Re: MMX Expected Shft.


vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > <vern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1129120532.691018.91890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >> news:1129054003.489930.58920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <snip>
>
> > > No one is questioning that the MMXs rule out a stationary ether.
> > > However, other models (entrained, gravity vortex, etc.) would likely
> > > cause small variations in the speed of light wrt an Earth-centered
> > > frame. This would cause fringe shifts at certain orientations. The
> > > question is whether adequate experiments have been done to determine
> > > this. If you look at Michelson and Morley's results, they clearly
> > > indicated that they determined that the Earth was moving relative to an
> > > ether, just not at the velocity expected.
> >
> > The fringe shift in every experiment is obviously below the accuracy of the
> > equipments ability to detect otherwise the result would have been positive.
>
> I am referring to the article entitled, "On the Relative Motion of the
> Earth and the Luminiferous Ether," by Albert A. Michelson and Edward M.
> Morley, published in the American Journal of Science in November of
> 1887. The article states, "[t]he displacement to be expected was 0.4
> fringe. The actual displacment was certainly less than the twentieth
> part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the
> displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the
> relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one
> sixth of the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one
> forth." Interestingly enough, the article does address the motion of
> the solar system, but states only that little is known of its motion
> with certainty.
>
> Your comment concerning the accuracy of the equipment is incorrect, at
> least with respect to the equipment used by Michelson and Morley.
>
> > > So did Miller.
> >
> > Wrong - Tom Roberts, and others who has studied it, concluded it is
> > consistant with experimental bias.
>
> I have seen some posts on this, but there are some papers published in
> journals that indicate otherwise.
>
> >
> > > However, as
> > > others have said, those experiments are not conclusive
> >
> > Yet you claim they clearly demonstrate. I suspect you may be slightly
> > confused.
>
> Given the whole controversy of Sagnac and Michelson/Gale experiments
> and the fact that the Earth is rotating and moving in an orbit, it can
> hardly be concluded that experiments conducted on the surface of the
> Earth can definitively determine that the speed of light does or does
> not vary slightly.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Not that it matters though, since
> > > many newer experiments have been done. Maybe someone can post a link
> > > to some of the newer experimental results.
> >
> > See the FAQ
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
> >
> > Bill
>
> I have and I stand by my statement above that the matter is not settled
> because a frame of reference centered on the surface of the Earth is
> not an inertial frame.

There is not any plausible propagation model (Quantum statistics
is not about propagation) that provides a mechanism for electro
magnetic radiation to be decoupled from the charges in neighboring
matter. IOW... angel wings have to be large enough to trap a few
air molecules and some churches don't permit them to dance, so
what does it matter how many you can put on the head of a pin.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

Sue...

>
> Vern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr: Our reality!
    ... >>> the absolute reference frame. ... >>> common velocity component. ... >>> exist in a real material ether. ... >>> in a moving frame, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: Our reality!
    ... it appears as if every frame is ... common velocity component. ... exist in a real material ether. ... Suppose a platform A is moving at v wrt the ether, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >motion of the apparatus is in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal ... >motion for an object on earth is in the vertical direction. ... and diagonally in the frame of the ether. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >motion of the apparatus is in the vertical direction wrt the horizontal ... >motion for an object on earth is in the vertical direction. ... and diagonally in the frame of the ether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: JE and MMX
    ... > empty space (the ether) travels at a fixed numerical rate determined ... At a fixed rate relative to the frame of the EM source, ... >> thing could reduce light's velocity to zero. ... c is relatie to anything but the stationary EM source described. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading