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.

The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path

Variable water flow is toward the laser end.
The light path from the laser is split at the first mirror, which
is semi silvered. One beam travels through to the end of the water
filled tube where it's reflected via two mirrors to return along
the air path beside the tube. It is then reflected at 90 degrees
to again pass through the semi silvered mirror and finally arrive
at the viewing screen, after being magnified through a lens. The
other half beam travels the same path but in the opposite direction,
and is reunited with its counterpart to follow along the same path
direction after it's finally reflected off the semi silvered mirror.

The apparatus is extremely stable because the light paths are
almost identical. And there are no temperature effects to be
considered because both paths change in unison. So long as the paths
are identical, everything remains exactly proportional.

For many years I've doubted the validity of the Fizeau ether drag
experiment because interferometer experiments are usually so
delicate that one barely dares to breathe near them. The thought
of relatively huge water velocities pelting around a circuit along
the interferometer light paths was incomprehensible.

And incidentally, with such liquid velocities, how could Fizeau
possibly convince anyone that the fringe shift wasn't mechanically
caused? Increasing the flow rate increases the forces at every turn,
and (I imagine) for the mediums that he tested, refractive index and
relative density were close to proportionally related. Setting up
that experiment in the 1850's in such a manner that would prove his
point was a most remarkable achievement, in my opinion. He has
earned my utmost respect (whether he wants it or not).

In the case of my experiment, no such concerns arise because if a
fringe shift is mechanically created due to changes in the water
flow rate only, no added change will be noted when the water flow
direction (via the device) is turned between east and west.
Increasing the water velocity causes the interference pattern to
shift in a particular direction, and the pattern changes in that
same direction when the water flow (via the device) is turned from
the west to point east.

Example: Assuming that light propagates according to the non
rotating frame of the earth (the ECI frame).

c = 3E+08
v = 400 Tangential velocity for Melbourne Australia
wv = 6.1 Water velocity per second (= .1 wavelength shift)
n = 1.332 Water/air refractive index.
l = 3.6 The water tube length is 1.8 meters. But both beam
paths are affected.

(for a water velocity of 6.1 m/sec)
Flow pointing west per ECI frame (v - wv) = 393.9 m/sec. (east)
Light is dragged by (v - wv) * (1 - (1/n^2)) = 171.8875 m/sec.

Flow pointing east per ECI frame (v+wv) = 406.1 m/sec. (east)
Light is dragged by (v + wv) * (1 - (1/n^2)) = 177.2112 m/sec.

The difference is 5.323754 m/sec of water path length.
5.323754 / c * 3.6 = 6.388505E-08 meters for a 3.6 meter water
path length which is .1007651 of a wavelength.

The article along with photos of the setup are available at
http://optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html

Before the water tube was fitted, all laser paths were aligned.
The tube windows were also roughly aligned square to the tube by
reflecting a laser pointer off the window face while the tube was
being rotated along its axis. Any misalignment caused the reflected
spot to scribe a circle. Each tube end was adjusted until the
reflected spot remained still. The final adjustment was done by
slightly bending the (now water filled and in place) tube with the
adjusting screws until each beam path found its way to the center
of the far end of the tube.

If the windows are not aligned perfectly square to the beam paths
the paths will, due to refraction, never be the same, and a stable
interference pattern would be impossible.

(more pictures)

The torsion force acting on the swivel, applied in either
direction, is of no consequence to the interference pattern.

(pictures)

Vibrations from the twin screw pump are absorbed in an air bubble
housed in a football bladder.

The maximum pump pressure used was 200 psi, when the pump was
running at around 5000 rpm. 100% efficiency would give a water flow
rate of 51 meters per second. Judging by the fringe shift, it was
about 20 m/sec. A consistent fringe shift of what appears to be
close to the mark was easily noted.

The fact that a fringe shift is observed when the device is rotated
demands a reason why no fringe shift is observed that relates to
the tangential velocity of the device fixed to the earth's surface
when the unit is rotated between east and west and water flow is
stopped. The pieces of the puzzle are now all on display and can
only be fitted together in one way to create the perfect picture.

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 nanoneters.
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, but that 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
which is 3.785488958936185 more waves than the ECI frame fixed device.
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing west
= (((c-((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 3781699.684542587
which is 3.785488958936185 less waves than the ECI frame fixed device.

AIR
n = 1.0003 Air refractive index.

Linear speed of light = 1/n = .9997000899730081 * c
Air propagation center is dragged v*(1-(1/n^2))
= .2398920431837794 m/sec east of the ECI frame.
Beam source is 400 - .2398920431837794 = 399.7601079568162
m/sec further east than the propagation center, relative to
the speed of light with no medium. Relative to the speed
of light in air, the propagation base is
399.7601079568162 / .9997000899730081 = 399.8800359892033 m/sec
to the west. All other time-distance measurements change in
accordance with that slower speed of light, but that has no effect
on the result.

The distance that the beam must travel along the air path
increases pointing east and decreases pointing west, at the rate
of 399.8800359892033 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) = 2839968.454258675
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) = 2839972.239747634
which is 3.785488959401846 more waves than the ECI frame fixed device.
Number of waves along the moving path with the beam pointing west
= (((c-((v-(v*(1-(1/n^2))))/a))/c)*pl)/(wl*1/n) = 2839964.668769716
which is 3.785488958936185 less waves than the ECI fixed device.

No matter what mediums are used, and how many waves are along
each path, exactly the same number of wavelengths will be added to
or subtracted from each path as the device is rotated. The anisotropy
only shows up when the light source is moving at a different rate to
the water path.
---------------

The experiment only proves that light propagates on a base which
is located somewhere to the west by at least the velocity of the
water flow. If the device was fixed with the ECI frame, although the
light paths would still be dragged relative to the moving water, no
asymmetry between the light paths could exist due to changes in the
pointing direction of the water flow. Which could easily be proven.

Regardless of how the puzzle pieces are fitted together, **an
anisotropy in the one way speed of light most certainly exists
around here.**

-----

Max Keon

[snip]

Why do you need water to determine if there is an anisotropy in light
speed?

"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.

The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path

Variable water flow is toward the laser end.

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

Bill Hobba wrote:
"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.

The setup was designed thus:
_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\---------------------/
air path

Variable water flow is toward the laser end.

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

"Freedom and water", in the word of the Orange Alternative.

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

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.

It may be something like this that Max has observed.

However, as such fringe shifts are only seen when light is slowed down
by matter, eg a gas, the cause may be not so much anisotrophy in the
speed of light as anisotrophy in the interaction between light and
matter.

If Cahill is correct, this would be caused by "absolute motion".

But I would not rule out other causes.

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


Regards,
Peter

"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 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.

Lorentz effects? Never heard of those. 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. To a very high degree of
accuracy frames attached to the earth are inertial. If an aetther did exist
then an aether wind would break a frame attached to the earths isotropy and
so would not be inertial.

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.

It may be something like this that Max has observed.

However, as such fringe shifts are only seen when light is slowed down
by matter, eg a gas, the cause may be not so much anisotrophy in the
speed of light as anisotrophy in the interaction between light and
matter.

If Cahill is correct, this would be caused by "absolute motion".

But I would not rule out other causes.

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? Such was not the
claim of the poster.

Bill



Regards,
Peter

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 ?
Hero

"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.

Dirk Vdm

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.


What you write, Cahill. Peter, or whomever, is complete bull****!