"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:fb0mf.610709$_o.12279@attbi_s71...
Peter wrote:
I read Cahill's mathematical analysis of MM type experiments at:
http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF
If he is correct then when an MM type experiment is performed in a
vacuum, Lorentz effects prevent any anisotropy in the speed of light.
Hence vacuum mode MM type experiments will never exhibit fringe shifts
and will always confirm SR.

However, when an MM type experiment is performed in a gas, owing to
the fact that the gas reduces the speed of light to _less_ than c, the
Lorentz effects are no longer able to prevent anisotrophy.

Hence gas mode MM type experiments _should_ exhibit fringe shifts.

[Sam]
What you write, Cahill, Peter, or whomever, is complete bull****!

[hanson]
Peter probable referred to or meant "fringe benefits".
So,... why exactly did they crank you so bad, Sam?... ahahaha..
ahahaha... and Sam, isn't that "whomever" a rather wide swath?
That "whomever" would include everybody... including yourself...
Thanks for the laughs, Sam. Take care.
ahahaha... ahahahanson

Jerry wrote:
Max Keon wrote:

snip

Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c7f4ce98a2ae3e

Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
your setup in detail.

Jerry

What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
patient way of dealing with cranks is missed

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:
Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?

I have never heard of wave lock. However analysis of the MMX has been done
to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial frame -
and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
produce a null result.

Bill

Hero

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:

What has water to do with the speed of light in a vacuum? - which is
what
light isotropy is concerned with.

Hi Bill,

Couldn't resist checking this NG again before my trip and noticed this
very interesting post.

I read Cahill's mathematical analysis

You *are* Cahill, idiot. You can stop being dishonest about
it now.

I suspected as much myself. Good to see he has been outed.

Thanks
Bill


Dirk Vdm

Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Max Keon wrote:

snip

Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c7f4ce98a2ae3e

Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
your setup in detail.

Jerry

What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
patient way of dealing with cranks is missed

He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
and computer programming. My parents' very expensive final
illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.

Jerry

Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Max Keon wrote:

snip

Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c7f4ce98a2ae3e

Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
your setup in detail.

Jerry

What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
patient way of dealing with cranks is missed

He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
and computer programming. My parents' very expensive final
illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.

Ah. Good to hear.


Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Max Keon wrote:

snip

Did you ever correct the inadequacies that my brother (Minor Crank =
Myxococcus xanthus) pointed out in your previous experimental setup
attempting to demonstrate light speed anisotropy?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c7f4ce98a2ae3e

Until you can demonstrate some degree of competency in putting
together a stable experimental platform, I see no need to examine
your setup in detail.

Jerry

What's your brother up to these days, anyway? His calm and disgustingly
patient way of dealing with cranks is missed

He's working very hard, not just as a software engineer, but in the
evenings works as a distance learning professor teaching math
and computer programming.

Funny, I always got the impression he as an experiment type guy rather than
the IT math type.

My parents' very expensive final
illnesses ate up all of the inheritance and then some, so I'm living
with him to save on expenses, and he's putting me through
medical school. Because of the twenty-six year age difference,
he tends to treat me like a daughter rather than a sister. It gets
sort of upsetting sometimes. He sometimes yells at me for
wasting my time on these groups rather than studying, but so
long as I maintain straight-A's, he'll tolerate my participation.

Jerry

Yes indeed; very good to hear. Minor crank was a voice of reason - he is
missed.

Thanks
Bill

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:44:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


The reason the MM failed is
simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the speed
of light is the same regardless of direction.

I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
"failed". In isolation the results of the original MMX were
inconclusive but when combined with the results of later MM type
experiments, a coherent picture seems to emerge.

Further:
(1) Making inertial frames isotropic by definition, does not guarantee
that nature will comply.

(2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.

Peter wrote:

For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
matter?

What apparatus is that? The one detailed in the post?

My question was about the apparatus detailed in the post. However, it
could be asked of any apparatus that attempts to detected anisotropy
in the speed of light through a gaseous or liquid medium.

In such mediums we would expect the speed of light to be anisotropic
due to lack of any fixed structure.

However, if an external field (eg magnetic or electric or ...) were to
impose a preferred alignment on the molecules, that might cause the
speed of light to vary according to direction.

If this field was of terrestrial origin, then the anisotropy would
rotate with the earth. This would not be particularly remarkable.

However the evidence of the various gas mode MM type experiments
suggests that an anisotropy has been discovered in the speed of light
(in gases) that _does_not_ rotate with the earth.

Whatever could cause such an effect must be of cosmic origin.

It seems to be a tradition to assume such an effect implies detection
of absolute motion.

However, could such an effect not alternatively be due to say high
speed motion through dark matter?

We are located in a spiral galaxy, which according to GRT requires
lots of dark matter to account for its rotation curve.

Although we can't observe this dark matter, if GRT is correct, it must
be there and we must be hurtling through it.


Such was not the claim of the poster.


That is correct.

I was just trying to suggest we don't jump to the conclusion that a
"non-null" result necessarily implies absolute motion.

A non-null result could imply motion relative to dark matter or
something else in space, that potentially might be of great interest.

Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:44:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


The reason the MM failed is
simple - inertial frames are by definition isotropic which implies the
speed
of light is the same regardless of direction.

I don't see why you feel the need to use a negative word like
"failed".

Because guys like you don't like it. It was generally thought at the time
it would detect an aether - it did not - so by looking up that wonderful
source called a dictionary people found the appropriate word - failed.

In isolation the results of the original MMX were
inconclusive but when combined with the results of later MM type
experiments, a coherent picture seems to emerge.

Analysis by experts like Tom Roberts suggests otherwise.


Further:
(1) Making inertial frames isotropic by definition, does not guarantee
that nature will comply.


Are you serious? The issue is not that inertial frames are isotropic by
definition - the issue is that to good accuracy experiment has established
frames attached to the earth are inertial. For mechanics this was already
known well before the MM experiment. Scientists simply thought light was
somehow special - they were wrong.


(2) In a gas mode MM experiment, the speed of light depends on the
properties of the gas. If those properties are not isotropic, the odds
are the speed of light will not be isotropic either.


Your logic escapes me. Fact: from many sources including mechanics, optics
and ME a frame attached to the earth is inertial to a good degree of
accuracy. Conclusion - the speed of light does not depend on direction.
Experimental fact - on the earth to high accuracy TWLS is the same - which
basically what the MM experiment was looking for changes in depending on
direction. The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.


Peter wrote:

For example, we know nothing about dark matter, so what if the
apparatus is detecting the effect of high speed motion through dark
matter?

What apparatus is that? The one detailed in the post?

My question was about the apparatus detailed in the post. However, it
could be asked of any apparatus that attempts to detected anisotropy
in the speed of light through a gaseous or liquid medium.

In such mediums we would expect the speed of light to be anisotropic
due to lack of any fixed structure.

Again your logic escapes me.


However, if an external field (eg magnetic or electric or ...) were to
impose a preferred alignment on the molecules, that might cause the
speed of light to vary according to direction.


We break isotropy by introducing a field - and guess what it may no longer
be isotropic. How marvelous.


If this field was of terrestrial origin, then the anisotropy would
rotate with the earth. This would not be particularly remarkable.

However the evidence of the various gas mode MM type experiments
suggests that an anisotropy has been discovered in the speed of light
(in gases) that _does_not_ rotate with the earth.

Whatever could cause such an effect must be of cosmic origin.

It seems to be a tradition to assume such an effect implies detection
of absolute motion.


Since you will not detail the precise nature of the experiments you are
talking about as well as the detailed analysis that leads step by inexorable
step to your conclusion so it can be examined by the experts who post on
sci.physics.relativity then your comments are basically hot air Mr. Cahill.

Bill


However, could such an effect not alternatively be due to say high
speed motion through dark matter?

We are located in a spiral galaxy, which according to GRT requires
lots of dark matter to account for its rotation curve.

Although we can't observe this dark matter, if GRT is correct, it must
be there and we must be hurtling through it.


Such was not the claim of the poster.


That is correct.

I was just trying to suggest we don't jump to the conclusion that a
"non-null" result necessarily implies absolute motion.

A non-null result could imply motion relative to dark matter or
something else in space, that potentially might be of great interest.

Peter

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:48:16 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:57:37 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:
Did You consider wave-lock of opposing light-beams ? That is, what the
laser-gyros scientist fight with to overcome.
By the way, what about wave-lock in MMX ?

I have never heard of wave lock. However analysis of the MMX has been done
to death and its outcome is well known. If the earth is an inertial frame -
and experiments show to a high degree of accuracy it is - then it must
produce a null result.

Bill

Hero



****ing idiot.

The MMX null result is due to the glaringly obvious fact that light speed is c
in the source frame.
Everything in the MMX apparatus is in the source frame no matter which way you
turn it..



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm