illuusio Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid Edited October 5, 2012 by illuusio -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid You have already failed to demonstrate your claims on multiple occasions, so I am going to call you out on this early to save everyone here a lot of time. Prove it, or for the love of God, stop posting crap threads. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 You have already failed to demonstrate your claims on multiple occasions, so I am going to call you out on this early to save everyone here a lot of time. Prove it, or for the love of God, stop posting crap threads. Stick to the issue here Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error? Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. Please provide supportive evidence for this assertion. Mmm... it's eating you up that I won't disclose my experiment But can you agree that M-M experiment is wrongly executed? Who says that ether wind should be horizontal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) "Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error" You have not made any meaningful observation: you just said it's wrong. It's not an observation, but an assertion. It is also lacking any evidence. Unless you can do a lot better than that there is nothing to discuss and we should close the thread now. Also, the MM expt showed the lack of any ether even though the plane of the experiment shifted rather a lot on the grand scale. Edited October 4, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Mmm... it's eating you up I think you should look in the mirror, or follow the biblical advice about the mote and the beam. I say this from genuine concern about your health. Since the original speed of light experiments there have been many alternative ones, including interplanetary ones, which have all yielded the same basic result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Mmm... it's eating you up that I won't disclose my experiment Another sign of your tragic space dementia, all paranoid and crotchety. Breaks the heart. * * Thanks, Mal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Mmm... it's eating you up that I won't disclose my experiment But can you agree that M-M experiment is wrongly executed? Who says that ether wind should be horizontal? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Stick to the issue here Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error? As you have not, and never do, provide any evidence to back up your WAG about the whole thing, what do I have to disagree with? Henceforth, when you post these kinds of threads I am just going to start reporting them out of hand. Your nonsense is gone beyond funny to irritating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Your response is way too personal which is sad and against the rules of forum. The idea that M-M experiment is based on wrong idea at the first place is significant. If you can't see the picture you need a glasses. If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it? Here is more information on Fresnel's ether (search) -> http://redshift.vif....DF/v05n3nas.pdf THE reason why there is partial ether-dragging detected is due to vertical position (related to Earth) of water movement. Edited October 5, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 "If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it?" Yes, pretty much. These things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope are used in all 3 dimensions for navigation and such. If the ether was real and the ether drag effect was real we would crash a lot of planes. You can stop trolling now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid ! Moderator Note Given that you've already declared that you will not discuss any proof of the ether, there's really no potential discussion here. I can't think of a reason that this thread should remain open. Can you provide a reason? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 "If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it?" Yes, pretty much. These things http://en.wikipedia....laser_gyroscope are used in all 3 dimensions for navigation and such. If the ether was real and the ether drag effect was real we would crash a lot of planes. You can stop trolling now. Right... those "things" don't function as perfectly as they should function and I wonder why... I refer to lock-in, specially with low rotating speed. ! Moderator Note Given that you've already declared that you will not discuss any proof of the ether, there's really no potential discussion here. I can't think of a reason that this thread should remain open. Can you provide a reason? What a heck you are talking about? Talking about Michelson-Morley's possible system error is totally good topic, don't you think my friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 What a heck you are talking about? Talking about Michelson-Morley's possible system error is totally good topic, don't you think my friend? There is no "error". M-M showed we are not moving through the ether. Bradley previously showed we are not stationary wrt an ether. You claim something different — M-M's null result is because the earth creates an ether, and yet have previously declared you will offer no proof of this. Have you changed your mind? Because otherwise this runs afoul of Speculations rule #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Right... those "things" don't function as perfectly as they should function and I wonder why... I refer to lock-in, specially with low rotating speed. What a heck you are talking about? Talking about Michelson-Morley's possible system error is totally good topic, don't you think my friend? According to you, they should work perfectly in the horizontal plane but not at all in the vertical plane. That's not what happens. If reality doesn't agree with your ideas, it isn't because reality has made a mistake. We are talking about the fact that you explicitly refused to talk about the only thing that could conceivably prove your case. " I won't disclose my experiment " Actual practical experience with ring gyros proves that you are wrong. You have refused to say why you think you are right. I also can't see why this thread should remain open. Edited October 5, 2012 by John Cuthber 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobrainer Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid Here is five reasons that Fresenal's theory fails, 1). It cannot explain inflation 2). It can not explain time in one forward direction 3) it can not explain the universe expanding at an increasing rate of acceleration. 4). It can not explain the actions holding galaxies together called dark matter 5). It can not explain increasing entropy So it fails by observation and reason Edited October 5, 2012 by Nobrainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 There is no "error". M-M showed we are not moving through the ether. Bradley previously showed we are not stationary wrt an ether. You claim something different — M-M's null result is because the earth creates an ether, and yet have previously declared you will offer no proof of this. Have you changed your mind? Because otherwise this runs afoul of Speculations rule #1. Yes M-M showed that we are not moving through the ether, actually we create the ether and it's dragging a little. So? There is no evidence that there can't have ether. Actually there is experiment (Fizeau experiment) which proves ether (other than my experiment). Here is five reasons that Fresenal's theory fails, 1). It cannot explain inflation 2). It can not explain time in one forward direction 3) it can not explain the universe expanding at an increasing rate of acceleration. 4). It can not explain the actions holding galaxies together called dark matter 5). It can not explain increasing entropy So it fails by observation and reason How these pointers are related to partially dragging ether? According to you, they should work perfectly in the horizontal plane but not at all in the vertical plane. That's not what happens. If reality doesn't agree with your ideas, it isn't because reality has made a mistake. Do you have some kind of reference to claim that they don't work perfectly in horizontal plane? On surface of Earth I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronald Hyde Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yes M-M showed that we are not moving through the ether, actually we create the ether and it's dragging a little. So? There is no evidence that there can't have ether. Actually there is experiment (Fizeau experiment) which proves ether (other than my experiment). Every concept used in Physics has to be in some sense 'invented' by the Human mind. And then used to describe some aspect or aspects of Nature. Some of these inventions turn out to be wrong, dead wrong. Phlogiston for example. Some turn out to be superfluous, Ether for example. Why was Ether invented, to allow the new Electromagnetic waves a medium in which to propagate? If you actually read Maxwell's Treatise, I owned a copy as a teenager, the Dover version, and it had models of how they might propagate, he even had pictures of wheel and gear arrangements as models. As time passed he and others dropped all these kinds of models and were just left with the Ether model. But after M & M that model was dropped too as it simply made wrong predictions and no one felt it was needed. Only the equations themselves had any real meaning. And that's why people often call Physics 'mathematical physics', because we can only describe what happens in mathematical terms, to give an accurate picture. I remember very clearly when I was fifteen, reading a book about how electrons behaved in a cathode ray tube, that the electrons didn't have any properties outside of a particular physical context, no 'intrinsic' properties, we couldn't take them outside the World and examine them. And that every thing we said about them had to be expressed mathematically. So I don't feel any need for Ether, or even for Nature to have an underlying 'physical' context to be understood, just math with the correct text. So I reject the notion that there is an Ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 So I don't feel any need for Ether, or even for Nature to have an underlying 'physical' context to be understood, just math with the correct text. So I reject the notion that there is an Ether. To me that sounds kind of defence. Well, I can't understand that so there is no need for that. You understand what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Yes M-M showed that we are not moving through the ether, actually we create the ether and it's dragging a little. So? There is no evidence that there can't have ether. Actually there is experiment (Fizeau experiment) which proves ether (other than my experiment). Did you misread Fizeau's experiment? http://en.wikipedia....zeau_experiment Besides the problems of the partial aether-dragging hypothesis, another major problem arose with the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887). In Fresnel's theory, the aether is almost stationary, so the experiment should have given a positive result. However, the result of this experiment was negative. Thus from the viewpoint of the aether models at that time, the experimental situation was contradictory: On one hand, the Fizeau experiment and the repetition by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to prove the (almost) stationary aether with partial aether-dragging. On the other hand, the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 appeared to prove that the aether is at rest with respect to Earth, apparently supporting the idea of complete aether-dragging (seeaether drag hypothesis).[s 2] So the very success of Fresnel's hypothesis in explaining Fizeau's results helped lead to a theoretical crisis, which was not resolved until the development of the theory of special relativity. In 1892, Hendrik Lorentz proposed a modification of Fresnel's model, in which the aether is completely stationary. He succeeded in deriving Fresnel's dragging coefficient by the reaction of the moving water upon the interfering waves, without the need of any aether entrainment. In 1895, Lorentz more generally explained Fresnel's coefficient based on the concept of local time. However, Lorentz's theory had the same fundamental problem as Fresnel's: a stationary aether contradicted the Michelson-Morley experiment. So in 1892 Lorentz proposed that moving bodies contract in the direction of motion. Max von Laue (1907) demonstrated that the Fresnel drag coefficient can be easily explained as a natural consequence of the relativistic formula for addition of velocities,[s 12] namely: The speed of light in immobile water is c/n.From the velocity composition law it follows that the speed of light observed in the laboratory, where water is flowing with speed v (in the same direction as light) is Thus the difference in speed is (assuming v is small comparing to c, approximating to the first non-trivial correction) This is accurate when v/c << 1, and agrees with the formula based upon Fizeau's measurements, which satisfied the condition v/c << 1. Fizeau's experiment is hence supporting evidence for the collinear case of Einstein's velocity addition formula. Edited October 6, 2012 by Mellinia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Did you misread Fizeau's experiment? http://en.wikipedia....zeau_experiment No I didn't. M-M result doesn't conflict Fizeau's experiment. M-M experiment could only detect ether "wind" which is horizontal that's why negative result for moving ether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 No I didn't. M-M result doesn't conflict Fizeau's experiment. M-M experiment could only detect ether "wind" which is horizontal that's why negative result for moving ether. vertical as in longitudinal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 vertical as in longitudinal? Nope. Vertical is in this case up to the air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Nope. Vertical is in this case up to the air So the ether is flowing away from the earth,the earth as the center? Flowing to where? What creates ether to replace the ones that flow away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 So the ether is flowing away from the earth,the earth as the center? Flowing to where? What creates ether to replace the ones that flow away? Check my theory there is explanation for what you just asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts