Test to measure for moving space-time across the earth

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by trevor borocz johnson, Sep 26, 2017.

  1. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Femto photography allows for a trillion frames per second and can capture light as it moves across the room. http://www.highpants.net/femto-photography-capturing-individual-photons-in-motion/

    My experiment to detect for the aether would involve taking a picture with a femto camera of a split light beam along a 180 degree axis, and measuring with a ruler in the picture if the light travels outward faster in one direction then the other. One would only expect the light to travel slower or faster by a a fraction of a percent because the movement of the earth through the universe is a tiny fraction of the speed of light.

    In the Michelson and Moorley experiment that originally measured for the aether moving across earth, the light bouncing back on the same path it was sent out on would cancel any momentum gained or lost from traveling with or against space-time on its initial path, and cause all light beams to return at the same time. That's why it didn't work.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    Where does the energy for the photons to gain or lose momentum come from?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Perhaps ZPE.(zero point energy). ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    Can you elaborate on the mechanism through which this would be happening?
     
  8. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206

    No I can't .
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    This is wrong. The time gained from travelling with the flow of aether would be less than the time lost travelling against the flow. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

    Michelson and Morley were not such fools as to set up an experiment incapable of distinguishing, and nor was the rest of the world, who accepted the results of their determination.
     
  10. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
  11. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    Well, that went nowhere fast. I do appreciate your honesty though.
     
  12. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
    Good
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,206
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,631
    Why do you need to limit it to a room?
    Why not send a beam across 50 miles, measure its delay, then send a beam in the other direction and measure that?
    That way, any potential difference will be a thousand times more detectable than over a mere dozen feet.
     
  15. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello exchemist. long time no see.

    How are you going to gain or lose momentum when the distance travelled in both directions is the same and the movement of the aether is constant? Evidentaly the M-M experiment did show some movement of the aether just not what they expected. There experiment was predicting the earth's movement around the sun which is much slower then the suns movement around the galaxy and then even slower then the galaxy's movement through the universe!
     
  16. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    Are you using the data from the actual M-M experiment? If so, please look up more modern executions of the experiment of it: they have much better accuracy.
     
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    I'm saying it doesn't work the way they predicted. If they're still doing the same experiment then it still isn't going to work. What's wrong with the experiment I detailed in the OP?
     
  18. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    249
    You are aware that the experiment has been repeated many times, with much higher accuracy? While it is true the original M-M experiment didn't fully yield the expected result, its repeats have done so.

    Please stop using old, obsolete data.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,296
    If you have a water wave travelling in still water, at speed w, and reflecting off a wall a distance d away, the time taken for it to get out and back , T = 2d/w.

    If there is a current of speed c towards the wall, the speed of a wave travelling with the current will be w+c and that when it is going against the current will be w-c.

    If it travels the same distance d, hits the reflecting wall and comes back, the time it takes to get to the wall is d/(w+c). The time for the return journey is d/(w-c). So the total time T for out and back is now d/(w+c) + d/(w-c) = 2dw/(w² - c²). You can see that when c=0, i.e. still water, this becomes 2d/w, as it should. BUT, as c increases, the denominator gets smaller, so T gets larger. Indeed when c=w, the denominator vanishes and the time becomes infinite. This makes sense when you think about it because the time taken to get back increases faster than the outward time and when c=w the wave can't get back at all

    The above is the principle Michelson and Morley would have used.

    Asking about momentum is a distraction. A wave does not have a mean momentum. It is a travelling disturbance, not a material object. What is the mass of a wave, after all? It does not make sense.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    There is nothing wrong with the experiment, to me the expectation/assumption that the ether is in matter form, creates problem. If we hypothesize that the space/ether is something but that something is neither matter nor energy but some other state then the Physics changes drastically.
     
  21. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Yes. The ether is not made of energy or matter, it's made of magic.
     
  22. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    Einstein ruled out a particulate luminiferous aether.

    However, in A Different Universe, Robert Laughlin writes:

    "The similarities between the vacuum of space and low-temperature phases of matter are legendary in physics."
     
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,366
    Pl do not soil the thread.
    Fyi even in prevalent theory, we talk of expansion of space/spacetime. We even associate this expansion (accelerated aspect) with Dark Energy, but we do not know if whatever is increasingly expanding with the influence of DE is matter or energy (or your magic).
     

Share This Page