On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:31:43 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Jerry" wrote in message
roups.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.

Crank was just as difficult as his younger sister.

In fact, I believe the disapearing Crank has now returned under the name of
'Jerry'. .

They are certainly equally stupid.....must be genetic..




Thanks
Bill



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

Bill Hobba wrote:
"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.

You're right, he was. Before becoming a software engineer, he was a
biology professor and ran a molecular biology research laboratory
studying Myxococcus xanthus, hence his alternate name.

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.

Jerry

Henri Wilson wrote:

Crank was just as difficult as his younger sister.

In fact, I believe the disapearing Crank has now returned under
the name of 'Jerry'. .

Well, he did "ghost" one of my replies, once. Not to you, though.
For the most part, he wants to stay away because he considers
usenet to be addictive, and he was spending far too much of
his time on these groups. Sort of like being an alcoholic, he
can't allow himself to slip.

They are certainly equally stupid.....must be genetic..

Since you reverse the meanings of "stupid" and "smart",
I suppose that's a compliment.

Jerry

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:48:16 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.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.

My my - such language.


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..


Your knowledge of physics is about the same as your knowledge of appropriate
language.

Bill




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

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:28:12 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"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.

A failure for those who expected to find a Newtonian ether. But for
all of us who were taught to believe in SR, the MMX comfirms what we
were taught to believe.
So it was a success !

But I would also welcome a new theory that goes beyond SR and GTR.
If Cahill's work is a step in this direction, thats even better.
Eg.
"'Dark Matter' as a Quantum Foam In-Flow Effect"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405147



(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.

==============
From:
http://www.brocku.ca/earthsciences/p...l/anisintr.htm
Anisotropic minerals differ from isotropic minerals because:

1. the velocity of light varies depending on direction through the
mineral;
===============

We all know the speed of light _in_vacuo_ does not depend on
direction.

However, the MM and Miller experiments were done in air. Anything that
induced an anisotropy in the speed of light through air would cause
fringe shifts.

According to Cahill, fringe shifts have been observed in six
experiments that are consistent with absolute motion of the earth
through space.
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cp...r/CahillMM.pdf

However, such fringe shifts would also be consistent with the motion
of the earth relative to something in space (eg dark matter). Dark
matter is required by GTR to account for the flat rotation curves of
spiral galaxies.


Peter

Your logic escapes me.

**************

So, logic is a substance which can flow?????

Bill Hobba wrote:
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.
Think of a wave of a water wave - reflected the incoming and outgoing
wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.
The wave-lock is a problem in modern tetra-laser gyros (1996 in
sci.optics in the thread "ring laser gyro ques" .
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.
Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes. One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?
Thanks for Your reply
Sincerely Yours
Hero

Bill

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
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.
Think of a wave of a water wave - reflected the incoming and outgoing
wave will interfere. The same with touching a string of a guitar, the
wave runing to and fro will create a standing wave.

Oh, you mean a standing wave. Ok.

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ingWaves1.html

Ya gotta click on the little boxes to see all of it.

You are wasting your time on Hobba. He's an ineducable idiot.

Androcles.



The wave-lock is a problem in modern tetra-laser gyros (1996 in
sci.optics in the thread "ring laser gyro ques" .
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.
Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes. One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?
Thanks for Your reply
Sincerely Yours
Hero

Bill

wrote:
wrote in message
roups.com...
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 ?

The MMX used an alcohol lamp for the light source, and that is incapable
of wave lock (no significant stimulated emission). Indeed, if one simply
used a laser as the light source in a Michelson interferometer, then
wave lock would be a major problem.

Wave lock usually a problem only for lasers in which a light beam near
the frequency of the laser is put into the laser -- in certain cases the
external light beam can lock the laser's output to itself, rather than
the laser output being determined by the laser's mirrors. This can
happen, for example, if the laser's output beam can be reflected back
down the same path its output beam followed.

[For example, Silvertooth did not know about this, and
all of his measurements have essentially 100% feedback into
his laser,. The resulting wave lock explains his otherwise
puzzling results.]

Competent experimenters using lasers will protect against this. See, for
example, Brillet and Hall [reference in the FAQ]. They used Faraday
isolators to prevent return signals from entering their lasers with any
significant strength.

This could be a problem for a laser-gyro, but it need not be. A laser
gyro can be built without mirrors inside the laser, using the entire
ring as the laser.

Back to the opening question above: A clever experimenter wanting to use
a laser in a Michelson interferometer would arrange to do something
similar and make the entire interferometer part of the laser.


Tom Roberts

Peter wrote:
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.

Yes, to some people it does indeed _SEEM_ to emerge. But when examined
using modern techniques it is clear that there is no SIGNIFICANT signal
present for any of them. The primary "modern technique" is ERRORBARS --
everyone who proclaims these old experiments had non-null results have
omitted an error analysis and the errorbars.

And, of course, they ignore more modern experiments with errorbars
millions of times smaller and null results.


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

Of course not. But the MEASUREMENTS that have been made are all
consistent with such isotropy. At least all I have looked at (MMX and
Miller so far, as they are the primary ones cited).


(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.

Except the measurements are all consistent with isotropy.



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

TYPO: "anisotropic" = "isotropic".


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.

No _SIGNIFICANT_ anisotropy has been observed. People who ignore
errorbars fool themselves.


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

Not if it is merely a systematic error aliased into the frequency bin
where any real signal would be.


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?

Sure. but one needs to find a SIGNIFICANT anisotropy first.


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.

Sure. But one needs a _SIGNIFICANT_ non-null result.


Tom Roberts