Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: "colin" <no.spam.for.me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:08:43 GMT
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9ipl51lj7db7ihslrv13qls83c6kum43f5@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Most such
> >experimants have only one source and so inevitably take the speed of
light
> >averaged over a return path in order to compare it with the originating
> >source.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
The Laser Gyro would obviously not work if it had to reflect the light path
back along the circular fibre, wich is my point for avoiding this in this
experiment too. fortunatly for a circular path there is no need to do this
as it conveniently comes back to the original source. The return path tends
to virtualy cancel out any change in delay exept for very high velocities.
> I believe the M&M experiment has been repeated with lasers at
> something like 1000x the original sensitivity, with the same null
> result..
Although the sensitivity of Laser interfermotery can be execeptionaly high,
you are suming a very small delay with a very smal and almost identical
negative delay. This result is exceptionaly small, and some claim certain
mathmatical aproaches (wich might seem dubious) prove this is always a null
result, I realy dont wish to debate this last point however as its extremly
tiresome and i dont understand some of the maths used well enough to point
out or understand any errors in it, there seems to be so much hot air about
this issue.
However for measuring the speed of light in a single direction with no such
return path there can be no such mathmatical issues, especialy by comparing
it with the speed in the oposite direction.
> I believe also that Sivertooth is a whacko.
The problem with the silvertooth experiment is that it wasnt exactly
repeatable and as it contradicted such strongly held ideas it was inevitable
people viewed him that way, personaly i do not believe his explanation of
how it gave a result diferent to the M&M experiment. However it did apear in
wireless world in 1996 wich i thought of as a well regarded journal at the
time, and made me think about it.
It is interesting, and i thought if there was a simple way of proving it one
way or the other I would give it a go, the electronics and mechanics of this
aproach realy is very simple indeed, although it does rely heavily on
incredible accuracy from the clocks, i had envisaged using 2 atomic clocks
many years ago wich was obviously impractical as they wernt exactly very
movable, however modern XO etc have come a long way and many are claimed to
be more acurate than atomic clocks now and only revently did i think it was
feasable. The other way i envisaged was to use a freely rotating shaft the
ends of wich would always be in perfect angular synch and provide the clock
source at each end but might be hard to meet mechanical constraints.
If the device can be built with reasonably obtainable parts without the need
for exeptionaly high precision and so would be easily repeatable there would
be little need for any further confusion, and may even be demonstrated in
the classroom, however i realy must confess i am not totaly convinced about
the result, there does seem to be some genuine conflict for either retult,
however I would be rather woried if it contradicted the mainstream thinking.
there seems to be little comercial aplication for such an effect if it was
detectable though, unlike the laser gyros wich are cool.
> LIGO is interesting in this respect.
Yes it seem interesting im going to look at that just now.
Colin =^.^=
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: Mark
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- References:
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: colin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: colin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: Rene Tschaggelar
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: colin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Woodgate
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: colin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- From: John Larkin
- Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- Prev by Date: Re: XP is garbage
- Next by Date: Re: OT: A Problem with "the power of prayer"
- Previous by thread: Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- Next by thread: Re: simple frequecny multiplier
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|