Dear The Ghost In The Machine:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in message ...
....
So maybe not so confusing after all, but I'll admit to
still wondering whether monochromaticity is enough;
it's a bit like listening to music in a stadium in that
case.

Actually worse than that. Once you have a characterisitic
wavelength, then you have to isolate your apparatus from all heat
sources. You have insolation on specific walls of your garage,
and seasonal variations in ambient temperature. You have the
observer as an unregulated heat source.

There were diffraction gratings produced deep (depth-wise) in
such a regulated environment, that ended up having some very tiny
periodic flaws in their scribe spacing. It turns out there was a
night watchman that did his nightly rounds... don't know what he
expected to find in a sub-sub-basement, but his body warmth
affected the product in the machine.

Differential coefficients of thermal expansion, variations in the
amounts and pressure of atmospheric constituents, and more.
Definitely NOT a garage project.

David A. Smith

As a pure guess, I'd surmise a sodium vapor lamp. Unfortunately,
the first mercury arc lamp wasn't until 1901, invented
by Peter Cooper Hewitt. MMX was, after all, only performed 8
years after the perfection of Thomas Edison's light bulb in 1879.

The bulk of the most reliable interferometer measurements were actually
made in 1925 by Dayton Miller. He used an acetylene lamp, the type
used on cars at that time.

Dave

wrote:
All the posters in these NGs are under the bogus assumption that the
MMX supposed to detect the motion of the earth in the ether. This is
not true. The design of the MMX can only detect the absolute motion
(Motion wrt light) of the apparatus within the plane of its light rays.
Null result for the MMX means that there is no absolute motion of the
apparatus within the plane of its light rays. OTOH non-null result
means that there is absolute motion of the apparatus within the plane
of its light rays.
On earth all the MMXs done so far show null result. Therefore there is
no absolute motion of the apparatuses in the "HORIZONTAL" plane of its
light rays. OTOH the Pound and Rebka experiments show that there is
frequency shift of the light rays in the vertical direction. That means
that there is absolute motion in the vertical direction. Therefore if
we aligned the MMX with the plane of the ;ight rays in the vertical
direction we should be able observe fringe shift as the apparatus is
rotated. The max. shift should occur when one of the arm is aligned
vertically.
A more reliable alternative is to do the experiments described in the
following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
These experiments are capble of determining the magnitude and direction
of absolute motion of the distant clock.

There's nonly one M in Missile Experimental.

-Mark Martin

In sci.physics.relativity, David Thomson

wrote
on 4 Dec 2005 08:54:21 -0800
.com:
As a pure guess, I'd surmise a sodium vapor lamp. Unfortunately,
the first mercury arc lamp wasn't until 1901, invented
by Peter Cooper Hewitt. MMX was, after all, only performed 8
years after the perfection of Thomas Edison's light bulb in 1879.

The bulk of the most reliable interferometer measurements were actually
made in 1925 by Dayton Miller. He used an acetylene lamp, the type
used on cars at that time.

Dave


AIUI Miller did in fact observe a shift, of about 2.5 * 10^-5 c.

http://www.alternativescience.com/ether.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

suggests that the Earth is dragging along the luminiferous
aether, in much the same fashion as a boat drags along some
of the water, or, as the website puts it, "in the same way
that some air is carried along with an aircraft's wing".

Miller suggests that his results are in compliance
with a direction of motion almost perpendicular to the
ecliptic, in the direction of the constellation Dorado
(the Swordfish) in the southern hemisphere (RA +4h54m,
Decl -70 deg 33'). This would put its direction of travel
somewhere near Bet Men (RA 5h02m43s, Decl -71 deg 18'22")
or Mu Men (RA 4h43m05s, Decl -70deg 55'13").

For the record, Mount Wilson is located at 38.22 N, 122.28 W.

What this means to science I for one do not know, but the
websites hosting these pages -- alternativescience and
orgonelab -- do not help it, creditwise; "orgone energy"
is a known crank theory by Wilhelm Reich.

Einstein suggested in 1926 and again 1954 that the
cause of the delta was far more prosaic: a temperature
variance (despite the many steps Miller attempted to
forestall such). Regrettably, no mention is made of an air
conditioning unit; a radiant heater is however suggested
for testing purposes but otherwise there is no explicit
mention of how precisely the environmental temperature is
controlled beyond coating the windows and roof with canvas.

I for one would suggest that the experiment be repeated by
spaceborne equipment, if possible; there are admittedly
a lot of factors here, however, one of them being the
temperature problem.

One possible solution to that particular problem:
an experiment on the dark side of the Moon. One or
two rockets would be launched, with two landers; one
lander would land Earthside, one farside, diametrically
opposed, and as near to the moon's equator as practical.
After calibration we should get some reasonably good
results; the main problem admittedly would be just after
sundown. One might also use a single rocket and find a
sheltered crater; the main drawback of that is that it
might be sheltered from the luminiferous aether as well.
The farside lander would need a third spacecraft which
would receive, record, and later transmit the observations
back to Earth.

Of course a more sensitive experiment might be possible
without the interferometry; the orbiting repeater
and the nearside unit could simply be used in tandem.
The resulting delta is about 5.6 * 10^-6 c (max) as the
orbiting repeater approaches the Earth, which should
give an easily measurable signal time delta of about 7.2
microseconds, just because of the velocity. As the orbiter
swings over the Moon the delta should decay to nothing[*],
then further retard to -7.2 microseconds just before the
orbiter swings farside -- assuming the c'=c+v theory is
true, of course, which is far from certain at this point.
(No doubt the Apollo team would have noticed certain
anomalies had there been a delta, though it's entirely
possible no one thought of it at that time.)

Other possibilities include 10 landers, each with
a raisable tower. 5 of them would be on nearside,
5 darkside. The main problems here would be the Moon's
curvature and the requirement of precise alignment for
each of the landers. For a 2 km distance the required
height to circumvent the curvature would be approximately
45.4 meters.

Whether such efforts are warranted in light of the results
from the successful Gravity Probe A (which basically
launched a maser into suborbital flight and tracked it
until the unit splashed into the Atlantic) and Gravity
Probe B (which is still in orbit, although the science
appears mostly done) is unknown.
[*] it actually might decay to a positive value as the
orbiter can't possibly swing right next to the
stationary lander. If the orbiter is orbiting at 3
km height above the surface the delta will increase
to about 10 microseconds, just because of the
difference in distance; this increase is regardless
of whether SR or c'=c+v is postulated.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics.relativity, David Thomson

wrote
on 4 Dec 2005 08:36:30 -0800
. com:
The MMX isn't as easy as it sounds. Dayton Miller spent 20 years of
his life working on this experiment. And the light source isn't the
most important part of the experiment. Distance is important. That is
why the light path was made to be about 240ft. The greater the
distance, the more accurate the experiment is. I just found an online,
real-time laser interferometer site in Europe.
http://wwwcascina.virgo.infn.it/MonitoringWeb/General/

This device has a six kilometer light path. I'm going to check it out
and see what can be learned from this. I was really surprised to see
the online data since the US labs don't share their LIGO data.

Dave


Actually, there is an FTP site; it's a little hard to find.
Try cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov at /slr/data/npt/moon.

The data format is described at

http://cddisa.gsfc.nasa.gov/cstg/npt_fmt.html .

Of course I'm not sure whether this is the same as what you want,
since this is lunar ranging data, not LIGO data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

is apparently a general overview of the effort, costing US$0.365B .
The desired sensitivity is 1 part in a sextillion (10^21), and
they'd probably have to track or even halt all traffic on any
road within a 1 km radius to achieve such. :-)

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"David Thomson" wrote in message
ups.com...
The MMX isn't as easy as it sounds.

Idiot. You can perform MMX in your kitchen for less than $20.

Androcles.

"David Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...
As a pure guess,


The stupid idiot guesses.
Androcles.

In message , Dastardly
Fiend writes

"David Thomson" wrote in message
oups.com...
The MMX isn't as easy as it sounds.

Idiot. You can perform MMX in your kitchen for less than $20.

Androcles.



Show me :-)

David Thomson wrote:
The MMX isn't as easy as it sounds.

Yes. In fact, it is quite difficult to obtain stability in the
instrument, as Dayton Miller found to his sorrow.


Dayton Miller spent 20 years of
his life working on this experiment.

Yes.

And the light source isn't the
most important part of the experiment. Distance is important.

Actually, what is most important is ensuring that the length of the
light path remains constant. That means keeping the interferometer arms
of constant length, and the gas (if any) at constant refractive index.

While not a direct replica of the MMX, Brillet and Hall [see the FAQ for
reference] did solve the length problem to a few parts in 10^15
(_vastly_ better than either Miller or Michelson and Morley), and they
used vacuum so variations in refractive index were not a problem.


That is
why the light path was made to be about 240ft. The greater the
distance, the more accurate the experiment is.

Well, yes, for a given light source and detector. But using an eyeball
as a detector is millions of times less sensitive than heterodyning
single-mode laser beams, as Brillet and Hall did.


I just found an online,
real-time laser interferometer site in Europe.
http://wwwcascina.virgo.infn.it/MonitoringWeb/General/
This device has a six kilometer light path.

Like LIGO, they make no attempt to keep the length of the interferometer
of constant length over the timescale of interest for the MMX (24
hours). After all, they are not attempting to reproduce the MMX.


The bulk of the most reliable interferometer measurements were actually
made in 1925 by Dayton Miller.

That's a gross overstatement. Miller's data are essentially useless
because of his enormous systematic error (typiclly 10 times larger than
Michelson and Morley's).


Tom Roberts

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Dastardly
Fiend writes

"David Thomson" wrote in message
roups.com...
The MMX isn't as easy as it sounds.

Idiot. You can perform MMX in your kitchen for less than $20.

Androcles.



Show me :-)

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/mimg453.gif
http://www.dvhardware.net/modules.ph...wcontent&id=23
(batteries not included)

Sorry about that, I should have said "Idiot. I can perform MMX in my kitchen
for less than $20."

For a few dollars more, you can detect fringe shifts.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/shaw1.jpgIt's your dollar.Androcles.