Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Check my theory there is explanation for what you just asked. just checked. v14a stated FTEP create ether around masses. Is it created in the horizontal direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) just checked. v14a stated FTEP create ether around masses. Is it created in the horizontal direction? Ou.. current version is 22 You can get it from the link in my signature. Mmm... and masses include atom nucleus as well. Edited October 6, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Ou.. current version is 22 You can get it from the link in my signature. Mmm... and masses include atom nucleus as well. If the ether permeates all space, then do rockets flying upwards/diagonally experience wrong calculations in their laser gyroscope because of the vertical component of ether force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) If the ether permeates all space, then do rockets flying upwards/diagonally experience wrong calculations in their laser gyroscope because of the vertical component of ether force? Well... effect is naturally very small with photons (with used length in gyros), BUT those laser gyros actually are not so reliable. Gyros tend to lock-in (partially because of scattering). Edited October 6, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Well... effect is naturally very small with photons (with used length in gyros), BUT those laser gyros actually are not so reliable. Gyros tend to lock-in (partially because of scattering). photon spin isn't really the same as the spinning of the earth, right? One is a quantum property but the latter is a mechanical motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 photon spin isn't really the same as the spinning of the earth, right? One is a quantum property but the latter is a mechanical motion. I mean ether's effect on photon's path in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Do you have some kind of reference to claim that they don't work perfectly in horizontal plane? On surface of Earth I mean. Way to go on missing the point there. I wonder if it was deliberate. The point is that, according to your "idea" is no ether drag in one plane so the gyros should work perfectly in that plane. You are the one who needs to show that they work in the horizontal plane but not in the vertical plane(s) because the ether drag should mess up the non horizontal ones. Also re. " BUT those laser gyros actually are not so reliable." Just plain wrong. http://www51.honeywe...ments/ADIRS.pdf MTBF 40,000 hrs http://www.es.northr...assets/mk39.pdf MTBF 200,000 hrs They are actually very reliable. Illuusio's theories are not. Re "lock in": even wiki knows how to deal with it, so I don't think the manufacturers and users have a problem with it. "RLGs, while more accurate than mechanical gyroscopes, suffer from an effect known as "lock-in" at very slow rotation rates. ... Forced dithering can largely overcome this problem. ... Dither does not fix the lock-in problem completely, ... In a technically more complicated solution the gyro assembly is not rotated back and forth, but in one direction only at a constant angular rate. And, as I said and Iluusio couldn't explain away, if it were an issue it would apply in 1 plane, but not the others. That's not what happens. In any event it still shows that the same principles that ensure the the MME works would also work in all 3 dimensions. So whatever direction the ether flowed, it would show up in RLG operations. It does not. So Illuusio's ideas don't agree with the facts and it is not because the facts have made a mistake. Edited October 6, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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 ! Moderator Note The rules apply to you, too, Nobrainer. No hijacking of a thread to advance your pet theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Re "lock in": even wiki knows how to deal with it, so I don't think the manufacturers and users have a problem with it. "RLGs, while more accurate than mechanical gyroscopes, suffer from an effect known as "lock-in" at very slow rotation rates. ... Forced dithering can largely overcome this problem. ... Dither does not fix the lock-in problem completely, ... In a technically more complicated solution the gyro assembly is not rotated back and forth, but in one direction only at a constant angular rate. And, as I said and Iluusio couldn't explain away, if it were an issue it would apply in 1 plane, but not the others. That's not what happens. In any event it still shows that the same principles that ensure the the MME works would also work in all 3 dimensions. So whatever direction the ether flowed, it would show up in RLG operations. It does not. So Illuusio's ideas don't agree with the facts and it is not because the facts have made a mistake. Lock in needs measures taken that's my point! They don't function properly otherwise. Ether flow might be one factor in case of lock in, other is scattering. We must remember that ether effects very very little to photons in small lenght used in RLGs. MME would give some nice results if apparatus isn't horizontally set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Lock in needs measures taken that's my point! They don't function properly otherwise. Ether flow might be one factor in case of lock in, other is scattering. We must remember that ether effects very very little to photons in small lenght used in RLGs. MME would give some nice results if apparatus isn't horizontally set up Lock in needs sorting out. But it occurs for known reasons which are nothing to do with ether flow. If you think that the MME would be different if it were not horizontal, why not actually do an experiment rather than posting unsupported guesswork? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Lock in needs sorting out. But it occurs for known reasons which are nothing to do with ether flow. If you think that the MME would be different if it were not horizontal, why not actually do an experiment rather than posting unsupported guesswork? Lock in is for my knowledge somewhat open issue. Main factor is scattering but the rest is up in the air (literally) I discuss about the matter of "error" with MME Topic of this thread. Other people do the tests sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I mean ether's effect on photon's path in general. How much would it affect it if it would affect it? Any calculations? Angles perhaps? GR predicted an angle of deviation. What about yours? I'm guessing you've done the MM experiment vertically?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 How much would it affect it if it would affect it? Any calculations? Angles perhaps? GR predicted an angle of deviation. What about yours? I'm guessing you've done the MM experiment vertically?... Beats me! I haven't done any calculations. And no MME done either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Lock in is for my knowledge somewhat open issue. Main factor is scattering but the rest is up in the air (literally) I discuss about the matter of "error" with MME Topic of this thread. Other people do the tests sooner or later. It may be an open issue to you, but that's probably because you don't understand it. You have yet to show that there is an error with the MME, never mind discussing it. Mellinia, Illususio has not done the maths or the experiment. I guess he can't, though I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong about that. However others have done both. Here it is on youtube The result is that the MME works just fine in the vertical plane. Also, the details are slightly different from the classical MME but the way that ring gyros are used proves that the MME would still work if you balanced it on it's end. His ideas don't agree with the observed facts. Edited October 6, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 I'm busy at the moment but you can check this out. I found it with fast googling http://blog.hasslberger.com/2009/09/extended_michelsonmorley_inter.html#more It's party time! for me, literally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Illuusio, That is the experiment which inspired the video I linked to. It has been shown to be flawed (by a better experiment with a more rigid optical system). Why did you post it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I'm busy at the moment but you can check this out. I found it with fast googling http://blog.hasslber...inter.html#more It's party time! for me, literally! I did check it out - thanks, it was a hoot! The previous blog by Sepp Hasseberger is a must read called "The Moon is Inhabited - NASA looks the other way" and is based on a book called Penetrated about psychic sensing of ETs on the moon. Sepp Hasselberger is obvioulsy the sort of serious scientist whose work perfectly complements your theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Illuusio, That is the experiment which inspired the video I linked to. It has been shown to be flawed (by a better experiment with a more rigid optical system). Why did you post it? Mmm.. there was very clear shifting of interference pattern during rotation. Magnitude differs due to equipment, chears! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Mmm.. there was very clear shifting of interference pattern during rotation. Magnitude differs due to equipment, chears! The MME is a very good way to test how flexible optical systems are. The one with the fringe shift failed the test. Nothing complicated- just poor equipment design gave a spurious result. What would you expect from someone who also cites the idea that there are men on the moon, but NASA missed them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 illusio, I didn't note any reply to my post#6 so I presume you agree with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Beats me! I haven't done any calculations. And no MME done either. ...... Right then, how do you know that you're right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 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. I don't read bible so I don't know story of the mote and the beam. You have no need to be concerned for my health I'm respected member of Finnish society and living balanced life. ...... Right then, how do you know that you're right? Just because there is ether which effects extended MME (as we have seen now). The MME is a very good way to test how flexible optical systems are. The one with the fringe shift failed the test. Nothing complicated- just poor equipment design gave a spurious result. What would you expect from someone who also cites the idea that there are men on the moon, but NASA missed them? So now you attack person behind the test? Well, I don't know anything about this person so I can't comment person per se. Fringes shifted in that video of yours too. I think that there is more accurate tests available from the German guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Just because there is ether which effects extended MME (as we have seen now). Problem is, you didn't do it. How do you that they are right? You're right because they are right. And they are right because you're right?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 So now you attack person behind the test? Well, I don't know anything about this person so I can't comment person per se. Fringes shifted in that video of yours too. I think that there is more accurate tests available from the German guy. Nope, I attacked the guy who cited the work. I attacked him on the basis that he clearly believes nonsense and can not be trusted as a reliable source of information. Thought it would have been better if the guy who did the original work had made some attempt to show that the effect wasn't just due to the mirrors bending. A couple of toooth-picks and some superglue would have answered the question. Let me get this straight. The better the equipment is, the less the fringes shift and so one can extrapolate to the idea where the kit is perfect and the firnges don't shift at all. You think that's evidence that the fringe shift is real. Do you want to think that through again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Let me get this straight. The better the equipment is, the less the fringes shift and so one can extrapolate to the idea where the kit is perfect and the firnges don't shift at all. You think that's evidence that the fringe shift is real. Do you want to think that through again? If that extrapolate is your (scientific) method then I hope you think that through again Problem is, you didn't do it. How do you that they are right? You're right because they are right. And they are right because you're right?! I don't know if they are right and I don't have to. I have done my own experiment but that's not in focus now. But is MME measuring unmeasurable? This is interesting graph! https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=theory%20of%20everything&date=today%203-m&cmpt=q I wonder why...? Edited October 7, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts