# madmac surprise (Hijack from Two Bolts Strike Train)

## Recommended Posts

Strange.

The math is common sense. Beryllium results in approx. 6 times less compression strain & tension strain than Aluminium. This would lower Grusenick's 2 fringe-shifts to 1/3rd of a fringe-shift. Not bad, but still more than the desired say 1/10th of a fringe-shift (because we don't want strain fringe-shift to be bigger than M&M fringe-shift).

Now here comes the clever thing. He designs the gizmo so that the axle is central between the mirrors. This might need a big re-design of the gizmo. And if the axle is central, then the compression strain above the axle will be negated by the tension strain below the axle, & the nett strain fringe-shift will in theory be zero.

Remember here that Grusenick's 2 fringe-shifts in his improved gizmo are due to the critical length of the arm being in compression, & later in tension. Here the critical part of the arm is the part of the arm between the mirrors. Hencely the fringe-shift due to the compression is a half of that-there 2, ie it is 1 fringe-shift. And the fringe-shift due to the tension is 1 fringe-shift also. And 1 plus 1 makes Grusenick's 2.

If these are reduced by 1/6th by using Beryllium (assuming that Grusenick used Aluminium), we have 1/6 plus 1/6 makes 2/6ths.

But if we put the axle in the center of the mirror complex, we have half of the critical length of the arm of the gizmo suffering compression strain, & a half suffering tension strain. A very simplified analysis suggests that in the half suffering compression the strain (if beryllium) is minus 1/12th of a fringe-shift (ie a half of 1/6th), & at the same instant in the half suffering tension the strain is plus 1/12th of a fringe-shift, & the plus & minus negate to give zero fringe-shift. And this negation would be found at all declinations (due to symmetry). And if the strain fringe-shift in the gizmo when in the vertical plane iz zero, then any measured fringe-shift would be due to M&M effect, & temperature effect.

U might point out that if Grusenick does a good job of putting his axle centrally tween the mirrors then it doesn't matter whether he uses Beryllium or sticks to the cheaper Aluminium. That is true. But Beryllium is "safer".

• Replies 65
• Created

#### Posted Images

DanMP.

I had another look at the video, & i read the story of the 2 new gizmos, & i read the many comments. ...

The best comment was that M&M requires a shift each quarter turn, not each half turn. I should have spotted this straight away. So, an M&M effect is unlikely here.

I thought you realized that it's no ether wind ...

In a rigid assembly the shift is much smaller. Look at this redo:

As I wrote above, general relativity can explain it. Maximum shifts occurred when one mirror was at its top position and the other at its lowest, 2 times per cycle, because they reverse position. Space-time is warped near Earth, so the upper and lower regions are different. Maybe Strange can explain better. I want to add that the refractive index may also play a role since light travel slower in denser air (below) ... They should try in vacuum or water. The time of travel is also affected by the gravitational time dilation (a clock above the orizontal beamsplitter ticks faster then a clock below).

Harch was calculating the gravitational time dilation, and it's close to what I estimated. The wording suggests that it does not include the effects of speed changing.

Alzetta (in 3.6 Clock bias on and near Earth - pg 35) wrote: ...

you can see the math showing that speed changing effects are much bigger than gravitational effects but still smaller then the measured values.

I think that this problem (noon/midnight difference) can be solved by having 2 accurate atomic clocks, one at South pole and the other at North pole, during few weeks in mid summer/winter.

Edited by DanMP
##### Share on other sites

you can see the math showing that speed changing effects are much bigger than gravitational effects but still smaller then the measured values.

I think that this problem (noon/midnight difference) can be solved by having 2 accurate atomic clocks, one at South pole and the other at North pole, during few weeks in mid summer/winter.

The calculated values are for someone at rest with respect to the sun. Are the measured values (assuming they are correct) in that same frame of reference? (The measured values are published in a crank journal. As I said, I'd like to see the work of other people replicating these or similar results.) I'm pretty sure nobody is doing a measurement with respect to a clock on the sun itself.

##### Share on other sites

zztop.

But a 60dg angle off ideal must have seemed acceptable to them. 90dg off ideal would give a null result. It wasn't till later years that they realised that the aether-wind was almost perpendicular to the Equator, & that ideally they should be doing tests in the Tropics.

Total rubbish. Disproved 82 years ago by Hammar experiment.

Edited by zztop
##### Share on other sites

I don't know why ... i suppose ... i suppose that u must reckon ... u should get a maximum result ... I wouldn't say ... U could make a gizmo ... I daresay that ... And his gizmo could be better designed ... And the axle should go through the middle ... In addition the gizmo could be calibrated for strain...

!

Moderator Note

I'm leaving this thread open because there's an actual science discussion going on between swansont and Dan MP.

madmac, I snipped this out of one of your recent posts to show why others are objecting to your loose, guesswork-based, rigor-free discussion style. You are simultaneously refusing to study mainstream science, and giving in to its greatest weakness, subjectivity. You don't formally study and then you inflict your uninformed guesswork on yourself. There are an awful lot of posts here and in other threads offering you help with this. You should reread them all.

##### Share on other sites

Alzetta says that Hatch said that -- "Hill reported that millisecond pulsars external to the solar system reveal a difference in clock rate between clock located at noon and at midnight".

The difference is about 300 ps/sec, & is due to Earth's orbit & daily spin. SR does not recognise any orbital contribution. GR suggests that the difference should be only 0.42 ps/sec, ie due to a greater gravitational potential due to the sun at noon.

I should note that nobody has been able to measure the 0.42 ps/s shift with two clocks on earth because clock comparison techniques over the required distances are not quiet enough to discern the differences. I went to a talk by Jan Hall (Nobel in 2005) in the last year or two, where he was talking about doing this once optical clocks and fiber-optic time transfer made it feasible.

##### Share on other sites

zztop.

I looked into Hammar a couple of weeks ago after u or someone else here referred to his test.

His test was simply to find any evidence of aether-drag -- one leg of a sort of M&M gizmo was inside a thick steel tube, the other leg was out in the air.

He found no evidence to support drag. This proved that Michelson's & Miller's ideas about aether-drag were wrong.

In other words, aether, if it exists, suffers or enjoys little or zero drag.

I don't remember seeing anything wrong with Hammar's test & logic etc. However i only read what was little more than a super-long abstract, less than one page. I suppose that he did write a multi-page paper, which i wouldn't mind reading.

swansont.

Yes points taken. But lets not forget that the OP concerns Einstein's forked-lighting-&-train imaginary experiment.

I wonder what sort of reception he would have gotten had he posted his idea on a forum under the name madAlby.

Bearing in mind also that his wordage doesn't include maybe or perhaps.

##### Share on other sites

Yes points taken. But lets not forget that the OP concerns Einstein's forked-lighting-&-train imaginary experiment.

I wonder what sort of reception he would have gotten had he posted his idea on a forum under the name madAlby.

Bearing in mind also that his wordage doesn't include maybe or perhaps.

As his logic is simple and an inevitable conclusion from the invariant speed of light (as predicted by Maxwell) I think people would have simply accepted it. As, in fact, they did.

You have failed to produce any valid counter-argument and so we can dismiss your opinions/beliefs as baseless and worthless.

##### Share on other sites

Yes points taken. But lets not forget that the OP concerns Einstein's forked-lighting-&-train imaginary experiment.

I wonder what sort of reception he would have gotten had he posted his idea on a forum under the name madAlby.

Bearing in mind also that his wordage doesn't include maybe or perhaps.

I don't think I've addressed the issues in the OP, just the misconceptions peripheral to it, so this is moot. Crap arguments provide no support for whatever claims you make.

##### Share on other sites

I don't think I've addressed the issues in the OP, just the misconceptions peripheral to it, so this is moot. Crap arguments provide no support for whatever claims you make.

+1. I give up. When one plays with crap one gets dirty.

zztop.

I looked into Hammar a couple of weeks ago after u or someone else here referred to his test.

His test was simply to find any evidence of aether-drag -- one leg of a sort of M&M gizmo was inside a thick steel tube, the other leg was out in the air.

He found no evidence to support drag. This proved that Michelson's & Miller's ideas about aether-drag were wrong.

In other words, aether, if it exists, suffers or enjoys little or zero drag.

I don't remember seeing anything wrong with Hammar's test & logic etc. However i only read what was little more than a super-long abstract, less than one page. I suppose that he did write a multi-page paper, which i wouldn't mind reading.

You have a very poor understanding of Hammar's experiment. Read here

##### Share on other sites

zztop.

No i am correct. Hammar merely showed that there is not entrainment by aether.

Extending this to supposedly proving that there is no aether & no aether-wind is Sfarti's silly idea.

Most of the wordage & equations & ideas in that article in that link are Sfarti's, not Hammar's.

Sfarti says that he has resurrected Hammar's paper from 1935. No he hasn't, there was no paper, the figures & equations are all Sfarti''s.

I will have a closer look at what Sfarti wrote, to see exactly where he is wrong, & i will report back. But it will take a little while.

##### Share on other sites

zztop.

No i am correct. Hammar merely showed that there is not entrainment by aether.

Extending this to supposedly proving that there is no aether or no aether-wind is Sfarti's silly idea.

Most of the wordage & equations & ideas in that article in that link are Sfarti's, not Hammar's.

Of course you are "correct", you never give up in your nonsense.

##### Share on other sites

zztop.

When i read Hammar's short note & description i thought that it looked ok, & i didn't give it a lot of thought because after all no aetherist today believes in aether-drag, so the whole matter is of only historic interest. Although i do know of one or two who believe in a fixed aether, rather than a free-range aether wind, but even for them i suspect that they have the same disinterest.

But if any further info is available showing that Hammar did indeed do rotation tests, then that would need further looking into. But his statement that he did tests at all azimuths doesn't mean that he did rotation tests.

However, now that i have re-read the note, i realise that Hammar cannot see a fringe shift by just by peering in the direction of his gizmo. A fringe shift will only happen if something moves or rotates, or if something changes. Otherwise all u have is some nice looking fringes, & no shift.

So what did Hammar do to try to get a fringe shift??

He had to do something, which should result in a fringe shift (eg rotate the gizmo), & having seen no shift, he proves his point.

But Sfarti's equations etc need a good looking at in their own right. Perhaps tomorrow.

DanMP.

I measured the fringe shifts for all 6 of his rotations, 1 horizontal, 3 vertical (2 one way, 1 the reverse way), & 2 more vertical rotations examining Grusenick's finding that the fringe shifts change direction when the half-mirror is horizontal (ie when the arm is at 45dg).

And i measured the fringe shifts in the Grusenick video, i horizontal rotation & 2 vertical.

My measurements were mostly at 0.5sec intervals, measuring (estimating) to 1/20th of a fringe. I now have more respect for M&M and Co.

Re the horizontal mirror business during vertical rotation, Pearce's rotations appear to give the same result as Grusenick's. Although Pearce says that the gizmo is pointing to 8 o'clock & 2 o'clock. I think he actually meant 7:30 o'clock & 1:30 o'clock (ie 45dg, ie what Grusenick found). This is interesting. Earlier i suggested that the 45dg happens because of a fluke, when the bending flex-shift equals the compression-tension-strain-shift. But Pearce's gizmo uses a 1" thick granite tile for a base, whilst Grusenick's uses Aluminium. And Pearce's axle passes centrally through the mirror complex, Grusenick's passes well outside the mirrors.

Pearce made his gizmo only to show that Grusenick's 11 fringe fringe-shift (in the vertical plane) was due to strain, & wasn't a valid M&M result. He didn't know that Grusenick had already improved his gizmo, & Mark#2 gave a shift of 2 fringes, & Mark#3 gave 1.5 fringes. Pearce's gizmo gave 3 fringes & 2 fringes & 1.9 fringes (for 3 vertical rotations)(my measurements).

Any M&M gizmo can detect an aether-wind (assuming it exists), but it wont be measureable unless the gizmo is well designed. The Grusenick & Pearce gizmos have a light path of i think less than 1m, much less than the 10m to 64m used by Michelson & by Miller. A calibration analysis might show that they need to detect shifts of less than 1/20th of a fringe (perhaps 1/200th). The approx. 2.0 shifts of noise in their vertical M&Ms give them no hope. And their horizontal M&Ms have about shifts of 0.9 (Pearce) & 0.5 (Grusenick) of noise (my measurements), still no good.

If anyone wants to carry out their own measurements, u will need to measure & allow for the floppy targets, & the floppy cameras. I found that i had to add or subtract up to 0.4 shifts (Grusenick) & 0.27 shifts (Pearce).

And despite their small sizes, neither gizmo returned to zero at the end of a rotation, this refers to both the horizontal tests & the vertical tests. Pearce's horizontal test finished at 0.25 fringes right (after 360dg)(should have finished at 0.00). His vertical rotations finished at 0.40 right, then 0.30 left, then 0.15 left (instead of 0.00). Grusenick's horizontal turn finished at 0.30 left, & the vert turns at 2.00 right, & 2.00 right (instead of 0.00).

At the end of Pearce's 3 vertical rotations, if u keep watching, the fringes slowly drift 0.45 right over the next 26 seconds, while the gizmo is standing still, while Pearce is talking about something else.

##### Share on other sites

Re measuring or estimating fringe shifts. M&M used a yellow sodium light for alignment etc, but then a white acetylene light for the tests. Acetylene gave a nice big sharp black central main fringe, which they reckoned allowed measurements of 1/100th of a fringe. They even mentioned the possibility of 1/1000th of a fringe.

But Pearce & Grusenick's green HeNe laser often gives fuzzy fringes (at least on the youtube video). This would make green M&Ms more difficult.

Which reminds me, i think it was Hicks who pointed out that eyeballing the fringe shifts would give different results to photographic measurements (believe it or not).

##### Share on other sites

Re measuring or estimating fringe shifts. M&M used a yellow sodium light for alignment etc,

...because monochromatic light has a much shorter coherence length than white light. One needs short coherence light in order to calibrate the setup (make the arms have equal length).

but then a white acetylene light for the tests. Acetylene gave a nice big sharp black central main fringe, which they reckoned allowed measurements of 1/100th of a fringe.

Only AFTER MM calibrated the setup, they could afford to use white light since the long coherence length can no longer affect the measurement. White light had the advantage of making very sharp fringes with a very distinct central fringe.

But Pearce & Grusenick's green HeNe laser often gives fuzzy fringes (at least on the youtube video).

...which only make the fringes harder to read.

This would make green M&Ms more difficult.

ONLY if one were naive enough to use eyeballing in order to determine fringe "move".

Which reminds me, i think it was Hicks who pointed out that eyeballing the fringe shifts would give different results to photographic measurements (believe it or not).

...which is precisely why eyeballing is not used in modern MMX.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

OK, that gives us plenty of evidence that you have no evidence for any of the things you're asserting in this hijack of another thread. Since you can't support any of it, discussion of these ideas is futile, and wasteful of member resources.

Please don't bring any of these arguments up again in any thread or they will be removed, and you may be suspended or banned.

Science. Discussion. Forum.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×