Max Keon wrote:
The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path
(ASCII art got completely screwed up -- see his description)

Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser. The resulting
mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.

Another poster called this "wave lock".


And there are no temperature effects to be
considered because both paths change in unison.

On the contrary, temperature effects will affect the mode lock.


Mode lock is probably impossible to avoid in such a setup. For instance,
even multiple Faraday isolators between the laser and the half-silvered
mirror will not guarantee to prevent it because the feedback is so large.

You need to figure out how to arrange for the mode lock to be part of he
experiment; in the process you ought to be able to improve sensitivity
by a large factor (typically the ratio of the total light path length to
the distance between the laser's mirrors). Note, however, that will
probably make the setup more finicky by that same ratio....


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
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.


That's an interesting point, the light returns into the light source.
What i was thinking about was the interference of the light beam going
to an from a mirror, the front part will interfere with the back part
of a pulse of light, wouldn't it? Now this might happen in both arms in
the MMX. But actually both light beams should only interfere in the
last moment to show some kind of a difference. A ball thrown against a
wall will return the same path - but a wave in water is of certain
length, and when reflected by a solid object it will interfere with
"itself", wouldn't it?
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.
I did propose a different experiment in "Just a millimeter", without
any interference at all.
Thanks
Hero

On 9 Dec 2005 04:08:38 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

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.

I know the feeling.
I think I will have to give it up too. Life is too short.

.....besides, I'm tired of trying to re-educate the irreversibly indoctrinated.
..


Jerry


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

"Peter" wrote in message
...
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 !

Gee and one could probably call robbing a bank a success as well rather than
a failure for law enforcement - and you would probably take that view if you
were a bank robber. Your irrelevant sensless semantics is just that -
senseless and irrelevant. Its purpose is obvious - obfuscation.


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.


As Dirk said you can stop the charade now - we all know you are Cahill.

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.

Then present your findings so they can be examined by the experts who post
on sci.physics.relativity. Vague references devoid of specifics are usually
made by those who have nothing but hot air.

Bill



Peter

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
om...
Max Keon wrote:
The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path
(ASCII art got completely screwed up -- see his description)

Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser. The resulting
mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.

Another poster called this "wave lock".

Thanks for clarifying that Tom - I had never heard of wave lock before. A
quick internet search bought back a whole lot of stuff on water.

Thanks
Bill



And there are no temperature effects to be
considered because both paths change in unison.

On the contrary, temperature effects will affect the mode lock.


Mode lock is probably impossible to avoid in such a setup. For instance,
even multiple Faraday isolators between the laser and the half-silvered
mirror will not guarantee to prevent it because the feedback is so large.

You need to figure out how to arrange for the mode lock to be part of he
experiment; in the process you ought to be able to improve sensitivity by
a large factor (typically the ratio of the total light path length to the
distance between the laser's mirrors). Note, however, that will probably
make the setup more finicky by that same ratio....


Tom Roberts

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
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 !

Gee and one could probably call robbing a bank a success as well rather
than a failure for law enforcement - and you would probably take that view
if you were a bank robber. Your irrelevant sensless semantics is just
that - senseless and irrelevant. Its purpose is obvious - obfuscation.


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.


As Dirk said you can stop the charade now - we all know you are Cahill.

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.

Then present your findings so they can be examined by the experts who post
on sci.physics.relativity. Vague references devoid of specifics are
usually made by those who have nothing but hot air.

To be specific your link stated:
'That these very different experiments show the same speed and RA of
absolute motion is one of the most startling discoveries of the twentieth
century. Torr and Kolen [8] using an East-West orientated nitrogen
gas-filled coaxial cable also detected absolute motion. It should be noted
that analogous optical fibre experiments give null results for the same
reason, apparently, that transparent solids in a
Michelson interferometer also give null results, and so behave differently
to coaxial cables.'
What you did not do was present a statistical analysis of the type Tom did
nor did you show any kind of balance by mentioning that such analysis is
perfectly consistent with no aether.

Bill


Bill



Peter

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.
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.

The same reason women have two breasts.

One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?

One breast should be enough to feed the young.

Bill

Thanks for Your reply
Sincerely Yours
Hero

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

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.
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.

The same reason women have two breasts.

One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?

BTW the answer of course is depth perception is better with two eyes.

Bill


One breast should be enough to feed the young.

Bill

Thanks for Your reply
Sincerely Yours
Hero

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:
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.
Hero wrote
Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes.
Bill answered:
The same reason women have two breasts.
And on this (from Hero)
One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?
Bill answered ( a bit later):
BTW the answer of course is depth perception is better with two eyes.

Women can feed two babies at the same time, some animals can feed even
more simultaneously.
Depth is something static, distance is a property of let's say a small
sandkorrel beeing blown through air onto one eye. So it's moving and
the second eye has a different picture on the movement of the grain of
sand - so it can "help" protecting the first eye.
All reference frames have the same right, but one on it's own gives a
subjective picture, an ego-centric view.
Now think of some light given off from a distant sun, let's say a short
outburst of some red light. This is now (highly)independent from it's
source in space and time, the source may be extinguished or else. One
observer with one reference frame will not, or not easily can tell the
form - is it an expanding sphere around it's orign, is it a cone, like
water waves from a moving ship ? And talking about speeds will even be
more difficult.
Two eyes spaced apart by two or three inches, form a segment of a line,
orientated with angles and directions to the objects observed. With
experience one can imagine, how these would look like for another
person at a different place, and with some phantasy one can imagine how
You would look like from the point of view of the grain of sand.
The distance of Your eyes is expressed in a coordinate system for one
eye as the two basic points spaced apart by one unit. With some
phantasy one can imagine how it will look like from the point of view
of the light from the red outburst. From one point there are only
directions, with two points depth and differences in pictures of the
same movement. There's no clock for this light ? What about if there's
rotating polarisation in it? From an point at the peripherie of
rotation world looks what we experience in a carussel on a fair. So in
arriving in Your eye some of this light will "end it's life" as light
and change into agitating nerves and warming molecules a tiny bit.

Now, i don't like to become a cyclop and that's why i'm enjoying
reading Your answers:
They give more depth to my thoughts, a lttle bit of course, as i not
always understand them completely, at least more than a "null
resultat", more than zero.
Regards
Hero

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
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.
Hero wrote
Did You ever thinks of, why You have two eyes.
Bill answered:
The same reason women have two breasts.
And on this (from Hero)
One eye - as an
independent observer should be enough, or why not?
Bill answered ( a bit later):
BTW the answer of course is depth perception is better with two eyes.

Women can feed two babies at the same time, some animals can feed even
more simultaneously.
Depth is something static, distance is a property of let's say a small
sandkorrel beeing blown through air onto one eye. So it's moving and
the second eye has a different picture on the movement of the grain of
sand - so it can "help" protecting the first eye.
All reference frames have the same right, but one on it's own gives a
subjective picture, an ego-centric view.
Now think of some light given off from a distant sun, let's say a short
outburst of some red light. This is now (highly)independent from it's
source in space and time, the source may be extinguished or else. One
observer with one reference frame will not, or not easily can tell the
form - is it an expanding sphere around it's orign,

Correct.

is it a cone, like
water waves from a moving ship ? And talking about speeds will even be
more difficult.
Two eyes spaced apart by two or three inches, form a segment of a line,
orientated with angles and directions to the objects observed. With
experience one can imagine, how these would look like for another
person at a different place, and with some phantasy one can imagine how
You would look like from the point of view of the grain of sand.
The distance of Your eyes is expressed in a coordinate system for one
eye as the two basic points spaced apart by one unit. With some
phantasy one can imagine how it will look like from the point of view
of the light from the red outburst. From one point there are only
directions, with two points depth and differences in pictures of the
same movement. There's no clock for this light ? What about if there's
rotating polarisation in it? From an point at the peripherie of
rotation world looks what we experience in a carussel on a fair. So in
arriving in Your eye some of this light will "end it's life" as light
and change into agitating nerves and warming molecules a tiny bit.

Now, i don't like to become a cyclop and that's why i'm enjoying
reading Your answers:
They give more depth to my thoughts, a lttle bit of course, as i not
always understand them completely, at least more than a "null
resultat", more than zero.

I suspect you will get a better hearing for your musings on a philosophy
forum.

Bill

Regards
Hero