81, p.657– 659] and has no special edges to prevent diffraction in the far infrared. Given that the FIRAS horn is broadband, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build a good RF shield for such a device. The FIRAS team has not established that an adequate shield was constructed to prevent RF interference from the Earth. The Sun/Earth shield simply prevents direct heating of the dewar, by visible or near infrared light [87]. They comment:
“a large external conical shield protects the cryostat and instruments from direct radiation from the Sun and the Earth. The Sun never illuminates the instruments or cryostat, but the COBE orbit inclination combined with the inclination of the Earth’s equator to the ecliptic do allow the Earth limb to rise a few degrees above the plane of the instrument and sunshade apertures during about one-sixth of the orbit for one-fourth of the year. During this period, the sky horn could not be cooled to 2.7 K because of the Earth limb heating” [42].
Nowhere, in the COBE literature, is the RF performance of the “sunshade” analyzed.
-
No it sounds correct to me.
Yes, but your judgement is known to be poor, and this
The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30].
is still factually incorrect.
-
No it sounds correct to me.
Yes, but your judgement is known to be poor, and this
The proper assignment of thermal temperatures requires, according to Kirchhoff [31], equilibrium with an enclosure [30].
is still factually incorrect.
I think that u cant have blackbody unless there is radiative equilibrium (not conductive equilibrium). And u find such equilibrium inside a box that has perfect insulation (such a box doesnt exist)(ie equilibrium doesnt exist).
Or u can get close to equilibrium & proper blackbody if u have a good blackbody (that doesnt havtabe in a box).
But the supposed CMBR was they say somehow made by hydrogen atoms -- an impossibility -- an atom cant emit that kind of radiation, it takes a lattice to do that (praps hydrogen gas could do it). And gases & liquids cant act black (except for EZ water when in an atomic shockwave).
Unless u have equilibrium then the supposed temps are not temps at all, the real temps are something else (probly colder). For example the Sun's corona they say is up near a million K, whilst we know it is more like 5000 K.
Re the 2.73 K CMBR, firstly this doesnt exist, it is Earthshine. Secondly any such temp, eg 1.73 K, will not be true unless from a blackbody, which it wont be. Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K, when they find a way of removing Earthshine, & as i say, the 0.1 K will not be the true temp anyhow, the true temp will be lower than that (koz it aint from a blackbody).
-
I think that u cant have blackbody unless there is radiative equilibrium
You may wish to discuss this view with some burned toast.
Let us know if you plan to learn some science any time.
-
But the supposed CMBR was they say somehow made by hydrogen atoms -- an impossibility -- an atom cant emit that kind of radiation,
Yes it can.
it takes a lattice to do that (praps hydrogen gas could do it).
No it doesn't.
And gases & liquids cant act black
Yes they do.
(except for EZ water
That's a myth.
Re the 2.73 K CMBR, firstly this doesnt exist, it is Earthshine.
Repeating this does not stop it being false.
Unless u have equilibrium then the supposed temps are not temps at all,
Non-equilibrium temperatures are still temperatures.
For example the Sun's corona they say is up near a million K, whilst we know it is more like 5000 K.
No, the evidence shows it's about a million degrees.
Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K,
How?
That would require the evidence to change.
when they find a way of removing Earthshine,
They did.
They now measure it from space.
-
Thirdly the CBR will be one day found to be say 0.1 K,
How? That would require the evidence to change. when they find a way of removing Earthshine,
They did. They now measure it from space.
COBE was in a 900 km orbit, & thusly suffered Earthshine. The newer ones (is it Planck?) are out at L2 at 1,500,000 km, & here if careful they can avoid Earthshine (& avoid Earthshine reflexion from the Moon), & at L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).
-
Its worth another look at Herouni's stuff & CMB stuff.
Robitaille -- Cosmic Microwave Background.
English version of i think 1988 paper.
http://elib.sci.am/2007_1/10_1_2007.pdf
Robitaille – The Herouni antenna.
A fading relic of the past. Herouni antenna.
Presentation re Herouni antenna.
https://events.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/indico/event/80/material/1/3.pdf
-
at L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).
When you read them you will
be doing science and
discover that you are wrong.
Hurry up + do it.
-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf
Page 55.
-
For the benefit of those who are blind because they will not see:
"Our results are in very good agreement with the 2013 analysis of the Planck nominal-mission temperature data, but with increased precision."
and "we find
T0 = 2.722 ± 0.027 K Planck TT+lowP+BAO, (83a)
T0 = 2.718 ± 0.021 K Planck TT, TE, EE+lowP+BAO, (83b)
and similar results are obtained with recfast. This is in excellent agreement with the COBE/FIRAS measurement, T0 =
2.7255±0.0006 K "
But we hardly needed to look up the data.
If this new observation had given a value anything like 0.1K it would have been massive news.
People would be on national news and people would be talking about Nobel prizes.
COBE was in a 900 km orbit, & thusly suffered Earthshine.
That makes as little sense as saying that, even though it is underground, my cellar suffers from sunshine.
You just point the antenna away from Earth; it's not complicated.
Antennae are known to be directional- that's why you have to line up your dish to get satellite telly. Nothing in the videos you cited can change that fact, can it?
L2 km they measured i think 0.01 K (i havnt read the reports)(it might have been 0.1 K).
Let's just think about what you said there;
"i havnt read the reports" "they measured i think 0.01 K "
So, even though you accept that you haven't seen the data, you "imagined" a figure of 0.01K and thought that was a good enough justification to post it here.
Do you see why we are laughing at you?
-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf
Page 55.
I will answer this in my Herouni thread.
-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01589.pdf
Page 55.
I will answer this in my Herouni thread.
Would that be the thread where you accept that Herouni has already been shown to be talking nonsense?
Or is it a thread where you try to pretend that he hasn't?