Professional Strawman

The question is about the subtlety of how LIGO, specifically, works.

Michelson be rolling in his grave right now.

So, how can we use this light to measure gravitational waves when the light itself is affected by the gravitational wave?

That's a question for a Miss Universe pageant. All of us know the answer to that silly question (except some Physicists of course). Why do you ask such questions here? Ask them in Trash. Or Speculation, silly!

I am on the right track .

 

Mike

You're in the wrong forum, though. This forum is slow. Probably explains why it's also fake. You won't learn anything here. My two cents.

Yep, they all can't figure out how an Interferometer works.

I've seen better fake forums.

It's OK that you didn't understand my question.

You asked a crank question. An Oscar winning crank question. Your question is equivalent to asking why does a solar panel need sun? Or why does a swimming pool need water? See the error in that thinking? If the cranks over at LEGO have their way, they'd replace, LASERS with a couple of Kenyan runners. One runs north, one runs east. When they return one of them will let you know if a gravity wave hit him. Heh! In my opinion, you and your colleagues ought to have a week's pay deducted from your salaries for engaging in such crankery.

Honestly, your crank question belongs in trash, if not in speculation.

Kind regards,

Prof. Strawman

LOL. Them, interferometers! Who knew physicists didn't understand, them. Now I know!

The device has yet to be built that could measure how little I care about what you think.

I am not holding my breath. Still, interferometers have been around for a very very long time. And if there are physicists clueless about the workings of this device, it's honestly, laughable. If LEGO were about the size of my car, I wouldn't find that funny.

That's another colloquium, altogether I guess.

.Can someone list out relativistic aberration angles at various mirrors in the MME? For eg, at the top mirror, Michelson wrote he observed, an angle, "2q". Given that the splitter is no longer at 45 degrees, what is the Relativity equivalent of this angle at the top mirror?

In the link below, page 3, formula (9). Can anyone confirm if this is a correct reflection formula?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.0998.pdf

Thanks. We eventually were able to hash out the right answer, though I don't recall exactly how we worded it.

And I started to think, you were one of those physicists who didn't have a clue.

IOW, what is the error in this thinking?

Yea, them interferometers!

Hi all, I put a link to the Animation in my signature.

None of the above.

So Michelson did not observe any aberration, in his apparatus, yes?

"The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;""

-- Michelson, 1887

 

Question: The aberration angles that Michelson referred to, in the quote above, were they "fictitious" or were they "second order observations"?

Read post # 4.

English is my third language. I can't seem to figure out what Michelson means there.

Older experiment. Has been repeated since then. Do you wish to discuss experiment setup issues or something else?

No.

Anyone?

"The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

 

 

-- Michelson, 1887

Anyone disagrees that these angles were not observed by, Michelson?

It was not assumed to be stationary. That was a conclusion drawn from the observation of stellar aberration. Light deflection from distant stars, owing to the motion of the earth.

 

Yes, that's correct. It was a conclusion.

And what is the point of discussion here? Posting just to show videos that you made is a violation of rule 2.7.

I was hoping someone would comment on this: ""It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"" The animation I made shows that the transverse ray does not meet at the same point on the splitter when it returns due to aberration. This is not in accordance with relativity. I thought someone would notice that. Also the telescope tilt, tan(q)=v/c gives a velocity potential.

"If now it were legitimate to conclude from the present work that the ether is at rest with regard to the earth's surface, according to Lorentz there could not be a velocity potential, and his own theory also fails." - Michelson, 1887 paper.

Prof. Strawman

PS. 1. Velocity potential = The ability to discern one's own velocity.

PS. 2. I wasn't trying to advertise my video. I am looking for feedback.

Economists and Relativists have one thing in common: jargon.

I keep hearing gravity waves described as ripples in space time. Does this suggest that space time is a substance like the discredited notion of the aether? It seems to me that if space time can be said to ripple then a preferred reference frame is suggested by this "ripple" I know I must be off base here but how am I mistaken?

Aether was assumed to be a medium that freely penetrates through matter; and that it was stationary (sort of like Newton's master frame). Aether is only a theoretical artifact. You can't detect it even if it did exist, given its properties (that it "freely" penetrates through matter). What you can detect is: your relative motion to it. Michelson Morley used the phenomenon of aberration to detect our Sun's velocity relative to it. They did not record an interference fringe shift they were expecting. But it wasn't null. They measured aberration in the apparatus. Michelson called, it a second order effect.

I made an animation and started a thread about it. See if that helps you.

Prof Strawman.

PS. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1M-L9jKo3w

.

I am not convinced of that .

No evidence of any medium , does not necessarily mean , that there is not one .

It could mean there is one , but we have not discovered it yet ? And in fact there is more likely to be something rather than nothing ?

 

Mike, aether was assumed to freely penetrate through matter and it was thought to be stationary. (Evidence: Aberration of light). One could not detect a medium, even if one wanted to. It freely penetrates through matter. Michelson was not trying to detect a "medium". He was trying to detect the velocity of our Sun relative to a medium that was thought to be stationary (with properties equivalent to vacuum). Aether is only a theoretical construct. Just like spacetime is. The idea of a ripple in aether is about real or unreal as a ripple in a spacetime. Spacetime and aether are not "material" in origin. Einstein's spacetime is math.

In my opinion, LIGO is probably detecting this second order aberration effect that Michelson mentioned here: "It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

Prof Strawman

Hi. I just made an animation of Aberration (aka tilting of the telescope) in the Michelson Morley experiment. The aim of the animation is to illustrate these quotes:

"It may be remarked that the rays ba1 and ca1, do not now meet exactly in the same point a1, though the difference is of the second order;"

-- Michelson, 1887 paper.

The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab₁ being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba₁, (aba₁ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca₁, and is reflected at a₁, making ca₁e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba₁ and ca₁, do not now meet exactly in the same point a₁

Any comments?

A nice video about centrifugal forces.

Mike, thanks for your reply. I sort of understand your idea but I did not understand the electrical connection to it all. But I have a better idea of what you're trying to do with regard to centrifugal forces. Sounds interesting.

Mike, I am not sure I understand your idea. But I have seen Prof Laithwaite's video and I understand that the item feels lighter when it spins because the centrifugal forces literally hold the flywheel in that position. This is pretty much why a top stands erect when it spins. Angular momentum is a manifestation of centrifugal forces.

Mike, the answer to your question in the OP is centrifugal force since Einstein redefined inertia/centrifugal-force as a distortion of spacetime. In your bucket example, water does not fall to the ground because of centrifugal forces which is also a distortion of spacetime. How this distortion looks or works is irrelevant since GR is not a mechanical theory, it's only a mathematical assertion, way too complicated compared to Newton's math.

And Einstein's redefinition of inertia/centrifugal-force comes from his misunderstanding of Newton's Bucket experiment. He believed that centrifugal-forces are the result of an action-at-a-distance force, when it is clearly the result of a contact-force. This is why Einstein's new definition of "inertia/centrifugal-force" is listed under speculative ideas in Wikipedia.