Excellent scholarly article - will be much referenced, as its points out
systematic conceptual and methodological errors - on interferometer results
at the time of the development of SR and GR, such as MM, Michelson-Gale and
Sagnac, and their cosmological and implications:
http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc

"Troublemaker" wrote in message
...
Excellent scholarly article - will be much referenced, as its points out
systematic conceptual and methodological errors - on interferometer
results
at the time of the development of SR and GR, such as MM, Michelson-Gale
and
Sagnac, and their cosmological and implications:

http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc

The use of the word "swindle" at the start of that document indicates a lack
of nuance, especially as that word is used for "relativity", which is a
rather generic concept. But it was also Essen (the first reference) who once
wrote the short challenging article "Relativity, Joke or Swindle" , perhaps
influencing the author.

I am afraid to find many errors when I read on...

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Troublemaker" wrote in message
...
Excellent scholarly article - will be much referenced, as its points out
systematic conceptual and methodological errors - on interferometer
results
at the time of the development of SR and GR, such as MM, Michelson-Gale
and
Sagnac, and their cosmological and implications:


http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc

The use of the word "swindle" at the start of that document indicates a
lack
of nuance, especially as that word is used for "relativity", which is a
rather generic concept. But it was also Essen (the first reference) who
once
wrote the short challenging article "Relativity, Joke or Swindle" ,
perhaps
influencing the author.

I am afraid to find many errors when I read on...

OK, the start I find not so good, but the paper is very interesting with
quite some useful information.

Does anyone know if the claim is correct that the non-zero signals of Miller
etc. can be explained by the Sagnac effect?
I don't remember that this came up in the long discussion of end of last
year ("Dayton Miller's Experiment. Was Indeed Flawed").
Regretfully the linked paper does not contain a calculation...

Harald

Harry wrote in message
...
"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Troublemaker" wrote in message
...
Excellent scholarly article - will be much referenced, as its points
out
systematic conceptual and methodological errors - on interferometer
results
at the time of the development of SR and GR, such as MM,
Michelson-Gale
and
Sagnac, and their cosmological and implications:



http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc

The use of the word "swindle" at the start of that document indicates a
lack
of nuance, especially as that word is used for "relativity", which is a
rather generic concept. But it was also Essen (the first reference) who
once
wrote the short challenging article "Relativity, Joke or Swindle" ,
perhaps
influencing the author.

I am afraid to find many errors when I read on...

OK, the start I find not so good, but the paper is very interesting with
quite some useful information.

Does anyone know if the claim is correct that the non-zero signals of
Miller
etc. can be explained by the Sagnac effect?

The answer is no. Miller was aware of Sagnac, and evaluated for it.

I don't remember that this came up in the long discussion of end of last
year ("Dayton Miller's Experiment. Was Indeed Flawed").
Regretfully the linked paper does not contain a calculation...

Then said paper is probably simply another hatchet piece.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Harry wrote in message
...
"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Troublemaker" wrote in message
...
Excellent scholarly article - will be much referenced, as its points
out
systematic conceptual and methodological errors - on interferometer
results
at the time of the development of SR and GR, such as MM,
Michelson-Gale
and
Sagnac, and their cosmological and implications:




http://www.lowenergytransmutations.o...tein_Monti_Ces
arano.doc

The use of the word "swindle" at the start of that document indicates
a
lack
of nuance, especially as that word is used for "relativity", which is
a
rather generic concept. But it was also Essen (the first reference)
who
once
wrote the short challenging article "Relativity, Joke or Swindle" ,
perhaps
influencing the author.

I am afraid to find many errors when I read on...

OK, the start I find not so good, but the paper is very interesting with
quite some useful information.

Does anyone know if the claim is correct that the non-zero signals of
Miller
etc. can be explained by the Sagnac effect?

The answer is no. Miller was aware of Sagnac, and evaluated for it.

I don't remember that this came up in the long discussion of end of last
year ("Dayton Miller's Experiment. Was Indeed Flawed").
Regretfully the linked paper does not contain a calculation...

Then said paper is probably simply another hatchet piece.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Right. Or almost!
I now looked at the paper of Miller, and did not see him mention Sagnac - I
may have overlooked it (it's almost a book). But contrary to the drawing in
the above article by Monti, the rays in his apparatus enclosed (in
principle) no area at all. The trick was to let the light travel back to the
beam splitter along the exact same path.
Thus here we identified one very big error in the article of Monti.

Harald

"Harry" :
Right. Or almost!
I now looked at the paper of Miller, and did not see him mention Sagnac -
I
may have overlooked it (it's almost a book). But contrary to the drawing
in
the above article by Monti, the rays in his apparatus enclosed (in
principle) no area at all. The trick was to let the light travel back to
the
beam splitter along the exact same path.
Thus here we identified one very big error in the article of Monti.

What, you mean light beams are infinitely fine?

Harald

Greywolf:

ubi dubium ibi libertas

Quis?

Ubi Claritas et amor, deus ibi est.

Troublemaker

"Versy Tyle" wrote in message
m...
Greywolf:

ubi dubium ibi libertas

Quis?

Ubi Claritas et amor, deus ibi est.


Ubi caritas et amor...

--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.editors-writers.info

"Troublemaker" wrote in message
...

"Harry" :
Right. Or almost!
I now looked at the paper of Miller, and did not see him mention
Sagnac -
I
may have overlooked it (it's almost a book). But contrary to the drawing
in
the above article by Monti, the rays in his apparatus enclosed (in
principle) no area at all. The trick was to let the light travel back to
the
beam splitter along the exact same path.
Thus here we identified one very big error in the article of Monti.

What, you mean light beams are infinitely fine?

No, figure 2 is misleading and fig.3 is wrong.

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message ...
"Versy Tyle" wrote in message
m...
Greywolf:

ubi dubium ibi libertas

Quis?

Ubi Claritas et amor, deus ibi est.


Ubi caritas et amor...

Could be either, couldn't it?
(noun. fem. pl.)
http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-...latin=claritas