Capiert

I can't believe it, you guys are ignoring the math (that is presented) & diverging to other things. Can we stay on topic? It's not that I don't appreciate the helpful suggestion, (thank you for the tip) but it's very frustrating not to complete this before hopping on the next band wagon.

Thank you for your reply, but what you are suggesting is guesswork. Should I ignore my (logical) math? (It doesn't lie, if done correctly, e.g. don't break any rules for algebra, equations.) It's telling me things you aren't. Why should I believe in guesswork* when the math to follow has NOT been exhausted, yet? Your proposals for sound (trivial), deformation, & heat, have not helped me in the past, why should they now? Sorry, but rejected. They are NOT the way I deal with the major part of this problem. The task was to find the end speeds. The inelastic collision was setup so that it did NOT matter whether the 2 masses (e.g. doe or wet clay globs) were together or NOT, e.g. barely touching, thus deformation & heat could be eliminated. All your proposals can be delt with after the basis has been (correctly) established, NOT before. * P.S. I know we must make assumptions somewhere, but ..(see above).

(Assuming that's not a rhetorical or stacked question, intended to enlighten:) I expected energy should add instead, but found that it didn't (quite correctly, sometimes). With (supposed) conservation of energy, I expect to "account" for the (the system's (total)) energy, (mass included), (expecting) not more, nor less. Simple addition, is my (natural) expectation. That KE is not a "conserved" quantity, (in my view, doesn't bother me, &) does (NOT) exclude it (=KE) from (a trade_off exchange, as) being (some sort of) energy (that can be accounted (for)). (KE is only 1 piece of apparatus I used in the energy equation (example). I could just as easily use PE instead, or as a part.) E.g. If energy does not add (correctly, or simply), then how does it (really) behave so that I can account for it (=energy). Have I made myself clear? (If not maybe we must needle in, to find what you are looking for from me, if that exists.?) KE is obviously a variable during collision, the same as (for) momentum (is also a variable during the collision). I'm interested in before (status) & after (results) & the parts of (adding to) the total. If I give (in as input) each of the initial masses & speeds, (then) I want (a way) to (accurately) calculate their final speeds (& polarity) (out, as output). Is that illogical? If so, perhaps you can see a flaw in my reasoning & be so good as to show me. e.g. why. That my excel table works (=functions) relatively well convinces me (as a 1st approximation). In view of this sommer's findings, I suspect improved rigor might (help) get the bugs out (in the trouble shooting phase). The derivation here is only an approximation (with relatively good success). That's all. P.S. Although KE is stated in the equation, please drop the K. The equation represents the (system's total) energy E (although it only used momentum & KE to get it (=E)).

Maybe. What would you like to know? E.g. All the intermediate steps? Or what does it mean? Add 2 momentums mom1=m1*v1 & mom2=m2*v2 in a non_elastic collision, so their final momentum together is mom3=m3*v3. Before the collision the 1st mass is m1, the 2nd mass is m2; & after the collision they are stuck together as a 3rd final mass m3=m2+m1. Their initial speeds (before the collision) are v1 for the 1st mass & v2 for the 2nd mass. After the collision both masses (m1&m2=m3) have a common (final) speed v3. (All speeds are wrt earth as 0 m/s). Adding both momentums gives mom1+mom2=mom3, square both sides (m1*v1+m2*v2)^2=(m3*v3)^2 Should I continue? Or can you take it from there?

Yes. mom^2~2*mE (pronounced "to me") mom squared is approximately twice the mass multiplied by the energy. Ruffly momomentum mom=m*v, postscript numbers then apply for a non_elastic collision, when squaring both sides (mom1+mom2)^2=(mom3)^2. My older versions used KE~m*(v^2)/2, also applying postscript numbers. The final kinetic energy KE3#KE2+KE1 is NOT the sum of the 2, but instead KE3~(((m1*KE1)^0.5)+((m2*KE2)^0.5)^2)/(m1+m2). As you can see, that is NOT simple addition. But if masses are identical then fewer problems happen (= & it (=KE3 total) behaves more like simple addition of both energies) because as it looks energy does NOT add (properly=correctly, all the time).

If I attempt to derive the KEs from (squaring added) momentums, I find that energy does NOT always add (correctly).I get an unusal relation which seems to agree with both (for the most part). The excel table shows occational annomalies.

Correct dimensions, perhaps; but conflicting proportions.It looks like here is no place for discussion. Is there any reason why dark energy exists?

So bad?Is not KE part of the Lagrangian (PE & KE equation)? If the parts are not dimensioned correctly how can we expect the coe to behave correctly?

Please use a non_ambiguous word. (I'm unfamiliar with moot vocabulary.)Should I assume you mean trivial or discussable? Perhaps the later?

What is moot? That looks like only com.

Mass m vs speed_difference v "trade_off" is very important for conservation of momentum (com). Unfortunately conservation of energy (coe) doesn't see (=conceptualize) things the same way, & instead (some sort of) a speed_squared vs (single) mass relevance exists (or should it?)! E.g. How can both laws be valid, when they seem to contradict? Does (kinetic) energy really have a mass vs speed_squared trade off? E.g. in collisions. If NOT, then why do we use it (=(the) energy_construct)? That's 4 questions. Thanks in advance.

Where is the north pole? Everybody knows that (or so I thought). To be sure, I pulled out my compass & the blue needle_end pointed north, the silver end south. (That) Seemed pretty reliable, till I gathered compasses together, & then they started pointing at each others tails, instead, when they were close together. Hmm? Now I was totally lost. So I looked at a globe & in the Arctic area at the top it said North pole & magnetic north pole. I pointed my compass at the globe, but the compass needle didnt budge (staying in the direction it was before). (The globe must have been made of aluminum or plastic, or something else). I pointed at Antarctica at the bottom & it (=the compass needle) did the same (nothing). So I pulled out a book on electromagnetics & it said "unlike poles attract" (& "like poles repel"). Hmm? North pole. Hmm? Everybody knows where to find the north pole: it's in the Arctic; it's in the north; & it's magnetic there otherwise it wouldn't be named (neither): pole (for a magnet); nor magnetic. The north "axis" of rotation is also there, nearby. Ok, if that is the north pole & it has been named that for centuries (I mean who (or what) came 1st, the chicken or the egg, the obvious answer is the egg (for each chicken).) another book tries to sell me the idea that my blue compass tip is a north pole although my compass is only a few years old, it didn't exist before that. & that the north pole is a south pole. I mean magnetism is coming from the Arctic & Antarctica (maybe (that's) an electromagnetic effect of moving charge? E.g. The earth's charge is moving thru the universe. But maybe further, that (=earth magnetism) is only a disruption (=distortion) or wake_disturbance of the universes magnetism, caused by matter's (charge=protons & electrons) motion? Who knows?) & is densest at each pole. We can attribute (=visualize or imagine) a virtual bar magnet, vertically, inside the earth, with each ends touching a polar region. My questions are: Does anybody have a link to that (north pole) naming history, with a brief explanation? Who named the magnetic north_south naming standards for compasses etc? & When (did they do that naming)? Technically. So I can track it(s evolution). --- I'd like a brief rundown (on that). It's as bad a conventional flow (electricity). Everybody (now) knows electrons flow, instead, e.g. against the diode's arrows (schematics). What a mess! Just another quirk* in Physics. If you lock this thread too, then I'll assume you don't want to admit how errorful physics really is. *Entanglement. "Errors don't add, they multiply," "Recognition is the 1st step to improvement." -- The royal society loves skeptics because if it's based on science (=the errors of our predecessors) then it's guaranteed wrong the 1st time. Get it right the 1st time. That's probably why this SFN website hacks the newcomer input down, because they know the basis is rotten, for sure. "Physics hasn't been designed for idiots, it's (randomness) been designed to make them (so)." This website still strips apostrophys & some quotation marks when copy pasting, & I can't get paste to work in windows, except the topic title. Can somebody help?

360°/day=360°/24hr=15°/hr=15°/60min=1°/4min. Here's the longer version. Angle_vs_Time_2016_12_11_1641_PS_Wi.pdf

Hi Strange "The experiment was wrongly designed". I do. (Should I deny it (= my interest)?) I've seen articles written thru the ages about the ether. The pros & cons. The cons seem to stem to this experiment (If I'm not mistaken). Your team tells me the ether was disproved. Ok, what was the evidence? I assume this (M&M experiment) was the major argument, that started that (opinion), judging from all the commotion involved. Everyone had expected a result, except Maxwell. But I didn't know that. When I 1st saw the experiment, though, I had a similar impression as Maxwell's that what gets done, gets undone on the return path. I spoke to a physicist from the royal society about that, & he went thru the calculations on the chalk board. My mind went blank when he had finished, =my 1st impression had vanished. An error was not to be seen, it seemed convincing. Good, that led me to the search to try find the difference between both perspectives. Why had I seen, what I later found to be Maxwell's final opinion. E.g. a concept was there, why couldn't the math prove it? Years later I had a hunch the 2nd dimension of the x,y axis had been forgotten. I had for a long time wanted the calculations from the professor but the books I had seen were not like his. Many publishers on internet want horrendous prices for a single (ancient) paper (sometimes the price of a book 30$ & up). So I was at a loss, frustrated or disappointed I couldn't back check. But then I found this forum SFN & made the link request. You, Strange, answered & I was delighted. But, by the 4th day, it looked futile, same result. Were there things we couldn't explain (with science)? That opened a whole Pandora's box (of questions) for me. Is there a god? an afterlife? multi_universes? Should I believe in (Einstein's) relativity? (My) Back against the wall, with no other alternative, it seemed I had no other alternative, relativity seemed like the only explanation possible (that was left). Hesitant on that verge of a 50/50 decision, unsure, I asked myself, is it so? The smallest (inkling) of an impression I got, was no. Ok I said, well then why? That (now) voice_like impression indicated (=pointed to) from the (experiment's) sketch in my mind to look at the experiment('s setup, comparing) look for its errors (differences). Do you see any differences between the sketch & the experiment setup? Then I noticed on the 2nd arm (=path), if that was suppose to be a 90 degrees angle to the mirror (b), why wasn't it so in the diagram fig. 2 (1887)? Then I thought, uh? How is that possible? How can you make a 90 degrees (angle into) not 90 (degrees). These were reliable men (or so I had thought). & I had trusted them. But there was something there that was not right, & didn't make sense. Well then, I knew there, the mystery been solved, & was happy (=content) (that) I had not made the conversion to the Einstein (religion, denomination) like everybody else had. You had almost converted me (to that denomination). My major argument (=objection) against relativity is it is time consuming. I can't tell you the years I've wasted with it. & the unsurity, dealing with things we cannot measure (with enough accuracy). I noticed you carefully gave me a paper on relativity hoping I'd swallow it, but it was the last thing I wanted, (it was) an obstacle preventing me from reading the M&M experiment, simply a distraction from getting to the root of the problem (in my opinion). OK, so if the M&M experiment has a (serious math error (flaw) & it's not being discussed & made public, then what is the reason (=purpose) for the coverup? Why is it still being promoted? (To promote relativity? Who knows?) I don't have a full appreciation for what we can do with relativity that is important, that we can not do with classical physics KE using the initial speed v0=c. What can we do with relativity, that is (so) important? Will it stop wars peacefully? & make everybody happy & healthy? (Kepler's orbit period is only an approximation (with error!).) Are errors going to do that & improve everything? String theory & GR (ch22) say c is NOT constant, although SR is based on constant c. What sort of non_sense is that. What are the (significant, useful) issues (=themes) for a practical person (like me)? What good is it for our daily life? I don't need relativity to have an atomic clock, Won't simply "accurate" ether mechanics do instead? Where & why? I can't make much sense about wave mechanics, without an ether, & Einstein promoted it (=the ether), 1922 Lyden. Feynnman even said quantum mechanics (as we now have) is not understandable (or words to that effect). Einstein & Bohr had their differences, =Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics either. Please don't ask where I read that I don't remember, I only said it now to give you an idea of how my opinion was formed. Einstein was searching for a unified field theory, but never completed (because it's not possible to with such a mess). If you guys aren't interested in cleaning up your errors, then that's your problem with all its disadvantages. I'm just trying to help (that little bit) if I can. (I don't know about you, but) I'm sick & tired of stumbling into mistakes & errors, that I never expected. & taking the longest way (=method) to get there. That's never the way I expected physics to be. But it's still happening so. To answer your question generally: Anyone (cares about the M&M flaw, who has been) insulted by the absurdity (=nonsense) of its denial. Yours truly. But there are lots of etherists out there. Internet is full of them. Denial has the advantage that you don't have to prove anything. Science has also professed the earth was the center of the universe, & then changed its mind 100s of years later. I don't have to wait around so long to make up my mind. In the 1900s you=scientists rejected continental drift for more than a decade. (=Said it was wrong. Wilson was almost retired till ya caught on. It's a popularity contest, hardly much more, when it runs so bad. For me it was obvious that the continents had been fit together; but I was educated (=taught) the opposite, because of scientists' reasoning. Past is past, Wilson gave us a rundown on what happened to him.) That's what I question the most. What are the expectations & why? E.g. Are they bidirectional (forth & back) experiments? Maxwell said that kind is futile, it won't work. Only a 1_way experiment can help show ether existence. E.g. Inertial fall, of light. it? Oh I enjoy the universe enough. It's some of her inhabitants that's more the problem. True science has no problems, it's holders have them, dealing with the rest. Here, do it yourself: http://physics.nyu.edu/~physlab/Classical%20and%20Quantum%20Wave%20Lab/Speed_of_light_03-01-2016.pdf Thank's for the link Strange. (#18) #19 Sorry I haven't found the link you wanted, & I don't know 1. Maybe Feynnman wrote something, about time going backwards for anti_matter. That's the obvious polarity problem of dealing with rooting time squared. If you go to the mathematicians they say the negative polarity is wrong for time; but if you go to the nuclear physicists they say time goes backwards (=is negative), so their length can stay positive (=normal or natural). Somewhere a compromise has to be made with that polarity syntax.

Hi It looks like you are confused about the names. You've mixed them up, by the looks of it, which is an honest mistake when starting. Voltage does NOT (really) flow thru the resistor. CURRENT flows (instead), which is called electrons per second. Is that understandable? Think of voltage like (water's) pressure in a pipe. & (a river's) current is the "flowing" water. Voltage "drop" is like the water's pressure_drop. The water comes out slower at the end of a very long garden hose, but stronger & faster from the tap (of the kitchen sink). Or a bit like that. The hose is like a (resistor) wire. 1 end (=output) has less pressure when the water flows. If the tap (faucet) is turned off, then all the water inside has the same (amount of) pressure. "Resistance" "resists" current; NOT voltage_drop. Voltage_drop like pressure, makes the current flow!

So with Studiot's equation all you have to find is the pressure at -100 feet in sea water. The "pressure ratio P1/P2", is the volume factor (used on V1) you are looking for. That means pressures large/small. Small=1 atm. (That's a simple denominator of 1, intended to be easy.) Using mercury's density, we know it rises 0.760 m (height, under vacuum). Multipling that (height) with a "square meter" gives us the volume of mercury, lifted. Thus knowing how many cc=cubic centimeters, (from a volume conversion), you can find the mercury's mass (in gram, & convert to kg). With that (mass) you can find its weight (force), which is in Pascal (units kg/qm), which I gave you from STP. Now all you need is the depth in meters; & calculate sea water's mass, for a similar area (column's volume). Then calculate its weight. Since each weight, used the same area (of 1qm=quadratic meter=square_meter), you can get the pressures. But remember, the pressure at the sea water's depth is the extra weight (force, of sea water), added onto the air's. Right under the water's surface (a few centimeters), the pressure is slightly (a tiny bit) more than 1 atm, (increasing as you go deeper, till "about" -3 m, where the pressure is "about" 2 atm, etc.). Except for those large numbers, (kilogram & cc), you should have enough info to manage (if you are careful). Good luck. Thanks, just trying to give him a bit (of extra) background, so he could do it himself. We'll have to (wait &) see, if it helped. A shot in the dark. Maybe I said it wrong.Perhaps you would like to comment. Please do. Yes, unfortunately my poor style (& haste?=trying too quick). Nice to hear. Yes.P.S. I do believe we all need encouragement, but sometimes we forget that.

But I suspect you're (having problems) wondering about (& trying to figure out) pressure P=F/A force F per area A, & why the air is pushing more than a ton (worth) (per square meter); or a kilogram (worth) (per square centimeter) on our skin; & that we get an extra atmosphere (worth) of pressure, each -3 meters (= -10 feet) deep in the water. That all has to do with the mass of air above our heads (till outer space), multiplied by g is the weight (force), but it's per (an) area (you choose). The sea water also has mass (per volume), but if you use a column (for the depth, =(negative) height) then the bottom's end is your (desired) area. Because volume=length*area. Maybe that's the tip you need. Mercury rises 760 mm in a tube (tall enough, with "any" diameter, meaning for the "area") as long as a vacuum above (it=mercury) exists & the air's pressure can push down on it's (=mercury's) surface (in the dish, or cup) to make the mercury go up into the tube. In other words, the (air's) pressure is pushing up that weight Wt=m*g (of the mercury('s mass m)). How many grams, depends on the tube's (volume, or) area (& the height=length_tall of mercury). Pascals are kilograms per square_meter, pressure. Newtons are kilogram*meter per second_squared, force, e.g. weight.

Hi Frank I like Studiot's last formula P1*V1=P2*V2. Please notice, P*V is energy (units). *=multiply. Your constant R is in metric units, so you can not use (cubic) feet. (=Please convert to (cubic) meters.) K is degrees Kelvin. 1 mole is 22.4 L at STP=standard temperature & pressure (for "any" gas!) 273.15 K (=0 degree C), 1 atm (760 mm Hg=Mercury, =101.3 kPa). 1 L=1 Liter is 1/1000th of a cubic meter. (Unfortunately?) moles are often given in gram, not kg=kilogram, because it's more obvious (easier) for gas. I suppose we can't follow the problem (task) because we can't read the thumbnail pictures, the quality is too little. I can not picture what you have to do exactly, with your description about a prism, column of air (no container?), bubbles passing etc. Densities are ok. They (also) can be converted to (metric) kg/cubic_meter (units). But I don't know who does that, because moles are often given in gram from the chemical periodic table (chart, poster) AtWt=atomic weight (in gram (mass); although weight (Wt=m*g) in Physics is a force (in Newton units, NOT gram). But science is a bit screwy sometimes. The word "Weight" is ambiguous: according to the physicists, everybody (including the chemists) are using it for the wrong word, "mass". The chemists were extra careful & said "weight mass", together, or "mass weight" so everybody including the physics, would know what the chemists are talking about. Basically (it is easy=simple) you (are to) equate moles n=P*V/(R*T) n1=n2 because the mass before (expansion) is the same as after. (COM=Conservation of mass). Each symbol receives a number (1 or 2), left side 1, right side 2. If the temperature stays the same, it(s' values) cancels out, when brought to 1 side, leaving you with Studiot's equation: The ability to find either the new volume or pressure knowing the older ones, & 1 of the newer. R=R1=R2 (is a constant). The trick for success (in physics & chemisty) is to get the units right for each symbol; & make sure the formulas stay an equation (=balanced, equal equality, NOT more, nor less than the other side of the equation. No compromises=exceptions!) I hope that helps. If you would redescribe that (better), maybe we could help.Maybe all you have to do is type the task exactly as it is written, or else refoto in better quality. Otherwise we're just guessing, what you have to do, & thus don't know where your problems are. I do not know yet why you need conversion to moles, if you have volumes.But (you're probably looking for them) don't worry simply give us a clear copy of your task, & describe those few sentences better, please. Maybe we are missing just a few words. If you state depth, below sea_level please use a minus sign, & in meters (units).

True, a medium was in mind, but the math is wrong. Thus I can't believe the interpretation results.The null result is because both path lengths are identical, thus same delay; NOT no ether. Michelson interpreted, no medium (rather absurd, considering what Maxwell wrote in the encyclopedia of Britanica) because he (=Michelson) did the math wrong. His math angles don't all fit his experiment. That's an obvious cheat. Michelson calculated a considerable difference between both paths with those wrong angles; that if a difference existed (but it didn't) then could help determine the earth's speed. He didn't even have a (correct) starting basis, with wrong math. (That's incompentence, but he had a nervous breakdown, par for the course of things, because he was wrong. But he must have got that idea from from somewhere. You gals & guys would know more about that than me.) Unfortunately for Michelson his math is not verified by his experimental results, either. Michelson drew the wrong conclusion. In later life he still could NOT believe the ether did not exist (nor many other scientists too, not to mention Heaviside (developed the 4 socalled Maxwell equations with it), Einstein 1922, Lorentz, Lenard, Newton, ..) repeating the experiment, but his belief did NOT correct his math error. So he stayed misguided. To me it's a trivial mistake, with serious consequences. But it's NOT my problem, its yours. You've all found other ways to deal with such an error. I've got almost no more further problems with that M&M experiment, I can now deal with it & accept that the exact difference is exactly zero; & that there is still an ether; which is probably more than I can say you all do (right now). I assume you all know what I meant. I'm more interested in who started the misguidence. Where did the math sketch (idea) originally come from? Whose idea was it? Obviuosly NOT from Maxwell (before Michelson), because Maxwell was against bidirectional path experiments, because he had already tried, failed, & determined the reason why they fail, with an ether (existing). Michelson had tried to pick apart Maxwell's error, but he had NOT anticipated that what Maxwell talked about was only experimental error. Maxwell knew it was a waste of time after that, but Stokes talked him out of publishing the failured experiment. If Maxwell had published, Michelson might NOT have published? Who knows? But Michelson wanted to show off how well (accurately) he could measure, so there is no guarantee there.

Thanks for the links Strange The experiment was NOT designed correctly, thus failed its purpose, which can be expected (for such a folly). Michelson's math (geometry) would NOT even work for water (waves). (Why then light?) You mean time_delay "differences".Other (more accurate) experiments have confirmed Michelson's folly. They only repeated the same non_sense, unfortunately. The experiment calculation attempted to compare time delay between the 2 different paths, that was intended to calculate earth's speed thru the ether. Thanks for the links Strange. Yes I wanted to save that for the end, because it(s confusion) disturbed me from the beginning.Peculiar ideas that don't fit together in my head although you are happy with them, they don't always make sense to me. I can't say anything about light's speed in a medium, but you all do (claim you can). But I wonder if you've measured it, in various mediums? For me abberation is a surface effect caused by the change in density. The angle changes as the momentum is transferred to a different mass (rotating?, molecule or atom?) thus does not make a complete cycle in the same period T=1/f inverse frequency if the next mass is a different value. I haven't seen any experiments measuring light's speed in different mediums directly, e.g. without using refractive indexes. Do you have any? We all know we can calculate the angles so; but are there any measurements without that assumption. According to relativity, the frame can be swapped, allowing the earth to move, or the stars. I don't quite know why everybody hangs onto that star speed for determining angles. They filled a telescope with water, but light's angle didn't change more after the surface barrier density change, that it passed thru. Surface_densitys change is an equally valid idea, for that particular angle change. Do you have any experiments that measure the light's speed in different medium directly? i.e. without knowing the refractive index. e.g. time delays in substance length.

Please explain.Does that mean you know the calculations are corrupt? ? A few comments might go quicker. Thanks for the yummy link. What disturbs me is they "rotated" the rope to get those "waves?" E.g. Cyclic motion instead of propagation. What's that?I only know charge_density (charges/volume) & that its number can change wrt position. If someone says field, my mind goes blank & I think of grass, hay field (area). Probably because that's where & when the rumour began.We've got to start somewhere, pack it at its roots. Michelson made the suggestion: Maybe no ether. The weak followed it (easily hypnotized?), the rest followed them without hypnosis (maybe?), simply obeying. There is enough accuracy to get a good idea of how things should be +/-1% error. Accuracy today should confirm (=show, for sure) what they were doing, (with the advantage that we can find out what they did) right & wrong. Why more experiments, for more accuracy, when the experiment is wrong?The more accurate link you gave me earlier, #2, maintains the same wrong geometry. http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml The dotted line path is wrong, & the incident ray should land (hitting perpendicularly, straight up) at C (instead of diagonally to the right at C'), but to do that the mirror C must be much longer to the left (not even a millimeter experimentally), (in order to advance (to the) right to the C' position while getting hit perpendicularly at C). Is that clear for you? The reflection at C is based on a (circular) Huygens wavefront. The incident angle is 90 degrees, but the reflected angle is double the professor's. E.g. Michelson allowed himself half of that (correct angle) split onto both angles, which is wrong, because 90 degrees (incident) does not exist (in his sketch) although his experiment is so (=90 degrees, even while moving). Most calculations don't use Huygen's principle & so they get the wrong answer. OK, but that's the (decisive) question. What's the point of more experimental accuracy, when such a (bidirectional) experiment is NOT even capable of producing a difference between paths, NOT to mention anything else (like ether relevance). I.e. Because both paths have "identical" lengths, it's simply the wrong type of experiment. Michelson (ignored that) went on & continued as though that wasn't important. (That's stupidity.) Anybody doing that today is also on the wrong trail, (&) I don't care how (experimentally) accurate they can be, they won't find it with that method. It's just as stupid. We need (to do) something that will solve the problem; NOT repeat the same mistake with greater accuracy. Michelson stated the (stationary ether) hypothesis is erroneous 1881 pg 128, but in fact his (own) hypothesis is erroneous. He interpreted the displacement as zero (that's correct, but he should have concluded that). Instead he concluded the results of the hypothesis are wrong; instead of only concluding the displacement is zero, & interpreting the hypothesis wrong. In 1887 he questioned whether a difference is measurable or exists. His conclusion should have been, a difference does NOT exist. Maxwell is right, I can NOT measure the earth speed in the ether, as Maxwell said.

The significance of the M&M experiment is: 1. "no difference" (of delay) between both paths; 2. no drag (of the ether); 3. wave_length measurement (ability). 4. However, non_existence of the ether can NOT be confirmed (with such a forth & back experiment; 5. thus confirming Maxwell; 6. NOT Michelson). 7. Don't you find it peculiar that we can measure a "wave's" length? 8. E.g. On what does a (moving) wave exist? ..if not the movement of some "thing". 9. A naive person would ignore that question. 10. Michelson fudged the angles on the 2nd path, i.e. a (=one) 90 degrees is missing, & everybody is happy with that. Nobody is interested.

I also had a feeling Swansont would top us, with acceleration. I was disappointed before, but it helped me fit my recreation concept, so I was relatively content, after. Milikan's oil drop experiment popped in my head: constant speed under gravity (acceleration), (because of viscous friction force compensation, but the drops travel at steady speed.) Naturally, why? (do we come to a steady speed, equilibrium, even parachuters do that when sky diving.) I'll still need a formal education there.(That's too close=near to reality (vocabulary, monotiny), for me. It's as bad as "tasty" for food. It tells me too little, on it's own. Tendencial. (Tendancy, positive feedback.) That's probably why, once I know & recognize it.Til then. The tricky part for me is the mass flow calc, across (=thru) an area. (It's a little too abstract, =virtual, for me, yet.) I'm still not happy with it, considering I've tried to do similar with electricity, for the amount of electron mass (travelling thru an area) per ampere. I think it was something like 9 ng/s. I need some time to work on it. But glad you continued. The other thing that occured to me, is a steady speed, water is still moving; but there is a force (pressure) pushing it (thru the hose or pipe) so it stays moving. (It all boils back down to force produces constant speed, instead of acceleration, paradox, mystery. E.g. Swansont's: "Motion at constant velocity involves no net force.") & curved wire, looped turns, must also have, electron direction change, perhaps causing the electromagnetic (radiation, magnetism) that it does. E.g. The curl around the wire, based on momentum. Those are the things I have to think about, further. But the most interesting example you mentioned today, was the dancing garden hose. I suspect there is a lot more to it. That caught my attention.

Yes. Fascinating.What about the calculations? v vs v^2. There is a cliff, a gap, of understanding. I see (fluid's) momentum in 1 direction, e.g. x being converted (e.g. destroyed (=decelleration) in 1 direction & newly recreated (=acceleration, of the fluid particles))* into e.g. the y direction. (* I know physicists, don't like to hear that (destroyed/created) but that's how I think about it easiest.) But I suspect, more complicated behaviour is happening, e.g. like (electron) back splashing recoil, in (old radio) vaccum tubes, as analogy. Maybe you could continue (explaining) a bit more? Sounds good.

Yes, it looks like we are coming a bit forward.Please expain (a few sentences) what happens to the pipelines (with & without) thrust blockers. It sounds like big problems, against naive science. E.g. If momentum mom=m*v the engineering toolbox uses speed "squared", instead of only speed for the (momentum's) force calculation. (That tends to an energy calculation, without the half in KE, for me.) Perhaps insurance, against worst case? http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/forces-pipe-bends-d_968.html I'd also expect a straight, long pipe would get pushed, or dragged, by the viscous friction (force), in the direction of the flow speed. Versus no flow.