Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 02/11/05 

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:03:05 -0700

mountain man wrote:
> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:8RsOd.12471$6u.9009@fed1read02...
>
>>mountain man wrote:

   <newsreader-puke-prevention snip>

>>>The refractive index in turn depends of the type of gas,
>>>on its pressure, and on its temperature. To a good approximation
>>>the first analysis of the various fringe shift data was done using
>>>STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure).
>>
>> Well, did it reflect the actual temperatures and pressures within the
>>gas-filled interferommeters?

   Um, did it? If this information is not available, why is a "good
approximation" of STP relevant?

>> What's the variation from the vacuum value WRT the error bars?

> These experiments were not done in vacuum,
> so that data does not exist.

   Sigh. We have previous results from experiments in vacuo with error
bars. I wanted to know how his results compared with those error bars.
If they fit within them, the results are suspect.

>> Does he predict what you'll get with say 90 atm of SF6 at 10 Absolute?

> The predictions for this particular pressure, temperature
> and composition can be determined once the refractive
> index for those conditions is determined.

   So I picked an extreme example. What I want to know is if he can make
similar predictions for any refractive index.

>>>A more recent analysis of the Miller data took account of the
>>>lower average pressre atop Mt Wilson and the lower average
>>>temparature.
>>
>> With an interferometer containing gases at these specific temperature
>>and pressure ranges? What was the variation from the vacuum value WRT the
>>error bars?

> These experiments were not done in vacuum,
> so that data does not exist.

   So what about the first part of my question; what was actually _in_
the interferometer?

> Miller, for example, didn't give error bars, but one could make an
> estimate of them if one wished, based on the precision with which
> the individual fringe shifts could be measured (see Miiler paper for
> that) and that he averaged data from 20 rotations before extracting
> amplitude and phase, which reduces the errors.

   No...error...bars...

> If you do such a determination by least squares best fit, then these
> two numbers have quite small errors, that is the data has the expected
> form..there is little scatter away from that form. So the Miller data looks
> remarkably clean..see for example the figure in the recent Cahill paper.

   He didn't write down expected values to check against data? No
evidence at all of the "false refractive index"? The interference
patterns weren't displaced just a tad downward? Wait, let me guess; this
is what's commonly called "gravity". But that can't be right; why does
the flow rate _increase_ as it approaches a mass? ISTM it should
decrease due to compression and turbulence.

> The ongoing suggestion that Miller's data was just noise is simply wrong.

   How can you say that when he didn't bother with error bars at the
very least?

> However the best confirmation of the Miller data is that DeWitte, in 1991,
> using a 1st order v/c experiment saw the same speed and RA of direction
> of absolute motion....so different experiments using different techniques
> give the same result.

   I'm trying to find a reference to De Witte; all I could Google up was
this:

http://www.ping.be/~pin30390/belgacom.htm

   but it's broken.

> That's how science is done. As well the Miller data is in very good
> agreement with the Michelson-Morley data..one can do a retrospective
> prediction for what they should have seen...and they did see just that.

   No. Science is done by, among other things, predicting the range of
experimental errors expected with a given experimental setup, and
accounting for such non-first-order effects as the vertical "false
refractive index" gradient I mentioned.

>>>>>>... the MMX, either in vacuum or gas, only tells you what's happening
>>>>>>within the interferometer. But Absolute Motion must be defined for
>>>>>>motions through space, and I want to know if Cahill is willing to
>>>>>>consider the intergalactic case frinst where there ain't no gas.
>>>>
>>>>>According to Cahill, the "vacuum" is filled with "quantum foam"
>>>>>which is in motion towards the center of galactic hubs, stars,
>>>>>planets and all ponderable matter. It is the motion WRT to
>>>>>the flow of this "quantum foam" that he claims is being measured
>>>>>as absolute motion in the interferometers.
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm confused. If he acknowledges that vacuum-filled interferometers
>>>>give null results, what's being measured, especially since the quantum
>>>>foam ought to also be in motion through the arms of the interferometer?
>>>>If the idea is that the foam is in vertical motion, while the
>>>>interferometers are set up to measure lateral-motion-cause shifts, why
>>>>is no vertical "drag" seen? Why is the foam's motion through gas any
>>>>different from its motion through vacuum?
>>
>>>There is not this multiplicity of entities. What we have
>>>long called `vacuum' is the quantum foam. This QF is
>>>not something in space, it is space.
>>
>> OK, fine, we have "falling space" allegedly in motion toward the centers
>>of bodies of ponderable matter, presumably including the Earth. So why
>>can't interferometers full of <whatever it is> see said vertical motion?
>>It should be clearly visible as a "false refractive index" gradient over
>>the height of the apparatus.

> They were looking for lateral motion.

   Nonetheless, the vertical "false refractive index" gradient due to
the "quantum foam"s vertical motion should have been blatant.

>> It should blatantly affect other more prosaic measurements, like
>>Earth-surface surveying.

   Why is this not seen? Earth-surface surveying is done through air
over much longer distances than any version of MMX.

   FTM, why is it not seen when observing stars near the horizon?

>> Also, how exactly does the motion of a gas WRT this <whatever> change
>>the gas' refractive index, but not that of a solid?

   Well?

>> Besides which, this particular alleged infall-related motion has nothing
>>to do with any alleged absolute motion of the Earth WRT some external
>>reference point or system, like say the CMBR.

> According to Cahill's papers there are four main velocities
> that contribute to the total velocity:
>
> v = vcosmic + vtangent ? vin ? vE.

   What happened here (and below) with question marks replacing other
symbols? I'll assume for the moment that the above ?s are intended to be
plus signs.

> Here vcosmic is the velocity of the solar system relative to some
> cosmologically de?ned galactic quantum-foam system while the
> other three are local effects:
>
> (i) vtangent is the tangential orbital velocity of the earth about the sun,
> (ii) vin is a quantum-gravity radial in-?ow of the quantum foam past
> the earth towards the sun, and

   How do the two quantities relate to each other? Are we talking simple
vector addition?

> (iii) the corresponding quantumfoam in-?ow into the earth is vE and
> makes no contribution to a horizontally operated interferometer,
> assuming the velocity superposition approximation, and also that the
> turbulence associatedwith that ?ow is not signi?cant.

   Nearly unreadable due to the ?s. But ISTM that assuming turbulence to
be insignificant is unrealistic.

   Mark L. Fergerson

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
    ... I wanted to know how his results compared with those error bars. ... similar predictions for any refractive index. ... >> With an interferometer containing gases at these specific temperature ... presumably including the Earth. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Formula help!!!
    ... Private mPrev ... Private Sub Worksheet_Change(ByVal Target As Range) ... Private Sub Worksheet_SelectionChange ... running total from 2nd cell from input in 1st cell. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.newusers)
  • Re: RSA Challenges
    ... implementations can probably assist GNFS implementations too. ... example, if their latest crack ... GNFS cracks too. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: mounting inkjet prints
    ... safe to use a drt mounting press on these? ... AFAIK, with pigment ink prints, treat them much the same as with wet-process colour photo prints. ... One proviso is that it takes a while for pigment ink to dry - although they are reasonably water resistant within a few seconds of coming off the printer, they are relatively easily scratched until the coalescing solvents evaporate. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Letter Writing and Cryptography
    ... The attack appears to have moved to a different server than the ... and filter them out. ... If you're using google groups to read news I think you're screwed, ...
    (sci.crypt)