Morley/Michelson Inferometer

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />As I understand the problem seems to be that a massive object entrains aether. That is carries it along like an atmosphere. The velocity around the sun is not measured as readily since the local aether is traveling with the earth. However due to its rotation there is a periodic pertabation as the rotational speed is added to orbital speed and 12 hours later rotational speed is deducted from orbit speed.

Think of a fast curve ball in baseball. The air forms a general compression but it becomes assymetrical due to the spin. That is the density varies on one side versus the other. It is that deviation that the later test picked up.



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The problem is not to suppose that the correct explaination involves the ether, but to define what one means by the term ether. Today the ether is a joke to physicists. They reject the idea just as chemists reject phlogiston.They think that the ether is an old
fashioned outdated concept that has been disproved. This is really a hard misconception to remove. That's why it is best to use a different term in place of ether. The term most used today is an absolute space-time. So we don't talk about an ether we refer to an absolute space-time. It gives the relativists nothing to make into a joke.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />One might detect the rotation of the earth by an M&M device because one side of the device is travelling at a different velocity than the other. The difference is ever-so-slight. Thus, a man at the equator is going about two thousand miles per hour but an eskimo is going only a few hundred mph.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is exactly what Michaelson and Gale did. They detected the rotation of the earth. Kennedy Thorndike did as well. The null result for the Michaelson-Morley experiment is explained by the fact that the velocity of light is the same in whatever direction the arms of the interferometer are pointed. So it is the constancy of light velocity that explains the null result. But if you can detect the rotation of the earth because the earths motion causes a difference in the velocity of light, then something is wrong. The velocity of light is supposed to be the same in any direction in which the interferometer moves. It should give a null result as well. But it did not.

I haven't found any data about MMX that shows any motion of the Earth and wonder why the orbital velocicy at least is not observed? 30,000m/s is about 1% the speed of light and it seems to me it should be observed as a red shift and a blue shift in the spectrum. The radial velocity ranges from 0m/s to ~3,000m/s or more and should be observed too. The spin is only 500m/s so why is it observed and not the other motion?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The spin is only 500m/s so why is it observed and not the other motion?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is one of the most important questions asked in the 19th and 20th centuries. Why indeed? The answer provided by SR is that time dilates and length contracts in such a way that the speed of light is unchanged by the inertial motion of the observer. Spin shows up because it is non-inertial motion.

One could argue that, if SR does not show the observer's motion in the relative speed of light signals, then SR should not allow Doppler shifts for the observer to be seen either; but of course they are seen.

LR's description of these phenomena is much simpler. The local gravitational potential field is the local standard of rest. So the speed of light really is constant inside it because the medium through which light propagates is entrained by local gravity. And Earth's spin is a real motion relative to that local standard of rest.

Take your choice, or throw your own hat into the ring if you like. -|Tom|-

Jim: 30,000m/s is about 1% the speed of light...

You mean 0.01% the speed of light. The interferometer and earth in the experiment are the moving galilean frame with respect to a galilean frame of the ether at rest. All calculations are made according to this transformation. So any reference to the observer relative motion with respect to earth is pointless.

However, I would like to ask TVF what aspects, if any in particular or at all, of the MMX he objects to.

The question whether FTL speeds exist plainly stated as such, is a red herring. The issue with a value is whether particles can be accelerated to speeds greater than the speed of light. One must understand that SR and GR limit the speed to c for causal processes in conserved quantity environments. If gravitons move at FTL speeds with no apparent cause at drive them to that speed, this is a hypothesis ouside the scope of Relativity, that is, the detection of a superluminal graviton would not negate Relativity, unless one could show that it was accelerated to that FTL speed by a causal process.

Enrico,

The following link will give you much more to think about other than MMX. Miller continued to do testing with an enlarged and improved machine for several years and had data for over 200,000 samples.

He clearly tracked the earths motion, including movement of the solar system in the gallaxy. Einstein opposed his findings and phoo-phoo'd it claiming it was thermal error. Not so look at how the testing was done. The results were not thermal error.


www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.