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

My apologies. I'll try and fix it.

Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser.

That's very obviously true, prior to fitting the water tube. A very
clear and very rigidly fixed interference pattern involving just a
few wavelengths could be found anywhere along the paths, coming from
either direction. If the feedback direction is exactly square to the
HeNe laser output mirror face, a pattern of only a few Newton's
rings would result. The pattern I was getting indicated that the
feedback wasn't exactly square to the mirror face, but there was
still no doubt that the whole thing was phase locked.

When the water filled tube is introduced into the paths, the
interference patterns are no longer visible from either direction.
But that doesn't mean that the system isn't still phase locked. In
fact it most likely is. After the beam has passed through the water
filled tube its intensity has substantially reduced. The greatest
feedback is then generated in the reflection off the windows at each
end of the water tube. **The phase locking mechanism doesn't include
the water path.** In any case, it's hard to imagine how the thing
could always be phase locked with the variable flow rate water path
and the rest of the paths at the same time.

The resulting
mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.

There are no "confusing effects". All I see is exactly what is
predicted.

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.

Yes. But I would certainly notice inconsistencies caused by such
effects within the time it takes me to point the apparatus east or
west. The thing always gives the right answer. What more could one
ask for?

There's really no way out of this one Tom.

-----

Max Keon

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.

But we can show OWLS anisotropy, can't we! I think my presentation
was more than adequate. Don't blame me if you can't understand it.

-----

Max Keon

Don't blame me if you can't understand it.

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

"The vaglestun purstrators have vipped the karsdale furblesons on Beta
Lyrae during the Garloxian festival".

Don't blame me if you can't understand it.

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.

OWLV is required. OWLS has no direction.

Androcles.

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

The only thing we can not show directly is OWLS invariance.

But we can show OWLS anisotropy, can't we!

Errrr. No - you are still faced with the issue of syncing the clocks.

I think my presentation
was more than adequate. Don't blame me if you can't understand it.


I did not even attempt it until you answer my simple query that you avoided.
Since then Tom Robbers has examined it - and guess what - it is far from
adequate.

Bill


-----

Max Keon

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...

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

My apologies. I'll try and fix it.

Feedback into the laser completely invalidates any results using this
setup -- 50% of its output will come back into the laser.

That's very obviously true, prior to fitting the water tube. A very
clear and very rigidly fixed interference pattern involving just a
few wavelengths could be found anywhere along the paths, coming from
either direction. If the feedback direction is exactly square to the
HeNe laser output mirror face, a pattern of only a few Newton's
rings would result. The pattern I was getting indicated that the
feedback wasn't exactly square to the mirror face, but there was
still no doubt that the whole thing was phase locked.

When the water filled tube is introduced into the paths, the
interference patterns are no longer visible from either direction.
But that doesn't mean that the system isn't still phase locked. In
fact it most likely is. After the beam has passed through the water
filled tube its intensity has substantially reduced. The greatest
feedback is then generated in the reflection off the windows at each
end of the water tube. **The phase locking mechanism doesn't include
the water path.** In any case, it's hard to imagine how the thing
could always be phase locked with the variable flow rate water path
and the rest of the paths at the same time.

The resulting
mode lock can cause all sorts of confusing effects and make the setup be
MUCH more sensitive to environmental factors.

There are no "confusing effects". All I see is exactly what is
predicted.

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.

Yes. But I would certainly notice inconsistencies caused by such
effects within the time it takes me to point the apparatus east or
west. The thing always gives the right answer. What more could one
ask for?

There's really no way out of this one Tom.

Just as there is no way out of avoiding syncing clocks to measure OWLS and
get meaningful results. Basically you can't do it.

Bill


-----

Max Keon

Peter wrote:
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 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.
[..]


Cahill's error is in ascribing the velocity of light as measured in the
aether frame to be V=c/n. Actually that is the velocity of light as
measured in the laboratory frame.. in moving to the aether frame the
velocity addition formula should be used. (see the |P between
equations 1 and 2 in your link).

This is especially important when the light is travelling parallel to
the motion of the laboratory through space-time.

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
SPEED OF LIGHT ANISOTROPY PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

The proof is clearly displayed using a setup that's similar to
Fizeau's ether drag experiment, but with major variations in that
there's only a single straight tube carrying the liquid flow and
the apparatus can be rotated to point east or west.

I've noticed an oversight in the original post that I think warrants
correcting, even though it's of no real consequence to the outcome
of the experiment.

--------------
Assuming that light traveling in a vacuum local to the earth
propagates relative to the ECI frame, the 400 m/sec tangential
velocity of the water relative to the ECI frame would drag the
light propagation base along with it to some degree.

WATER
c = 3E+8
wl = 634 Wavelength in nanometers.
n = 1.332 Water refractive index.
v = 400 Tangential velocity.
pl = 1800000000 Path length in nanometers.

Linear speed of light = 1/n = .7507507507507507 * c
Water propagation center is dragged v*(1-(1/n^2))
= 174.5493240988737 m/sec east of the ECI frame.
Beam source is 400 - 174.5493240988737 = 225.4506759011263
m/sec further east than the propagation center, relative to
the speed of light with no medium. Relative to the speed
of light in water, the propagation base is
225.4506759011263 / .7507507507507507 = 300.3003003003003 m/sec
to the west. All other time-distance measurements change in
accordance with that slower speed of light, which has no effect on
the result.

The distance that the beam must travel along the water path
increases pointing east and decreases pointing west, at the rate
of 300.3003003003003 meters per second of path length.
Number of wavelengths along the path if the device is fixed with
the ECI frame = pl/(wl*1/n) = 3781703.470031546
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing east

= (((c+((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 3781707.255520505
----------

I plucked the above equation (and three similar) from the program
I was using, and didn't notice that I hadn't given a value for "a".
"a" is replaced with (1/n) being the speed of light for the medium.

I've added a little more to the web page as well,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

-----

Max Keon

Bill Hobba:

wrote in message
oups.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.

I always thought that was why I had two hands.

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

One breast should be enough to feed the young.

You mean -- they aren't just decorative?