Michelson 1879 Light Speed Test

In the thread :
A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory

1) it was explained that two photons will reach the L and R mirror with a time difference if the sorce of light is positioned on a inertial frame of reference moving with velocity V

2) the two photons will arrive at the central point simultaneously

3) because of the time difference the speed of light can be measured wrongly in a moving frame

I searched in the net and I found the

Michelson 1879 Light Speed Test:

Michelson test data
http://www.cvgs.k12.va.us/DIGSTATS/main/inferant/a_lightnew.htm

A picture of Michelson apparatus
http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/light/speed.html

Doesn't it follows from the independency of photons and light source movement that in an non-inertial frame of reference the speed of light should oscillate around its true value ? Sometimes it will be bigger, otherwise smallest then c.

The Michelson light speed test data are presented in the first link. From it one can see that there is a systematics errors in the measured c, they may be explained with the effects of time shifts for the left and right photons. These systematic errors may suggest that the Earth movement had affected Michelson light speed experiment.

How do you think? What is the reason for the systematic errors?

Michelson 1879 Light Speed Test

In the thread :
A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory

1) it was explained that two photons will reach the L and R mirror with a time difference if the sorce of light is positioned on a inertial frame of reference moving with velocity V

2) the two photons will arrive at the central point simultaneously

3) because of the time difference the speed of light can be measured wrongly in a moving frame

I searched in the net and I found the

Michelson 1879 Light Speed Test:

Michelson test data
http://www.cvgs.k12.va.us/DIGSTATS/main/inferant/a_lightnew.htm

A picture of Michelson apparatus
http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/light/speed.html

Doesn't it follows from the independency of photons and light source movement that in an non-inertial frame of reference the speed of light should oscillate around its true value ? Sometimes it will be bigger, otherwise smallest then c.

The Michelson light speed test data are presented in the first link. From it one can see that there is a systematics errors in the measured c, they may be explained with the effects of time shifts for the left and right photons. These systematic errors may suggest that the Earth movement had affected Michelson light speed experiment.

How do you think? What is the reason for the systematic errors?
Xgen,

Dayton Miller's vol 5 1935 The Journal of Modern v PHysics is must read. Miller sis some 300,000 MM experiments over a couple of decades and came tot he same experimental result that MM arrived at. Miller's analysis showed diurnal repetition of some10 km/sec. Miller also found the net velocity vector of the earth pointing due south (effectively). Miller couldn't determine whee the 10 km/sec came from, but he did use the phase 'ether resistance' or drift.
This will head you to Miller's paper which I got over the net. (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

Among other things the sun is moving at 218 km/sec in the direction of the solar system vector plane. So the earth and planets are realy in a helical configuration of motion.
If the earth were 1 cm radius the sun would be 109 cm diameter locate at 277 meters from earth. Mercury 87 meters orbuital radius, and Pluto(?) 9,5 km . The surface of the earth is moving at .49 km/sec at the equater, while thw earth velocity in earth-sun orbit is 30 km/sec. and the sun linear motion 218 km/sec. Therefore the helix spring is expanded at about 9/1 radius of earth sun orbit vs the sun distance traveled in 1 year.

The earth spin velocy vector gets swamped out by the other motions. Calulate the ratio of motio regarding rotational motion vs linear sun motion in terms of distance traveled.

Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel

GR frame dragging is a Relativists way of accomadating the ether drag view of the MM experiment without admitting to an ether. :D

Geistkiesel,

thanks for the link!

I will check it. I need some time.

These Miller experiments looks very serious. What is the current science attitude to it? Why this experiments are not popular?

I would like to check the velocities that you had given . Can Earth be considered as non-accelerating (inertial) system?

How did you get that sun linear motion is 218 km/sec ?

This from a Google search for Background Radiation. Essentially, the CMB occupies an inertial frame that is the same throughout the universe. The earth is moving through this at a very fast clip toward the constellation Leo.

Vern

Edit: Correction again from Google search:
The measured anisotropy in the microwave background radiation indicates a speed of about 600 km/sec/megaparsec for the Milky Way galaxy through the cosmic microwave background radiation toward the Virgo cluster.

The galaxy is traveling at 600 km/sec/megaparsec toward the Virgo cluster through the background ocean of matter.



Google search paste follows.

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

The point of the above is to suggest that there is a special inertial frame, that of the CMB, that is at rest in space.

About the Miller paper; it seems to be questioning the validity of the phenomenon of relativity itself, not just Einstin's theory. IMHO, the phenomenon of relativity is real and has been adequately proven; Einstein's theory is fundamentally wrong, but it works.

Found this:

In 1887, Dr. Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Williams Morley performed their renowned experiment to confirm the existence of the luminiferous ether by measuring the "ether drift". If the speed of light through the ether was constant, there should be a difference between the speed of light reaching the surface of the Earth at 6 A.M. and at 6 P.M. due to the Earth's orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second around the Sun. The difference was anticipated to be 60 kilometers per second, twice Earth's orbital velocity.

As nearly any physical scientist will tell you, this Michelson-Morley experiment formed the basis for Einstein to formulate his theories of relativity because the experiment showed NO difference in light speed with respect to the Earth's orbital velocity and, hence, NO ether.

This is an untruth. It is not correct. But one must dig pretty deep to discover the facts.

Albert Einstein himself publicly stated that the Michelson-Morley experiment "had no role in the foundation of the theory". However, the dogma of modern physics would have the public believe otherwise, in spite of Einstein's own disclaimer!

It is true that Michelson and Morley did not find the expected 60 kilometers differential that would have confirmed the ether drift. But they did find a difference of about 8 kilometers per second!

This is not highly-selected and isolated data. D.C. Miller and his colleagues repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment with more precise instruments more than 25.000 times between 1902 and 1926. They came up with the same result. Miller, who was president of the prestigious American Physical Society in 1926, announced the results to the Society in his presidential address of 29 December 1925.

You would think that this announcement from a scientist of obvious integrity and high reputation would have aroused considerable interest among physicists. You would think that they have, at the very least, held both theories of relativity in question until Miller's confirmation of the results of Michelson and Morley could have been accounted for by modification to Einstein's theories.

But scientists, then as now, have completely closed their minds to anything that even suggests a threat to their rationality derived from Einstein's concept of the Universe. According to M. Polyani in 1958, "Little attention was paid to the experiments, the evidence being set aside in the hope that it would one day turn out to be wrong.

Well, it's still there, even if buried and neglected.

(From: Einstein was not totally wrong, an article by G. Harry Stine in Destinies, Feb-Mar 1980)

mercurio,
I totally understand your main idea and concerns, I like them and I respect them... But the way in which you came to conclusions you made is ... wrong.
1. If you read Einstein's first and following articles on SRT, you will recognize that MM experiment indeed is not in foundation of his theory. This experiment inspired A.E. to finish his work on SRT, but was not a cause of this work. No matter would this experiment be done or would not, A.E. would, could and should finish his job and publish his discoveries. Because the main idea - the Principle of Absoluteness of speed of light - was supported by all problems that were accumulated in Physics of that times...
2. All what MM experiment has proved only and only the one fact of Nature: in conditions of that experiment the any differences in the interferogramm do not appear. What it means, how it is connected with any other features of Nature, which theory it proves or disproves, etc, etc - all such things is matter of INTERPRITATION.
3. MM experiment was conducted dozen times by absolutely independent researchers and for different kind of techniques and precision and always was confirming the MM conclusion.
4. Miller did a grate job and all his doubts (concerning to some regular small residual data) were analyzed and explained very scrupulously by many scientists. Contemporary conduction of MM experiment totally confirm these analysis.
From scientific point of view the case is closed... until some new data will not appear...

mercurio,
I totally understand your main idea and concerns, I like them and I respect them... But the way in which you came to conclusions you made is ... wrong.


You'll have to take it up with Harry Stine, when you see him. He died a couple of years ago. I did not add a word....


:D

mercurio,
next time when you will steal thoughts of other human being (especially a dead one), please, read Webster for word "quotation" (you can skip seeing the word "immoral" at that...)

"Steal"? "Immoral"?

Get a pair of glasses and learn to READ , and while you're at it, a spell-checker and learn to WRITE, Yuriy.

I just thought I'd let you know since there was nothing in your previous posting to sink any teeth in, for lack of substance.

mercurio,
1. For grammar notice - thanks.
2. For rest - stays as I said. Sorry, if you do not like it; I do...

This thread is not about the MM experiment but about 1879 the Michelson Light Speed Experiment. As you can see from the picture on the link:

http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/light/speed.html

Michelson had used bi-directional beam, the beam is emitted from a light source, it reaches a mirror 25km away, it is reflected back and it is reflected second time from rotating hexagonal mirror. The Michelson had adjusted the disc rotation velocity until the beam is reflected as is shown in the picture.

Since this apparatus uses bi-directional light all inertial Earth velocities will fall out. There would remain only the very fast variations in the Earth velocity which is the Earth rotation around its axis.

Even so Michelson had found systematic deviations. In 1879 he may had found what he had failed in 1889 - the light affection from Earth velocity (acceleration).

If the Michelson apparatus is made to use uni-directional light movement only, for example if the light source is placed at the 2nd mirror, and the disc is rotated twice as fast, the linear velocity of Earth should had a biggest infuence and there should be detected periodic variations of the measured speed of light as Earth is rotating around Sun.

About MM:
It can be argued if interference can be used for this goal. Because in MM had been used beams of light, but not impulses or single photons, the interference had been influenced from photons with different time shifts. This will blur the whole effect. Besides interference is a totally wave phenomenon. It governs only the statistical distribution, it can not be said directly what would be the effect of Earth move to the interference. It can not be said directli how interference is influenced from relativity and the complex space-time distribution of the photons phases.

Why physics society is neglecting such obvious arguments? Why they do not repeat the Michelson (not MM) experiment but with uni-directioonal light?
If they dig out Michelson apparatus from the museum it would be quite cheap. :o

Geistkiesel,

thanks for the link!

I will check it. I need some time.

These Miller experiments looks very serious. What is the current science attitude to it? Why this experiments are not popular?
Miler found an "ether drag", his claim. Also, Miller's work was consistent with the MM results (not "null" by the way.). Ether drag means absolue velocity and this means srt goes away.

I would like to check the velocities that you had given . Can Earth be considered as non-accelerating (inertial) system?
I think the earth is a prefered frame notwithstanding the earth motion is not exactly "uniform". I claim the turning motion is so slow as to be insignificant except in the most rigorously demanding experiments: the earth rotational rate is approximately 10^-8 degrees/sec

Check this post

How did you get that sun linear motion is 218 km/sec ?
Miller arrived at the number through measurement. Read his paper.

Geistkiesel

Why physics society is neglecting such obvious arguments? Why they do not repeat the Michelson (not MM) experiment but with uni-directioonal light?
All these happened only in ... your head. Real 'physics society' did it many times and has measured c with a fantastic accuracy. Make research of Internet and you'll find a lot of descriptions of many of independent experiments performed with many different methods... Do a real work instead of bla-bla-bla...

Found this:

In 1887, Dr. Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Williams Morley performed their renowned experiment to confirm the existence of the luminiferous ether by measuring the "ether drift". If the speed of light through the ether was constant, there should be a difference between the speed of light reaching the surface of the Earth at 6 A.M. and at 6 P.M. due to the Earth's orbital velocity of 30 kilometers per second around the Sun. The difference was anticipated to be 60 kilometers per second, twice Earth's orbital velocity.

As nearly any physical scientist will tell you, this Michelson-Morley experiment formed the basis for Einstein to formulate his theories of relativity because the experiment showed NO difference in light speed with respect to the Earth's orbital velocity and, hence, NO ether.

This is an untruth. It is not correct. But one must dig pretty deep to discover the facts.

Albert Einstein himself publicly stated that the Michelson-Morley experiment "had no role in the foundation of the theory". However, the dogma of modern physics would have the public believe otherwise, in spite of Einstein's own disclaimer!

It is true that Michelson and Morley did not find the expected 60 kilometers differential that would have confirmed the ether drift. But they did find a difference of about 8 kilometers per second!

This is not highly-selected and isolated data. D.C. Miller and his colleagues repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment with more precise instruments more than 25.000 times between 1902 and 1926. They came up with the same result. Miller, who was president of the prestigious American Physical Society in 1926, announced the results to the Society in his presidential address of 29 December 1925.

You would think that this announcement from a scientist of obvious integrity and high reputation would have aroused considerable interest among physicists. You would think that they have, at the very least, held both theories of relativity in question until Miller's confirmation of the results of Michelson and Morley could have been accounted for by modification to Einstein's theories.

But scientists, then as now, have completely closed their minds to anything that even suggests a threat to their rationality derived from Einstein's concept of the Universe. According to M. Polyani in 1958, "Little attention was paid to the experiments, the evidence being set aside in the hope that it would one day turn out to be wrong.

Well, it's still there, even if buried and neglected.

(From: Einstein was not totally wrong, an article by G. Harry Stine in Destinies, Feb-Mar 1980)
Goog post Mercurio. I totally agree. Miller's ether drift could not go unchallenged by the srt industry.

Geistkiesel

Yuriy,

you didn't get it? I am not arguing about the velocity of c. Accualy if analogical to Michelson device is made but with uni-directional beams the speed of light would be determined worse then the original Michelson apparatus. I am not interested from the average speed of light, which is know with a very big precision, I am interested from periodical variations over time measured with non-perfect light speed apparatus.

Make research of Internet and you'll find a lot of descriptions of many of independent experiments performed with many different methods...

Oh.. again..., I am not interested from measuring of the methods for measuring of speed of light, I am not arguing about the precision of the measurement, I am interested exacly from the method which Michelson had used and the light speed measurement variations over time. That is all!

Do a real work instead of bla-bla-bla...

I prefer to use my brain instead to collect big amounts of (unrelevant) information, Do you know url for the exactly same experiment I am proposing - unidirectional light study over a big periuod of time ?

In that case - go ahead! You can find a lot more experiments where you will have a lot of possibilities to make them ... much more inaccurate than they were...

mercurio,
I totally understand your main idea and concerns, I like them and I respect them... But the way in which you came to conclusions you made is ... wrong.
1. If you read Einstein's first and following articles on SRT, you will recognize that MM experiment indeed is not in foundation of his theory. This experiment inspired A.E. to finish his work on SRT, but was not a cause of this work. No matter would this experiment be done or would not, A.E. would, could and should finish his job and publish his discoveries. Because the main idea - the Principle of Absoluteness of speed of light - was supported by all problems that were accumulated in Physics of that times...
What it means, how it is connected with any other features of Nature, which theory it proves or disproves, etc, etc - all such things is matter of INTERPRITATION.
3. MM experiment was conducted dozen times by absolutely independent researchers and for different kind of techniques and precision and always was confirming the MM conclusion.

4. Miller did a grate job and all his doubts (concerning to some regular small residual data) were analyzed and explained very scrupulously by many scientists. Contemporary conduction of MM experiment totally confirm these analysis.
From scientific point of view the case is closed... until some new data will not appear...

Yuriy,
I appreciate your post. I t appears written with a serious description of your understanding of the MM results.However, the quote next parsed from your post is an erroneous statement of fact. MM never claimed "zero interferometer wave shift". MM claimed the results were less than expected, but in no case greater than 1/4 the expected". I am quoting from memory, but iappears to me that the result quoted by yourself was not generated by MM. It was generated by others, for whatever purpose or whatever the mistake, MM's results were a measured ~10 km/sec "ether drag", which was confirmed by Miller.

Yuriy said,

" 2. All what MM experiment has proved only and only the one fact of Nature: in conditions of that experiment the any differences in the interferogramm do not appear."

Further, Yuriy, your staement below also taken from your post, is erroneous. There was a paper that trashed Miller, to be sure, but read that paper (referenced below), then read Miller's paper then read this (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm).

Yuriy you said

"4. Miller did a grate job and all his doubts (concerning to some regular small residual data) were analyzed and explained very scrupulously by many scientists. Contemporary conduction of MM experiment totally confirm these analysis.
From scientific point of view the case is closed... until some new data will not appear..."

Yuriy, I suggest the following: Do not use your perception of the scruples of a reviewer of a submitted scientific paper as useful scientific information establishing the truth or falsity of a physical fact. The value of the paper is limited to the contents wiithin the four corners of the document. After a review the read then can make up her or his mind based on the published record. Peer review, for instance, does not guarantee the truth or falsity of phyisical claims made in peer reviewed articles. The peer review is just what it says. Papers are reviewed by independent scientists familiar, or expert in the topic presented for publication. Often, reviewers suggest changes, ask basic questons regarding theeory etc. Often the paper is not accepted by the peer reviewers and the paper is not published. The author may appeal, may edit and/or revise her paper, seek alternate publisher, buy a pretty gold necklace, whatever.

In all cases of published material, he value of the paper, is determined within the four corners of the paper, including references of other materials. Yuriy, you are not privy to these peer reviews other than your own as an author, or reviewer. You do not have factual data that substantiates your claim of "scrupulously:" reviewing.

Finally,
Yuriy, A great peson is not a grate person, because 'grate' is equivalent to a file, a rasp, fingernails across the blackboard instead of chalk.

Final question Yuriy: Would you, Yuriy, prefer being a great peson, or do you prefer being a grate person?

Geistkiesel

The point of the above is to suggest that there is a special inertial frame, that of the CMB, that is at rest in space.

About the Miller paper; it seems to be questioning the validity of the phenomenon of relativity itself, not just Einstin's theory. IMHO, the phenomenon of relativity is real and has been adequately proven; Einstein's theory is fundamentally wrong, but it works.
Vern and Mercurio,

I am not familiar with your names, but it appears that you both are on to something that is about to dovetail.



Dayton Miller found a different result using an improved MM interferometer, and a 10km/sec "absolute velocity", his words, with diurnal repetition. The direction is approximately due south
wrt the earth spin axis (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm).
In MacM's post lateral motion of photons was found to be nonexistant. Ergo, the light reflecting orthogonally to the motion of an inertial frame's direction of motion will not be carried along by the motion of the frame. The light beam lateral motion is invariantly zero and an effective "absolute velocity = 0 coordinate", which assumes the validity of Skyler's claims of course and/or effectively equivalent claims from any other sources.

With all this in mind the "carried along" scenario was intrinsically wedded to the MM results, The reflected down beam, not carried along, would reflect back up the 'down trajectory' and reenter the same half-silvered deflection mirror and move parallel with the 'up' reflected beam that was moving parallel to the motion of the frame. The delta x between the two dots on the scintillating screen will be a measure of the earth's absolute velocity.

Geistkiesel

geistkiesel,
You and I have a opposite understanding of Science, its methods, rules and language.
When you read scientists said: " there was no effect" you get that there was no effect, and I get that there was found no effect ... into the frames of the experimental errors (usually within three standard deviations).
When you read some critics of some work you get this critics as ... verdict. I take it as one of analysis in the row of many others. I see all strong and weak points of this opinion. The last point in the formation of my own opinion will be ... my own professional analysis of all opinions and facts I found out. You are incapable to do that. In some other area of expertise we might change such disposition: I will be incapable and you will be an expert…

And that situation is very usual and understandable...
What is really strange and not acceptable is that you pretend to be an expert, when you are not. There are a lot of people in our forum that are not experts in Physics. And that is wonderful. But a few of them pretend to be an expert. You are. They are exercising their ability to think, analyze and come to logical conclusion. You do not – you do not want even listen the logical and factual arguments. That is a huge difference. You prefer blame everything on … me, like I am a cause of your … deficiencies… No, I am not. Here I play a role of messenger and teacher who brings up the scientific way of thinking, nothing more. And you are trying to blame messenger and teacher for your own deficiencies… So, what I can do with this? Nobody, except you can help you…

geistkiesel ,

comment to Millers experiments article:

Einstein:
"I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted. You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause [having] nothing to do with 'ether wind', but with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produce the bands of interference."

could this be a serious argument? "with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles" - Did he means that air temperature is changing duiring the path of the light or that at different times of the year temperature is changing and that explains periodic errors?

Both seems to me very elementary, this could be checked very easily by heating and cooling the air in the room. I cant believe Miller to be so elementary not to check it.

Also, there is a picture which shows very clearly that there is a periodic pattern of the data. It could be coming from Earth move. If Miller was able to explain this better surely his work should be taken more seriosly.

From the times of Miller experiments up to now Einstein's theory for relativity has a monopoly over explaining this phenomenon. Thus they had just ignoring everything that is againt. They just prefer the 'Bigger theoty' over some insignificant discrepancies and experiments. Just like mafia bosses eliminates competition. And a big Lie had been born...

Yuriy,

You and I have a opposite understanding of Science, its methods, rules and language.


What is really strange and not acceptable is that you pretend to be an expert, when you are not.


I am not. Here I play a role of messenger and teacher who brings up the scientific way of thinking, nothing more.

Let me conclude: Everyone that agrees with Yuriu is expert, everyone that don't is some lost soul to be enlighten. Yutiy you are one step to proclaim yourself beeing ... the God.

further comments to the article about Miller experiments:

Author conclusions:

My review of this important but sad chapter in the history of science left me both astonished and frustrated. Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science.
i

this can drive one mad, if someone had found positive result he is marked as heretic and his work is dismissed, if someone had found Null result he is maded a hero, why thet just dont repeat the experiments and commision from scientists to coclude is there a ether-drift phenomenon?

The author had listed several more recent ether-drift experiments:

1. In the late 1990s, a series of static interferometer tests were undertaken by Hector Munera at the Centro Internacional de F’sica, in Bogota, Colombia, and published in 1998 in Aperion (cited below). Contact email: hmunera@latino.net.co

2. Maurice Allais has published a series of papers in Comptes Rendus and Pulse of the Planet in 1998-2002, which are either extracts from, or expand upon the materials contained in his 1997 book (cited below).

3. In the late 1990s, a series of radio-wave interferometric experiments were undertaken by Yuri Galaev, senior scientist at the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and published in 2000-2003 in Russian, Ukranian and English language journals (cited below). Contact email: galaev@ire.kharkov.ua

4. I have recently expanded upon the relationship between Miller's measured ether-drift to Wilhelm Reich's experimentally-detected cosmic "life energy". See: James DeMeo: "Reconciling Miller's Ether-Drift With Reich's Dynamic Orgone", Pulse of the Planet, 5:137-146, 2002. Posted to:



but they all seems from a much lower scale then Miller experiments. Where are these 'many ither experiments that show nulll result'?

further comments to the article about Miller experiments:

Author conclusions:


this can drive one mad, if someone had found positive result he is marked as heretic and his work is dismissed, if someone had found Null result he is maded a hero, why thet just dont repeat the experiments and commision from scientists to coclude is there a ether-drift phenomenon?

The author had listed several more recent ether-drift experiments:


but they all seems from a much lower scale then Miller experiments. Where are these 'many ither experiments that show nulll result'?

Just so we remain clear. MM and Miller did not show "null" results. This was a term applied by others in the literature. Both researchers found approximately 10km/sec ether drift. MM claimed that the results was less than 1/4 the expected wave shift, which was very definitely not zero, Yuriy has criticized me for bad mouthing the SR theorists who still use the lie of "null" result, which means he hasn't read Miller or MM and is just plain lazy or he is distinteested. His attitude is a clone of the general population of the SRT Industry.

Geistkiesel

Read Dayton Miller Key of googlle "Dayton Miller Michelson "

geistkiesel,
You and I have a opposite understanding of Science, its methods, rules and language.
When you read scientists said: " there was no effect" you get that there was no effect, and I get that there was found no effect ... into the frames of the experimental errors (usually within three standard deviations).
When you read some critics of some work you get this critics as ... verdict. I take it as one of analysis in the row of many others. I see all strong and weak points of this opinion. The last point in the formation of my own opinion will be ... my own professional analysis of all opinions and facts I found out. You are incapable to do that. In some other area of expertise we might change such disposition: I will be incapable and you will be en expert…

And that situation is very usual and understandable...
What is really strange and not acceptable is that you pretend to be an expert, when you are not. There are a lot of people in our forum that are not experts in Physics. And that is wonderful. But a few of them pretend to be an expert. You are. They are exercising their ability to think, analyze and come to logical conclusion. You do not – you do not want even listen the logical and factual arguments. That is a huge difference. You prefer blame everything on … me, like I am a cause of your … deficiencies… No, I am not. Here I play a role of messenger and teacher who brings up the scientific way of thinking, nothing more. And you are trying to blame messenger and teacher for your own deficiencies… So, what I can do with this? Nobody, except you can help you…
Yuriy, if you have some science to discuss rather thanpersonalities, style, expertise, whatever I will respond in kind. This post of yours is a scientific "null event".

Geistkiesel

Yuriy,







Let me conclude: Everyone that agrees with Yuriu is expert, everyone that don't is some lost soul to be enlighten. Yutiy you are one step to proclaim yourself beeing ... the God.
Right on Xgen, at least I can claim some elevated professional status with respect to Yuriy here, you see Xgen, God was a student of mine. Go Figure.

Geistkiesel

geistkiesel,
You and I have a opposite understanding of Science, its methods, rules and language.
When you read scientists said: " there was no effect" you get that there was no effect, and I get that there was found no effect ... into the frames of the experimental errors (usually within three standard deviations).
When you read some critics of some work you get this critics as ... verdict. I take it as one of analysis in the row of many others. I see all strong and weak points of this opinion. The last point in the formation of my own opinion will be ... my own professional analysis of all opinions and facts I found out. You are incapable to do that. In some other area of expertise we might change such disposition: I will be incapable and you will be en expert…

And that situation is very usual and understandable...
What is really strange and not acceptable is that you pretend to be an expert, when you are not. There are a lot of people in our forum that are not experts in Physics. And that is wonderful. But a few of them pretend to be an expert. You are. They are exercising their ability to think, analyze and come to logical conclusion. You do not – you do not want even listen the logical and factual arguments. That is a huge difference. You prefer blame everything on … me, like I am a cause of your … deficiencies… No, I am not. Here I play a role of messenger and teacher who brings up the scientific way of thinking, nothing more. And you are trying to blame messenger and teacher for your own deficiencies… So, what I can do with this? Nobody, except you can help you…

Yuriy, If an infinite number of monkeys had word processors and could perform the minimal task of striking keyboard keys, one of the monkeys would type the ENcyclopedia Britanica, Woudl this make the Encylopedia any less valuable if the copy were exact? The proof Yuriy is in the pudding, the four corner's of the document. Show me a post where I claimed expertise in anything associated with this forum. Yuriy, with me what you see is what you get,

BTW, I get all my post material from Monkeys.comma
Geistkiesel

what will happen to do the Michelson Expeiment in a space planet orbit around the sun ?

Geistkiesel,

Just so we remain clear. MM and Miller did not show "null" results. This was a term applied by others in the literature. Both researchers found approximately 10km/sec ether drift. MM claimed that the results was less than 1/4 the expected wave shift, which was very definitely not zero, Yuriy has criticized me for bad mouthing the SR theorists who still use the lie of "null" result, which means he hasn't read Miller or MM and is just plain lazy or he is distinteested. His attitude is a clone of the general population of the SRT Industry.


Yes sorry, I didn't uderstand correctly the ether-drift effect, am I correct - ether-drift is displacement of the interferometer which corresponds to different velocities of light in the two axis. It had been found by MM and Miller to be around 10km/ sec, which Einstein had proclaimed as null result.

But Miller had found also that there is periodic variations of the drift? That is what is more interesting, because the only periodic movement of Earth for such short period are its rotations around the Sun and its own axis. So the periods should be in some way correlated to Earth rotation around Sun. I dont see why they are not exacly matching one year.

Anyway the Einstein's critics that this should be caused by temperature effects is really very simple (I dont want to use a offensive word ). Miller had maded many heat influence checks. Anyway I agree that the device Miller had made is quite complex and a complexer is a thing a bigger probability for errors it has. But since there was already doubt that there is a drift why they had not searched for it with a simple method - the uni-directional analog of Michelson light-speed apparatus, with the only goal to measure the periodic changes of the light speed in one or more directions. They should be matching one year if it is very precise.

Yuriu says that there is many experiments that shows that there is no ether-drift, but searching in the net I am founding only the contrary - there is many doubts that there is a drift - CBR and etc. I dont know still if I am right but the 'ether' may be what I am understanding as 'absolute space' , and what Yuriy had understanding as "fluid vacuum" in his awfull book, so we all may agree that there is a invariant to any movements coordinate system - the space-time continuum itself!

what will happen to do the Michelson Expeiment in a space planet orbit around the sun ?
This is how the MM experiment was conducted unless I misread your post.
Geistkiesel

Geistkiesel,


Yes sorry, I didn't uderstand correctly the ether-drift effect, am I correct - ether-drift is displacement of the interferometer which corresponds to different velocities of light in the two axis. It had been found by MM and Miller to be around 10km/ sec, which Einstein had proclaimed as null result.

But Miller had found also that there is periodic variations of the drift? That is what is more interesting, because the only periodic movement of Earth for such short period are its rotations around the Sun and its own axis. So the periods should be in some way correlated to Earth rotation around Sun. I dont see why they are not exacly matching one year.

Anyway the Einstein's critics that this should be caused by temperature effects is really very simple (I dont want to use a offensive word ). Miller had maded many heat influence checks. Anyway I agree that the device Miller had made is quite complex and a complexer is a thing a bigger probability for errors it has. But since there was already doubt that there is a drift why they had not searched for it with a simple method - the uni-directional analog of Michelson light-speed apparatus, with the only goal to measure the periodic changes of the light speed in one or more directions. They should be matching one year if it is very precise.

Yuriu says that there is many experiments that shows that there is no ether-drift, but searching in the net I am founding only the contrary - there is many doubts that there is a drift - CBR and etc. I dont know still if I am right but the 'ether' may be what I am understanding as 'absolute space' , and what Yuriy had understanding as "fluid vacuum" in his awfull book, so we all may agree that there is a invariant to any movements coordinate system - the space-time continuum itself!
Miller claimed that the maximum effect was yearly. I forget the exact time of the year.
Geistkiesel

Miller claimed that the maximum effect was yearly. I forget the exact time of the year.

If it is true (I am trying to track it in the article about Miller) then he really had discovered the 'ether' or absolute space. The too low ether drift - 10km/sec can be explained with the non-perfection of the interferometer and that 'intereference' is a wave and statistical phenomenon which blurs the effect under study..

Anyway, thank you for your professional posts. I only didn't get it - Yuriy had been your student? Wow, was he just as much egocentric? I am glad that you are at this forum, we may learn a lot from you.

If it is true (I am trying to track it in the article about Miller) then he really had discovered the 'ether' or absolute space. The too low ether drift - 10km/sec can be explained with the non-perfection of the interferometer and that 'intereference' is a wave and statistical phenomenon which blurs the effect under study..

Anyway, thank you for your professional posts. I only didn't get it - Yuriy had been your student? Wow, was he just as much egocentric? I am glad that you are at this forum, we may learn a lot from you.

As a side note one MUST keep in mind that the claim of "null" of the M&M tests are false. The tests simply did not support a "Static" ether view. It and thousands of simular experiments done over decades using different hardware, different locations and times of the year have ALL given general results supporting a cyclic 8 - 10 m/s result which corresponded to the time of day on a 24 hour period as the earth rotates which alters the tests velocity with regard to the orbit in terms of (c+v) and (c-v).

It is those facts that prompted the ether drag view. There may or may not be some form of ether or ether drag. These tests do not prove that concept, they suggest it.

The gross error is those that choose to misrepresent the issue by claiming "null" results and refusing to study the actual results to find the correct view because they favor SRT.

MacM,


It and thousands of simular experiments done over decades using different hardware, different locations and times of the year have ALL given general results supporting a cyclic 8 - 10 m/s result which corresponded to the time of day on a 24 hour period as the earth rotates which alters the tests velocity with regard to the orbit in terms of (c+v) and (c-v).


can you just be more specific. Can you give references for these experiments? Or you are just dropping bombs? I think that we should discuss this experiments detaily.The Earth spinning would be very tough for detecting.

MacM,



can you just be more specific. Can you give references for these experiments? Or you are just dropping bombs? I think that we should discuss this experiments detaily.The Earth spinning would be very tough for detecting.

There are many more modern day experiments that have shown simular results but I will have to go find the links. The following show decades of work by several different scientist however that verified the M&M findings as positive, not "Null".

************************************************** **
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v), but these were not adequately constructed for detection of a larger cosmological ether-drift, of the Earth and Solar System moving through the background of space. Dayton Miller's work on ether-drift was so constructed, however, and yielded consistently positive results
************************************************** *****

Here is a rather recent set of tests 1999 - current. He is not a physicist and some of the other things he discusses have been challenged here and they have blown the entire paper off because of that. I personally think the test and its results are the issue and not his opinions of other historical things, etc.

He claims to have repeatedly measured the absolute motion of the earth. Particularily orbit velocity as a function of a 24 hour cycle of laser light motion at a target as the earth rotates along its orbit.!

geistkiesel,
You and I have a opposite understanding of Science, its methods, rules and language.
When you read scientists said: " there was no effect" you get that there was no effect, and I get that there was found no effect ... into the frames of the experimental errors (usually within three standard deviations).
When you read some critics of some work you get this critics as ... verdict. I take it as one of analysis in the row of many others. I see all strong and weak points of this opinion. The last point in the formation of my own opinion will be ... my own professional analysis of all opinions and facts I found out. You are incapable to do that. In some other area of expertise we might change such disposition: I will be incapable and you will be an expert…

And that situation is very usual and understandable...
What is really strange and not acceptable is that you pretend to be an expert, when you are not. There are a lot of people in our forum that are not experts in Physics. And that is wonderful. But a few of them pretend to be an expert. You are. They are exercising their ability to think, analyze and come to logical conclusion. You do not – you do not want even listen the logical and factual arguments. That is a huge difference. You prefer blame everything on … me, like I am a cause of your … deficiencies… No, I am not. Here I play a role of messenger and teacher who brings up the scientific way of thinking, nothing more. And you are trying to blame messenger and teacher for your own deficiencies… So, what I can do with this? Nobody, except you can help you…
Yuriy,
Put your in an appropriate mental mirror and read it [to yourself wil be the result]. You see I wrote your post prior to you putting into the keyboard.
A very clever way of communicating isn't it? I forget the specific language class where I ....., oh well.
Geistkiesel

If it is true (I am trying to track it in the article about Miller) then he really had discovered the 'ether' or absolute space. The too low ether drift - 10km/sec can be explained with the non-perfection of the interferometer and that 'intereference' is a wave and statistical phenomenon which blurs the effect under study..

Anyway, thank you for your professional posts. I only didn't get it - Yuriy had been your student? Wow, was he just as much egocentric? I am glad that you are at this forum, we may learn a lot from you.
I used a pass/fail system, I'm easy. Sign and show up you pass.
G