 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Question for Tom Roberts... |
|
Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| doug... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:31:01 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Surfer wrote:
So far as I am aware, the most accurate MM interferomenter experiments
are vacuum experiments, which according to Cahill's formula should
give null results, as they do.
Except, of course for ones like the glass legged interferometer
which, according to Cahill, should show a large effect...
No. His formula for light paths through gas doesn't apply when solid
dielectrics are used.
[/quote]
Ah, the plea of the crank. But it only works in situations that I
use. So n^2-1 is not real after all.
[quote]
The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
Except that we know that is not true. Look at all the
experiments, not some.
I am looking at the table of MM experiments under
3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez//physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
They all show fringe shifts.
[/quote]
Oh my god, you really do not understand error analysis.
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any “æther drift”.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, “Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers”, Phys.
Rev. 133A 1221–1225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
“unknown”; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
2×10−13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
You are already making the crank plea that it only works on your
experiments in your circumstances etc.
[quote]
Since the current sensitivity limits are maybe 10^8 or so of what
Miller had....
I think you are referring to resolution when measuring fringe shifts.
[/quote]
No.
[quote]
To me sensitivity would refer to the capacity for absolute motion
effects to cause fringe shifts.
[/quote]
Yes. That is what has demonstrably improved.
[quote]
Eg for vacuum MM experiments, the sensitivity would be zero.
[/quote]
If you believe the crank cahill but it does not matter since the
above were gas mode experiments and the limit on absolute motion
is 10,000 times at least below what cahill claims.
[quote]
For gas MM experiments, the sensitivity would be proportional to the
length of the light path times (n^2 - 1).
But you just said that formula does not work.[/quote]
[quote]On that basis, Miller's interferometer would have had the highest
sensitivity as the light paths of all the others were shorter and had
equal or lower values for (n^2 - 1).
[/quote]
You do realize there have been other experiments in the last century?
The experiments listed above completely shatter Cahill's delusions.
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Roberts... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
doug wrote:
[quote][to Surfer:]
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers [...]
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, “Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers”, Phys.
Rev. 133A 1221–1225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers [...]
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
[their earth-fixed laser is Iodine-stabilized He-Ne -- they are
comparing a gas laser to one referenced to a vacuum etalon]
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
[one of their lasers is Iodine-stabilized He-Ne -- they are
comparing a gas laser to one referenced to a vacuum etalon]
[/quote]
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.
Uses two multi-mode He-Ne lasers separated by a light path in air [...]
Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of
propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.
A “one-way” test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass
and the return ray in air [...]
To Surfer:
For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
air is a gas  ; Ragulsky's air is a gas .
[Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
gas. But neither you nor Cahill seem to care, because you insist on only
quoting experiments with enormous errorbars, which you then IGNORE in
order to claim that the INSIGNIFICANT variations are "a signal".
What Cahill and Surfer are doing, cherry-picking experiments and
ignoring errorbars, is NOT science.
doug: please email me privately with a valid email for
yourself.
Tom Roberts |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jerry... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 2:57am, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any ther drift.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, Phys.
Rev. 133A 12211225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
unknown; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
210?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula
wasn't developed for that.
Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
laboratory.
But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
the two sets of results.
[/quote]
For the benefits of newbies...
It is not sufficient merely to find that your MMX apparatus
generates an anisotropy in its output, to conclude that one has
detected a signal of celestial origin.
The output MUST MAKE SENSE in terms of meeting other criteria
which would serve to distinguish between systematic and random
noise, versus a genuine signal.
In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
Guided by faulty theory, Miller drew theoretical best fits through
his data points in bold lines that were much more prominent than
the actual data. The effect was to draw the eye of the reader
away from the fact that the theoretically computed lines tended
to miss the data entirely. In the following link, I examine
Miller's claim that the signals he detected showed constant phase
when plotted against sidereal time, thus proving a celestial
origin for the signals. The plots at first look rather convincing,
until you realize that Miller's bold lines force your eye to look
at his fanciful interpretation of the data, rather than the data
itself. ERASE MILLER'S FANCIFUL FITS, AND THE CLAIMED CONSTANT
PHASE VANISHES.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/Miller/EraseMillerLines.htm
Jerry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any ther drift.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, Phys.
Rev. 133A 12211225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
unknown; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
210?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula[/quote]
wasn't developed for that.
Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
laboratory.
But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
the two sets of results.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 8:47am, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, What are you talking about, Peter?In the frame of the lab there is no length contraction.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
....because it doesn't even apply to MMX interferometers EITHER. It is[/quote]
time you laid off the Cahill crackpottery, eh? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts137 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]
To Surfer:
For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
air is a gas ; Ragulsky's air is a gas .
[Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
gas.
I can see a counter argument to that though.[/quote]
The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
effect on wavelength.
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
wavelength to change accordingly.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
tjroberts137 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To Surfer:
For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
air is a gas ; Ragulsky's air is a gas .
[Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
gas.
I can see a counter argument to that though.
The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
effect on wavelength.
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
wavelength to change accordingly.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
[/quote]
For fucks sake.
Either it applies, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
[quote]
Surfer[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0500, Tom Roberts
tjroberts137 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To Surfer:
For the record, as you seem to not know this: inside each and every
maser is a gas; inside each and every He-Ne laser is a gas; Cialdea's
air is a gas ; Ragulsky's air is a gas .
[Silly me, I should have realized this long ago, but didn't
make the connection until I saw doug's quotations here; I
am merely amplifying his statements. Thank you, doug.]
Due to their experimental technique, these measurements are VASTLY more
sensitive (VASTLY smaller errorbars) than Miller or Michelson & Morley.
They directly refute Cahill's claims, including the "specialness" of
gas.
I can see a counter argument to that though.
The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
effect on wavelength.
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
wavelength to change accordingly.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
[/quote]
This is wrong on so many points. The MM interferometers work by
comparing the transit time of light beams in the two arms. That
transit time includes lots of factors including temperature, gas
density, and whatever other effects one wants to include.
The resonant frequency of a cavity is a measure of the transit time
of the radiation in the cavity. So comparing the frequencies of two
cavities or of a rotation of one cavity is measuring the time of
flight of the light under the same circumstances with the same
effects included.
So you have to claim that cavities change length but interferometer
arms do not or some such preposterous thing.
Lets summarize.
Cahill has his n^2-1 term which applies everywhere except
a. In solids where the effect is large and would be noticed
b. In cavities where it is not seen.
c. In any experiment with sufficient resolution to give a
result different than cahill wants.
This means that Cahill's "theory" is only applicable to a class of
poorly done experiments whose error bars are big enough that
he can "reanalyze" them and claim a "signal" according to his
predictions. Any experiments which purport to differ with him
obviously have some other factor that no one has noticed that
just happen to make his "theory" not apply.
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Surfer wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any ther drift.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, Phys.
Rev. 133A 12211225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
unknown; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
210?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula
wasn't developed for that.
[/quote]
You make this assertion as though it is meaningful. You seem to be
looking for excuses. So the answer to my question is that you plan
on ignoring all experiments that show Cahill to be wrong.
[quote]
Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
laboratory.
But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
[/quote]
They are measuring the same thing, therefore the application of the
results is the same. You are reduced, sadly, to claiming that light
in an interferometer travels in the preferred frame while light in
a cavity travels in a different frame.
[quote]
As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
the two sets of results.
Well, no, there is a lot of delusion on your part but no physics.[/quote]
We have not even gotten to the Mossbauer effect experiments yet.
Hint: they show cahill to be wrong as well.
Serious question: are you interested in science or just in
pushing Cahill?
[quote]
Surfer
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jerry wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2:57 am, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:24:34 -0800, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
I notice you very carefully are trying to ignore the next set
of experiments:
# Cedarholm, Havens, and Townes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1(1958), pg 342.
They used two ammonia-beam masers back-to-back to put a limit of 30 m/s
on any ther drift.
# T.S. Jaseja, A. Javan, J. Murray and C.H. Townes, Test of Special
Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, Phys.
Rev. 133A 12211225 (1964)
They mounted two He-Ne microwave masers perpendicularly on a
shock-mounted table and observed the beat frequency between them as the
table was rotated. They put a limit of 30 m/s on the anisotropy.
# A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of
Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549552 (1979).
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the
round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the
beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a
single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an
anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating
laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of
space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a
Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser.
Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a
round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more
usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.
Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as
unknown; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore
could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that
this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical
by a few microradians.
# Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), pg 1697.
This is similar to Brillet and Hall (above), but the lasers are fixed to
the Earth for better stability. No variations were found at the level of
210?13. As they made observations over a year, this is not merely a
limit on anisotropy, but also a limit on variations in different
inertial frames. Brillet and Hall corresponds roughly to the
Michelson-Morley experiment (no variations of the round-trip speed of
light in different directions, with a time-scale of minutes or seconds);
Hils and Hall corresponds roughly to the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment
(no variations of the round-trip speed of light in different directions
or for the different inertial frames occupied by the Earth during a year
or so).
# A
And then section 3.2 lists another set of experiments which are
also gas mode which show cahill's formula to be completely wrong.
How many experiments do you plan on ignoring?
All the above experiments involve resonant cavities. Cahill's formula
wasn't developed for that.
Something else I would like to point out, is that the above limits on
anisotropy apply to the speed of light IN THE FRAME of the
laboratory.
But what the fringe shifts in the Miller and related experiments allow
one to deduce, is anisotropy of the CLOSING SPEED of light, relative
to the laboratory, in a preferred frame.
As these are complementary concepts, there is no contradiction between
the two sets of results.
For the benefits of newbies...
It is not sufficient merely to find that your MMX apparatus
generates an anisotropy in its output, to conclude that one has
detected a signal of celestial origin.
The output MUST MAKE SENSE in terms of meeting other criteria
which would serve to distinguish between systematic and random
noise, versus a genuine signal.
In one of the earliest and most devastating critiques of Miller's
results, Thirring pointed out that Miller's results failed the
simplest and most basic criteria required for one to believe in a
celestial origin for the measured velocities, namely that the
azimuth of supposed drift should show daily variations consistent
with the motion of of the source about the celestial pole.
Instead, 95 percent of Miller's observations showed an apparent
drift pointing towards the northwest quadrant of the compass.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Thirring_1926_A.pdf
Guided by faulty theory, Miller drew theoretical best fits through
his data points in bold lines that were much more prominent than
the actual data. The effect was to draw the eye of the reader
away from the fact that the theoretically computed lines tended
to miss the data entirely. In the following link, I examine
Miller's claim that the signals he detected showed constant phase
when plotted against sidereal time, thus proving a celestial
origin for the signals. The plots at first look rather convincing,
until you realize that Miller's bold lines force your eye to look
at his fanciful interpretation of the data, rather than the data
itself. ERASE MILLER'S FANCIFUL FITS, AND THE CLAIMED CONSTANT
PHASE VANISHES.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/Miller/EraseMillerLines.htm
Jerry
[/quote]
When did facts enter into Cahill's "theories"?
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:12:08 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
Surfer wrote:
The gas in a maser or laser is in a resonant cavity that exerts an
effect on wavelength.
If the length of the cavity changes slightly due to Lorentz
contraction, the way in which resonance is maintained will force the
wavelength to change accordingly.
As a result the (n^2 - 1) factor that applies to MM interferometers
won't necessarily apply to gas lasers or masers.
This is wrong on so many points. The MM interferometers work by
comparing the transit time of light beams in the two arms. That
transit time includes lots of factors including temperature, gas
density, and whatever other effects one wants to include.
The resonant frequency of a cavity is a measure of the transit time
of the radiation in the cavity. So comparing the frequencies of two
cavities or of a rotation of one cavity is measuring the time of
flight of the light under the same circumstances with the same
effects included.
[/quote]
Thanks, that is a good argument.
Surfer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 11:59 pm, Surfer <n... at (no spam) spam.net> wrote:
[quote]
The gas mode MM interferometer experiments all exhibit fringe shifts.
[/quote]
But the perspex ones, don't. How stupid are you, Peter?
You have been also told countless times by Tom Roberts and others that
the gas refractive index varies wildly with temperature and pressure.
You have also been told countless times that Cahil's "formula" is a
hoax, that he doesn't know simple speed composition for moving media.
[quote]To show anything conclusive, they would need to be analysed using
Cahills method,
[/quote]
Cahill's "method" is just basic ignorance when it comes to calculating
the speed of light im moving media, Peter.
[quote]taking into account such things as the Hicks effect,
relativistic effects, refractive index and the estimated component of
absolute motion in the plane of the interferomenter, when the
measurements were made.
[/quote]
All the above (minus the "Hicks effect" which is another hoax) are
accounted for in the experiments using perspex.
Give it a rest, Peter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:57 am
|
|