 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2005Why do green M-M's make some people horny?
Over time, several different people (at least I think they were different people) have referred to systematic nonnegative results in the Michelson-Morely experiment. The latest was: > M-M was *not* null; they actually had > small, regular anomalies. Several > follow-ups found them to greater accuracy. My question is: hasn't this been resolved?? Is the speed of light different from different directions or not? We can measure c to unimaginable accuracy. Is there still ambiguity in the results? Was ther ever? Is there some way to tweak the experiment into a flavor that gives results? Or do some people just get a boner from obvious, blatant, outright, bold-faced LYING to the very scientists who know they're liars better than anyone else in the world? Neither of those seems very probable to me. =[ d In sci.physics.relativity, DavidBowman <dt041054@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2005 16:07:35 -0800 <1109290055.053440.318110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > Over time, several different people (at least > I think they were different people) have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Is the speed of light different from different > directions or not? If there is OWLS anisotropy it's on the order of a few parts per billion, if memory serves. > We can measure c to unimaginable > accuracy. Is there still ambiguity in the > results? Was ther ever? Actually, c may now be harder to measure, as we've simply *defined* the meter to be that length traversed by light taking a certain time (in the observer's reference frame). It turns out that this is more accurate than the older Krypton-based meter reference, which had to be discarded as it wasn't accurate enough to measure lightspeed. (Also, one of the byproducts of MMX was a more accurate measurement of lightspeed.) > Is there some way to tweak the experiment > into a flavor that gives results? The Sagnac effect is quite measurable, and might be construed as a quickly-rotating MMX experiment. > Or do > some people just get a boner from obvious, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neither of those seems very probable to me. If one does assume MMX variability there's still about 11 or so other experiments that are close enough to the predicted SR/GR mathematics to look for explanations other than a rigid luminiferous aether for the variabilities. >=[ d  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. See response as new topic, Deuce. =[d > Over time, several different people (at least > I think they were different people) have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > small, regular anomalies. Several > > follow-ups found them to greater accuracy. It was "nul" for the hypothesis that they had, and which was therefore nullified. Their experiment was not designed to test the "null" hypothesis which only came later. Miller and several others claimed to have confirmed that what looked like a signal was a true signal. > My question is: hasn't this been resolved?? > Is the speed of light different from different > directions or not? "The speed of light" usually means the measured return speed of light in vacuum. AFAIK there is no dispute about that. The M-M exp. that seem to deviate typically has a gas medium that seems to affect the results. The big question is if that is of importance for SRT or if it is due to other causes such as temperature. It hasn't really been resolved, more experiments are needed and I know of two such ongoing experiments. If you don't hear within a year or so of something extraordinary, most likely that implies that Miller et all's results could not be reproduced. > We can measure c to unimaginable > accuracy. Is there still ambiguity in the > results? Was there ever? Not that I know of. > Is there some way to tweak the experiment > into a flavor that gives results? Maybe with water instead of air? > Or do > some people just get a boner from obvious, > blatant, outright, bold-faced LYING to the > very scientists who know they're liars > better than anyone else in the world? Which "people" and which "scientist"? "Some people" are themselves respected experimental scientists. > Neither of those seems very probable to me. Investigating small effects isn't easy you know. Cheers, Harald Dear harry: ... >> My question is: hasn't this been resolved?? >> Is the speed of light different from different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The M-M exp. that seem to deviate typically has a gas medium that seems > to affect the results. It has been run in vacuum, as hard a vacuum as we could get on the Earth at the time. It made no change to the result. This *is* how the Lorentz aether is expected to behave... David A. Smith > Dear harry: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the time. It made no change to the result. This *is* how the Lorentz > aether is expected to behave... no no no... it is how that wretched Ether has decided to so cleverly and carefully hide itself in such a way that non-religious people who still can't really live without some form of belief system, will always have something to adore ;-) Dirk Vdm Dear Dirk Van de moortel: >> Dear harry: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > some form of belief system, will always have something > to adore ;-) I'm still not going to discount it out-of-hand. Arguments about "flavor" or "color" of aether (or even its existence) are simply a waste of breath. Occam's razor removes the requirement for aether in scientific discussion. If some find it a handly modelling tool, more power to them. The human mind seems to require modelable analogies to advance. Why some still diddle around with aethers that are differentiable from spacetime is beyond me. Such have been shown to not survive repeatable experiment. There is a fellow that posts on sci.astro that believes that Pioneer 10 was communicating instantaneously with Earth. Even though communications prior to this time were 22 hours delayed, then 23... and after this miraculous occurance "instantaneous" became 1 hour delayed, 2 hours... People still look for miracles. David A. Smith > People still look for miracles. Existance is "miracle" enough for me. God is mathematics, and prayer is understanding. =[ d PS And you guys are the priests. "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<rTGTd.81460$Yu.37468@fed1read01>... > Dear harry: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David A. Smith Exactly, there is to my knowledge no question about how light behaves in a vacuum. Harald Dear Harry: > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in > message news:<rTGTd.81460$Yu.37468@fed1read01>... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Exactly, there is to my knowledge no question about how light behaves in > a vacuum. Ah! Helps if I read what you wrote. Actually the "deviants" are also "homebrew" arrangements. Arrangements that are strongly affected not just by ambient air, but by the uncontrolled environment they are immersed in. David A. Smith > It made no change to the result. This *is* how the > Lorentz aether is expected to behave... "Lorentz aether", huh? Jee-ziss, what next! =[ d Dear DavidBowman: >> It made no change to the result. This *is* how the >> Lorentz aether is expected to behave... > > "Lorentz aether", huh? > > Jee-ziss, what next! The Lorentz transforms were developed "in" Lorentz's aether... Whatever model gets your creative juices flowing... because they are *all* models anyway. David A. Smith > > It made no change to the result. This *is* how the > > Lorentz aether is expected to behave... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > =[ d Worse to come: Einstein's ether! ;-) H. > [quoting someone] >>M-M was *not* null; they actually had >>small, regular anomalies. Several >>follow-ups found them to greater accuracy. Only people who do not understand error analysis make such claims. While indeed the Michelson-Morley data show variations, the variations are not significant. See my original post in the thread "An Analysis of the Resolution of the Michelson-Morley Experiment" -- the errorbars on their data are MUCH larger than the variations. > My question is: hasn't this been resolved?? Yes. Except to people who don't understand basic physics and elementary experimental data analysis. > Is the speed of light different from different > directions or not? Not measurably so here on earth. > We can measure c to unimaginable > accuracy. It's not "unimaginable". In fact, knowing how accurately we can measure it is important for some things (e.g. understanding the accuracy of the GPS). But since 1984 one must use a non-standard definition of distance to measure the speed of light at all (because the meter is now defined in terms of how far light travels in vacuum during 1 second). > Is there still ambiguity in the > results? Was ther ever? No. Not really. If in 1984 there had been any serious controversy here, the metrologists of the world would never have redefined the meter as they did (which is inherently based on isotropic propagation of light). > Is there some way to tweak the experiment > into a flavor that gives results? Nobody has yet performed a reliable and reproducible experiment that gives a significantly non-null result for an MMX-like measurement. Some experiments (e.g. Miller) remain controversial many decades later; but other vastly more accurate techniques (e.g. Illingworth, Brillet and Hall, Cialdea, Chen et al) fail to see anisotropic propagation of light. [References to those experiments are given in the FAQ.] > Or do > some people just get a boner from obvious, > blatant, outright, bold-faced LYING to the > very scientists who know they're liars > better than anyone else in the world? Apparently so. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Case closed, thank you. My conclusion is that SR holds (like, duuuh!), and that the aetherists are actually the cultists. Other possibilities include their being crazy, stupid, or trolling, but I now officialy don't give a sh.t. Thank you again for restoring the True Faith; Feynman's in heaven and all's right with the world! Well, except for the "all's right with the world" part... =[ d >My conclusion is that SR holds It holds for inertial frames of reference. However, in the real world, perfect intertial frames of reference do not exist, so what happens in the real world is more accurately described by General Relativity. Recently while doing a search for "preferred frame" I came across the following: From: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmback.html <<< ...we must remember that there is a preferred global frame of reference in the standard cosmological "big bang" solution of Einsteins general relativity field equations. The "co-moving Hubble flow" provides a new kind of covariant aether in which the cosmic photons from the big-bang are isotropic with a temperature that obeys the Planck blackbody distribution. The isotropy establishes an absolute global "rest frame", and the temperature establishes an absolute measure of global cosmic time from the big bang. Regards, Peter Dear Peter: >>My conclusion is that SR holds >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > From: > http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmback.html To put this in context, it sports "contributions" from Jack Sarfatti and Tom Van Flandern. Expecially clear from the view of: URL:http://www.qedcorp.com David A. Smith |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.