Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.
-----------

The interferometer depicted below was the one I used to demonstrate
the existence of an east-west light speed anisotropy around anything
fixed to the earth's surface.

_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\------------------------------/
air path

The detail on that experiment can be found at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
But that device is also capable of detecting light speed variations
in the up-down directions. Which is rather mind boggling to me
because nothing whatever could be gleaned from rotating any of my
previous interferometer designs in a direction that would change
its orientation within earth's gravity well because the interference
pattern was immediately thrown into a state of relative chaos as
soon as it was moved.

But perhaps that would not be the case with this Fizeau inspired
design because the light paths are now bent equally by earth's
gravity as they are turned. Anyway the thought was well worth
testing.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html
includes photos of the setup which is now rotated through a
north-south plane perpendicular to the earth's surface.

To begin the test it was necessary to set the water flow rate at
the minimum required to keep the system functioning properly.
Rotating the device between the up and down positive stop points
resulted in a shift of only three wavelengths and this of course
occurred when the pointing direction was parallel with the earth's
surface. The interference pattern returned to where it started from
when it reached the down stop.

As is to be expected, the interference pattern shifts as the water
velocity is increased. But what is probably not expected is that
the pattern then shifts in that same direction when the water flow,
via the device, is turned from pointing downward to point upward.
And the degree of shift is directly proportional to the water
velocity.


Example:

According to the zero origin concept, the base on which light
propagates is shifting inward through the earth's surface at the
rate of 19.6 m/sec.

v = 19.6 Predicted inflow of dimension (m/sec).
wv = 6.1 Water velocity per second (as previous example).
n = 1.332 Water/air refractive index.
l = 3.6 Water path length (times two).
c = 3E+08

(for a water velocity of 6.1 m/sec)
Flow pointing down (v-wv) = 13.5 m/sec.
Light is dragged by (v-wv)*(1-(1/n^2)) = 5.89104 m/sec.

Flow pointing up (v+wv) = 25.7 m/sec.
Light is dragged by (v+wv)*(1-(1/n^2)) = 11.21479 m/sec.

The difference is 5.323754 m/sec of water path length,
which is 5.323754 / 3E+8 * 3.6 = 6.388505E-08 meter shift.
= 63.88505nm / 634nm laser wavelength = .1007651 fringe shift.

The result is of course always exactly the same for any specific
water velocity regardless of how fast the propagation base for light
is shifting past the device, so long as the velocity of light's
propagation base isn't exceeded by the water flow rate.

As in the previous test, when the pump is running at 5000 rpm, close
to 1/3 of a fringe shift is noted.

My apparatus isn't capable of pumping enough water velocity through
the water path to prove that light propagates on a base that's
moving into the earth's surface at the rate of 19.6 m/sec, but it
can be done.

Light isn't dragged or forced along with the moving dimension,
that's the realm in which it travels. However, because matter
doesn't obey the same rules, in order to maintain a constant
relationship between dimension and matter, whatever that
relationship may be at any time, the moving dimension would need
to apply an accelerating force on the matter which is beyond its
capability. If the base of dimension is moving past matter at
9.8 m/sec it's not possible for it to accelerate the matter to the
same 9.8 m/sec required to maintain the constant matter-dimension
relationship. The base of dimension must always advance faster than
the matter it's carrying with it.

Matter close to earth's surface, in freefall toward earth's center
of mass, sees the earth accelerating toward it at 9.8 m/sec^2 and
sees the base of dimension accelerating away at the same rate.
It's accelerating equally from where it was and from where it's
headed.

Any change in a gravity source is updated at the speed of light,
from the source outward. Which may seem strange if dimension is
moving into the gravity source, but that's how it works in the zero
origin universe. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:

[snip]

You didn't answer my question LAST TIME you posted this.

Why is water needed?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Max Keon wrote:

[snip]

You didn't answer my question LAST TIME you posted this.

Why is water needed?

He failed to answer a lot of stuff including issues raised by Tom.

Thanks
Bill

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7bac805a033ca3

Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting it again?

Bill

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ty/browse_frm/
thread/35075edbe2f13ff7/697bac805a033ca3#697bac805a033ca3

Do you actually read anything you reply too?
If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge
a mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a
re-post?

Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting
it again?

If you can't understand the reasoning, don't be expecting
to fill a role in the physics community.

Some time back, young Eric confessed to holding himself.
Do you have an excuse too?

-----

Max Keon

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.
-----------

The interferometer depicted below was the one I used to demonstrate
the existence of an east-west light speed anisotropy around anything
fixed to the earth's surface.

_____________
. screen .
. .
. .
=Fiber optic collimator lens
water path .
/-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-/----HeNe LASER
\------------------------------/
air path

The detail on that experiment can be found at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
But that device is also capable of detecting light speed variations
in the up-down directions. Which is rather mind boggling to me
because nothing whatever could be gleaned from rotating any of my
previous interferometer designs in a direction that would change
its orientation within earth's gravity well because the interference
pattern was immediately thrown into a state of relative chaos as
soon as it was moved.

SNIP

I had overlooked your thread of one month ago. Although I have big doubts
about the whole experiment, it looks pretty original to me. For the
originality as well for actually trying it: congratulations!

I need some time to think of possible explanations.
- Could you make a summary of additional comments, like a Q&A from the
foregoing discussions? Surely that would be helpful.
- Also, in case nobody asked: did you try instead of rotating the device,
just inverting the flow? And did you test how internal pressure changes at
the same flow rates affect the readings ?

Cheers,
Harald

Max Keon wrote:
"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ty/browse_frm/
thread/35075edbe2f13ff7/697bac805a033ca3#697bac805a033ca3

Do you actually read anything you reply too?
If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge
a mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a
re-post?

Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting
it again?

If you can't understand the reasoning, don't be expecting
to fill a role in the physics community.

Some time back, young Eric confessed to holding himself.
Do you have an excuse too?

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.


-----

Max Keon

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ty/browse_frm/
thread/35075edbe2f13ff7/697bac805a033ca3#697bac805a033ca3

Do you actually read anything you reply too?

I most certainly do.

If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge
a mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a
re-post?

But that is not what you did. The apparatus was exactly the same as your
previous post.


Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting
it again?

If you can't understand the reasoning, don't be expecting
to fill a role in the physics community.


You did not take the tack of actually addressing the issues of myself, Tom
and Eric. I wonder why. Of course evasion is straight out if how to be a
crank 101. I suspect your post is a project from 102 - applications of the
101 course.


Some time back, young Eric confessed to holding himself.
Do you have an excuse too?


I have not gone blind yet - you obviously have.

Do you really think people like myself and Eric who have been dealing with
your type for years will be fooled by your silly evasiveness? Address the
issues raised by Tom, myself and Eric then repost eg I raised the issue of
clock syncing '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

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ty/browse_frm/
thread/35075edbe2f13ff7/697bac805a033ca3#697bac805a033ca3

Do you actually read anything you reply too?

I most certainly do.

If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge
a mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a
re-post?

But that is not what you did. The apparatus was exactly the same as your
previous post.


Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting
it again?

If you can't understand the reasoning, don't be expecting
to fill a role in the physics community.


You did not take the tack of actually addressing the issues of myself, Tom
and Eric. I wonder why. Of course evasion is straight out if how to be a
crank 101. I suspect your post is a project from 102 - applications of
the 101 course.


Some time back, young Eric confessed to holding himself.
Do you have an excuse too?


I have not gone blind yet - you obviously have.

Do you really think people like myself and Eric who have been dealing with
your type for years will be fooled by your silly evasiveness? Address the
issues raised by Tom, myself and Eric then repost eg I raised the issue
of clock syncing '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

Just to elaborate further on the crank tactic being used here. Note the
beginning of the thread: 'The interferometer depicted below was the one I
used to demonstrate the existence of an east-west light speed anisotropy
around anything fixed to the earth's surface.'. The previous posts cast
severe doubt on his assertion. Yet what did Max Keon do? Simply stopped
responding to that thread and starts a new one a bit later that assumes what
the previous thread claimed was true despite the fact it was shown to have
serious problems the author never addressed. Then when those objections are
again highlighted by referencing the previous post simply ignore it and
claim - 'If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge a
mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a re-post?' As I
said a project from crank 102.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...
Gravity Causes Light Speed Anisotropy.

What has changed since last you posted it?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...ty/browse_frm/
thread/35075edbe2f13ff7/697bac805a033ca3#697bac805a033ca3

Do you actually read anything you reply too?

I most certainly do.

If I post details of how I used my interferometer frame to wedge
a mallyroot out of the ground, would you still consider that a
re-post?

But that is not what you did. The apparatus was exactly the same as your
previous post.


Why not reply to the issues raised previously instead of posting
it again?

If you can't understand the reasoning, don't be expecting
to fill a role in the physics community.


You did not take the tack of actually addressing the issues of myself, Tom
and Eric. I wonder why. Of course evasion is straight out if how to be a
crank 101. I suspect your post is a project from 102 - applications of
the
101 course.


Some time back, young Eric confessed to holding himself.
Do you have an excuse too?


I have not gone blind yet - you obviously have.

Do you really think people like myself and Eric who have been dealing with
your type for years will be fooled by your silly evasiveness? Address the
issues raised by Tom, myself and Eric then repost eg I raised the issue
of
clock syncing 'Just as there is no way out of avoiding syncing clocks to
measure OWLS and get meaningful results. Basically you can't do it.'

That's interesting! Bill, which are the clocks that he synchronized (or
de-synchronized) in your opinion?

Harald