[Bored chemist]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

Firstly, where did you get that from?

Secondly, how does it support your assertion?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?"

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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 ‘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.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘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 ‘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.

[Kryptid]

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.