wbbrdr wrote:
Experiments that attempt to detect light speed anisotropy in vacuum
don't work, because variation of light speed is exactly compensated
for by Lorentz contraction of the apparatus.

To detect light speed anisotropy the experiment has to include
something to disturb the balance. Eg in Miller's experiment, the
presence of air reduced the speed of light to c/n (n==refractive index
of air). That was sufficient to do it.

Hmmm. I suppose there might be theories that imply this, but none are
commonly known, and none are mainstream.

Moreover, your claim is just plain wrong -- in particular:
# Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489
(1974). A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an
upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth
of the Earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational
velocity.

Glass has a much larger index of refration than air, so your claim is
CLEARLY invalid.

The underlying reason is that the gas in Miller's interferometer is
sensitive to quite small changes in temperature, which most definitely
occurred in his measurements -- he merely constructed the world's most
unwieldy thermometer. He is not alone in that....


Tom Roberts

Surfer wrote:
Eg. Figure 4 in Miller's paper shows that the velocity he obtained in
1925 was consistent with the velocity of ether drift observed by
Michelson and Morley in 1887 and by Morley and Miller in 1902, 1904
and 1905.

NONE of those are useful. They all used the algorithm that averages
turns, and that essentially forces their noise to look just like they
expected a signal to look. For the ones that have data available, Miller
and Michelson & Morley, their statistical errors greatly exceed their
"signals" (the latter of course did not actually report any signal, I
mean the spurious "signal" others claim to find in their data).

They are ALL useless.

And this is completely independent of YOUR analysis of
Miller's data. They all used the algorithm they did, not
yours.


Tom Roberts

Dono. wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:50 pm, Surfer wrote:
To detect light speed anisotropy the experiment has to include
something to disturb the balance.

I remark that of the following 7 experiments, 6 have propagation in some
non-vacuum medium:
air Cialdea, Ragulsky
glass Krisher et al, Ragulsky
iron Champeny et al, Turner and Hill
waveguide Gagnon et al

BTW Ragulsky showed that it _IS_ possible to operate an interferometer
in air with stable results; temperature and mechanical stability are
ESSENTIAL.


Tom Roberts


* Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.

Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look
for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
* Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).

Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a
21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.
* Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak
and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys.
Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.

Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.
* Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.

Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.
* Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg
1767.

A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent
with SR.
* T.W. Cole, “Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether”,
Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P.

Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther
are described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s.
* 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. The interferometer is by design
particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature
controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.

doug wrote:
Surfer wrote:
[about Munera et al]
The paper reports that environmental effects were monitored and
subtracted.

They did not do so with sufficient accuracy. They only measured
temperature with a resolution of 0.2 C [#], and a difference that large
between their arms generates a fringe shift BIGGER than their "signal"
[@]. The temperature variance in their room was MUCH larger, and they
insulated the arms from the room and from each other, so such
temperature variations are virtually certain to occur.

[#] This comes from an earlier paper on the same experiment.

[@] This comes from a simple estimate based on the details
given in that previous paper.


Perhaps it could be done better, but I don't see evidence of huge
error bars.

That's because you simply do not understand error analysis.

Those of us who do understand error analysis know that NONE of the
experiments you cite have significant signals.


Tom Roberts

Surfer wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:51:20 -0800, doug wrote:


Miller's experiment is quite compatible with relativity. In spite
of your not liking it, there is no signal in it and the error
bars are too large to make any claim that it disagrees with zero.


Doug,

I don't dislike SR, but as time has passed I have become aware of
evidence against it.

What evidence?

Eg. as I pointed out earlier, I found that Miller's signals were
mainly contaminated by lower frequency noise that was easy to remove.

Miller's data has been superceded by newer experiments which move
the resolution limits down by perhaps eight orders of magnitude.
This means Miller is wrong no matter how much you try to ignore
reality.

That is shown by the DFTs on this page.
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Mil...lysis_of_Fig8/

After removing the noise, the signals have very small error bars.

That is just a fact.

Either Miller is correct and all careful modern experiments done
are wrong or Miller is wrong. You have a delusion but that is
what cranks do.


2) Recent experiments by Munera et alia. Eg:
Observation of a Non-conventional Influence of Earth's Motion on
the Velocity of Photons, and Calculation of the Velocity of Our
Galaxy
PIERS Proceedings, Beijing, China, March 23-27, 2009
http://piers.mit.edu/piersproceeding...kwNzIyNTYzOQ==


We have seen this before. No temperature control, no environmental
control and huge error bars.



The paper reports that environmental effects were monitored and
subtracted.

Sure they were. You just keep believing that.

Perhaps it could be done better, but I don't see evidence of huge
error bars.

Incompetence will do that.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:38:36 -0800, doug wrote:


Miller's data has been superceded by newer experiments which move
the resolution limits down by perhaps eight orders of magnitude.
This means Miller is wrong no matter how much you try to ignore
reality.

Hmm. You are attempting to use logic to deny facts of observation.

But the contradiction you perceive can easily be resolved, by noting
that in Miller's experiment the light was passing through a gas (ie
air), whereas in most modern experiments the light is passing through
vacuum or something other than gas.

This suggests that the gas in Miller's experiment made it sensitive to
absolute motion effects, while experiments that use vacuum or a
dielectric other than gas, are inherently insensitive.


That is shown by the DFTs on this page.
http://wbbrdr.diinoweb.com/files/Mil...lysis_of_Fig8/

After removing the noise, the signals have very small error bars.

That is just a fact.

Either Miller is correct and all careful modern experiments done
are wrong or Miller is wrong.

No. They can both be right for reasons given above.

On Jul 3, 6:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Dono. wrote:
On Jul 2, 11:50 pm, Surfer wrote:
To detect light speed anisotropy the experiment has to include
something to disturb the balance.

I remark that of the following 7 experiments, 6 have propagation in some
non-vacuum medium:
air Cialdea, Ragulsky
glass Krisher et al, Ragulsky
iron Champeny et al, Turner and Hill
waveguide Gagnon et al

BTW Ragulsky showed that it _IS_ possible to operate an interferometer
in air with stable results; temperature and mechanical stability are
ESSENTIAL.

Tom Roberts

* Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821.

Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look
for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
* Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731–734, (1990).

Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a
21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between
them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100
m/s.
* Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak
and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys.
Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255.

Uses a rotating Mössbauer absorber and fixed detector to place
an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s.
* Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.

Uses a rotating source and fixed Mössbauer detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s.
* Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg
1767.

A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent
with SR.
* T.W. Cole, “Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether”,
Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P.

Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an æther
are described. No æther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s.
* 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. The interferometer is by design
particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature
controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.



Yes, I gave Surfer the other two (Shamir and Trimmer). I also
explained to him that the latest reenctments don't use conventional
interferometers anymore, they use resonating cavities . To no avail,
the idiot has his head stuck up his ass so far that nothing registers.
BTW, I think that you could use some of the newer references to MMX
executed with resonating cavities. Do you need the references? I can
send them to you.

"Whoever" wrote in message
...
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Peter, look:

Look at these preposterous situations created by the idea
of lack of simultaneiety:


Preposterous to you.

Obviously Special Relativity is correct, the evidence is overwhelming,
its routinely used in engineering and if it was wrong lots of things
wouldn't work (in some cases spectacularly).

Just accept it as amazing.

I guess you don't understand block universe. It literally means
you are a mannikin voicing nonconsequential inanities.


Well, if that is what the "block Universe" literally is, it is false, as
I am not literally a mannikin.


And you agree with it?



Spirit of Truth

With SR?

Yes, of course. And I also agree that world is not flat, and that earth
revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. All well supported by
evidence.
.................................................. ..............................................
.................................................. ..............................................

You are missing the point. SR gives the condition of simultaneity.
That equals a blockhead universe where the future already exists.

Although the future that 'already exists' is not causally linked to the
present here.

In blockhead universe there is no Cause, only blockheads.


Thus you = nothing per Einstein's SR.

SR says nothing of the sort.

It sure does, but you have to have a big confront to face
up to it.

I can assure you that you are not a nothing and do have free
will....

How do you know .. how can you every possibly know?

I am not alone.

SO something is wrong in the state of SR.

No .. only with your insistence that something must be wrong

Of course there is. Lack of simultaneity is the first error of SR
and it is that, that put physics into a state of confusion that it
still is mired in.


Spirit of Truth

On Jul 3, 6:56 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:

Of course there is. Lack of simultaneity is the first error of SR
and it is that, that put physics into a state of confusion that it
still is mired in.

Imbecile , SR has simultaneity, it is just that it is not ABSOLUTE,
like in Newtonian mechanics.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
newsAr3m.768757$yE1.713921@attbi_s21...
Spirit of Truth wrote:


You are missing the point. SR gives the condition of simultaneity.
That equals a blockhead universe where the future already exists.

Thus you = nothing per Einstein's SR.

I can assure you that you are not a nothing and do have free
will....SO something is wrong in the state of SR.


Spirit of Truth

I just don't remember SR addressing the subject of "free will".

Spirit, would you be so king as to cite appropriate literature?

BTW, what's a "blockhead universe"?


ROTFL

You are correct, Einstein did not realize it. If he had he would
not have adopted LET and would have found the correct answer.

Blockhead universe is the universe where you are acting out
a pre-ordained event timeline that already exists. That
imagined SR universe in which you are just a Robot.


Spirit of Truth


Spirit of Truth

really been a gemius g b