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

From: mountain man (hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op)
Date: 02/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:08:16 GMT

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:Ij7Pd.14643$6u.4105@fed1read02...
> mountain man wrote:
>> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
>> news:8RsOd.12471$6u.9009@fed1read02...
>>
>>>mountain man wrote:

>>>>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.

Sigh. The data is available in the papers of MM, Miller, Illingworth,
Cahill etc. Design and do your own research.

>>> 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.

Predication have been made in regard to the experiments
scheduled with the Gravity Probe B. The predictions vary
from GR and Newtonian theory. Let's leave things there.

>>>>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?

AFAIK air in MM and Miller, but Helium with Illingworth.

>> 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.

      [Gravity is the result of]

      "a condensation
       causing a flow of ether
       with a corresponding thinning of the ether density
       associated with the increased velocity of flow."

       --- Sir Isaac Newton, 1675
       (letters to Oldenburg, Robert Boyle)

>> 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?

Time will tell the full story.

>> 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.

De Witte was prevented from publishing his papers.

>> 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.

Fortunately, also, science is done by ppl as they see fit.
The collective has been way wrong before, since Aristarcus.
You use the approach that feels comfortable to you.
The results at the end of the day will talk.
Have a good one.

>>>>>>>... 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?

Cahill provides this explanation:

"The insight here is that transparent solids don't behave like gases.
The explanation appears to be that the Lorentz contraction in the
direction of motion affects, via the elasticity of the solid, the
refractive index in the orthogonal direction."

>>> 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 = v_cosmic + v_tangent + v_in _ v_E.
>
> 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.

I have corrected the ?? problem that was introduced after
copy/pasting out of adobe.

>> Here v_cosmic is the velocity of the solar system relative to some
>> cosmologically defined galactic quantum-foam system while the
>> other three are local effects:
>>
>> (i) v_tangent is the tangential orbital velocity of the earth about the
>> sun,
>> (ii) v_in is a quantum-gravity radial in-flow 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?

Yes. All this is in Cahill's recent papers.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/

>> (iii) the corresponding quantumfoam inflow into the earth is v_E and
>> makes no contribution to a horizontally operated interferometer,
>> assuming the velocity superposition approximation, and also that the
>> turbulence associatedwith that flow is not significant.
>
> Nearly unreadable due to the ?s. But ISTM that assuming turbulence to be
> insignificant is unrealistic.

In 1998 CODATA increased the uncertainty in relation to the
natural physics associated with the measurement of G from
0.013% to 0.15%. Ask the question, in today's world of
increasing precision, as to why?

And have a nice day, 

-- 
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
    ... > similar predictions for any refractive index. ... De Witte was prevented from publishing his papers. ... >> assuming the velocity superposition approximation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TR: The Accidental Angler: A Week in the GSMNP (part 6)
    ... Makes me want to go back across the pond and fish ... those beautiful waters. ... English river, that flows off Exmoor, the Barle (there are very few ...
    (rec.outdoors.fishing.fly)
  • Re: Whats this about?
    ... The first escalators were so traumatic an experience that ... brandy was offered to calm people's nerves after riding on ...
    (rec.puzzles)
  • Re: Why are COIL CDs so expensive?
    ... bankrupt a few years ago their own label Threshold House sells the CDs ... I could imagine that Amazon buys the CDs from Threshold House like any ... Consider it a fee for being so dumb buying stuff from ...
    (rec.music.industrial)
  • Re: Gear REDUCTION hub
    ... elastoplastscavenger wrote: ... and can someone explain why my old bike geared hub has 3 ratios but all ... firstly 'all' unis, well there's only one mass produced uni epicyclic ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)