Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT), "Dono."
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:28 am, Surfer wrote:

A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
wouldn't hurt for more to be done.

The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...6/PP-06-11.PDF


Experiment not reproducible, a clear crackpot.

On the contrary. Fig 6 in the following paper shows consistent
results were also obtained from four other similar experiments.

Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...9/PP-19-05.PDF


"....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."


We've been over your misunderstanding of the Dayton Miller experiment
(your inability to understand error bars)

There is an analysis that supports my case he
http://miller.0catch.com/DSP/


Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.

Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
J.D. and Will C.M.
Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.


You are such a dishonest idiot, Peter. This is a mainstream experiment
for constraining light speed anisotropy. Only a dishonest idiot like
you can distort it to claim that it provides any proof to absolute
motion.

Well, the experiment contrains the anisotropy of MEASURED one way
light speed.

But since MEASURED one way light speed and ACTUAL one way light speed
are two different things, the experiment does not constrain the
anisotropy of ACTUAL one way light speed.


Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...9/PP-19-05.PDF


The obligatory ass-kissing to Cahill. Why is your nose so brown,
Peter?

Its an excellent paper.

On Jul 11, 11:29 am, Surfer wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT), "Dono."
wrote:

On Jul 11, 12:28 am, Surfer wrote:

A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It
wouldn't hurt for more to be done.

The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)
Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...6/PP-06-11.PDF

Experiment not reproducible, a clear crackpot.

On the contrary. Fig 6 in the following paper shows consistent
results were also obtained from four other similar experiments.

Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...9/PP-19-05.PDF


You mean the DeWitte crackpot experiment was reproduced by NO
EXPERIMENT by the Cahill crackpot? Way to go, Peter.




"....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data
from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode
Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...."

We've been over your misunderstanding of the Dayton Miller experiment
(your inability to understand error bars)

There is an analysis that supports my case hehttp://miller.0catch.com/DSP/



You are still the same ignorant imbecile that Tom Roberts and Jerry
tried (in vain) to educate.





Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but
graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects.

Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using
Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards,
Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson
J.D. and Will C.M.
Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990.

You are such a dishonest idiot, Peter. This is a mainstream experiment
for constraining light speed anisotropy. Only a dishonest idiot like
you can distort it to claim that it provides any proof to absolute
motion.

Well, the experiment contrains the anisotropy of MEASURED one way
light speed.


No, imbecile. The experiment shows that the MEASURED anisotropy (which
is gong to be non-zero) is much SMALLER than the predictions of the
Mansouri-Sexl text theory. You are such an ignorant.


But since MEASURED one way light speed and ACTUAL one way light speed
are two different things, the experiment does not constrain the
anisotropy of ACTUAL one way light speed.


Like I said, you ARE an imbecile.




Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with
Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow
Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...9/PP-19-05.PDF

The obligatory ass-kissing to Cahill. Why is your nose so brown,
Peter?

Its an excellent paper.

Clearly, Cahill's ass smell THAT good to you!

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:01:26 -0700 (PDT), "Dono."
wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:47 am, Surfer wrote:

If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now.

Personally, I think it has been invalidated.

No one gives a **** about what you think, Peter

You seem very disturbed.

On Jul 10, 6:34*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to
anyone. It is YOU who should learn. But of course School Teachers
are incapable of doing that. Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

On 7/10/10 11:57 AM, GSS wrote:

Friends,
* * * * * Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...ead/e24d067ec6...
Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/].

* *Hidden in the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object is
* *in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the
* *observer. Suggest learning some basic physics.

On Jul 10, 7:38*pm, " wrote:

Dear Mark: The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding.
(There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.) Even so,
astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't
seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a
thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain'
of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to
the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such
difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding...
from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened!

Much of what tries to pass for science simply follows Einstein's
Moronic example and INVENTS whatever is necessary to save the wrong
theory. It has been suggested that belief in the BB is necessary to
give those needing to have a... "creation event" a reason for being.
The BB is RELIGION, NOT science. I suspect you will agree. —
NoEinstein —

On Jul 10, 9:57*am, GSS wrote:

Friends,
* * * * *Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on
the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...ead/e24d067ec6...
Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for
detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An
International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics)
for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been
published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The
abstract of this paper is reproduced below.

* The peer review was faulty; someone should have caught the obvious
flaw.

* * * * * * * * *"According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative
and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe

* There's the flaw. General Relativity assumes a three-dimensional
space which is curved through a fourth dimension such that the three-
dimensional space is unbounded but finite in extent; the usual analogy
is the two-dimensional surface of a balloon which is curved through a
third dimension leaving the surface equally unbounded but of finite
extent. No point *on the surface of the balloon* can be considered its
center of mass; it is located at a point within the balloon.
Analogously, no point in three-dimensional space can be considered the
center of mass of the Universe.

* Your proposal to falsify Special Relativity seems to tacitly assume
that space must be Euclidean. It thus has the prerequisite of
unambiguously falsifying the concept of curved space and with it all
of General Relativity in order for the center of mass of the universe
to be contained within observable three-dimensional space. You might
consider starting with an alternate explanation for observations
attributed to GR, for instance gravitational lensing.

* Mark L. Fergerson

On Jul 11, 1:59*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But
a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —

On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear GSS: *I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.

* *What's the speed?

On 7/12/10 8:57 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to
anyone.

Nature does the dictating stooopid. She shows you wrong every time.

On 7/12/10 9:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam wrote:

Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But
a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of
such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
expanding from the BB. — NoEinstein —

Nature contradicts you!

On Jul 12, 9:23*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:59*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dear Sam: *Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the
'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined
via an Earth mounted experiment?

Is the experiment documented? Where?

*The answer is a resounding YES! *But
a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be
needed to give the absolute numbers. *I can envision having dozens of
such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed
so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT
expanding from the BB. *— NoEinstein —





On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear GSS: *I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and
direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer.

* *What's the speed?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 12, 7:11*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:38*pm, " wrote:

Dear Mark: *The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding.
(There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.)

This claim is impossible to prove without finding some way to
compare the intensity of light at the beginning and end of a long-
distance trip.

Suppose we fold that trip distance over on itself many times- take a
sufficiently large pair of mirrors facing each other; fire photons in
at nearly normal incidence and let them bounce back and forth a few
zillion times. Measure their intensity after exiting the mirrors,
correct for absorption on each reflection, and Bob's you're uncle.

Oddly, no "tiring" of light is ever seen in real-world etalons.

Even so,

astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't
seem about equally dense with stars. *If the Universe is now just a
thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain'
of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to
the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. *Since no such
difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding...
from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened!

The universe is not "just a thin surface, like on an expanding
balloon". It's an analogy, involving dropping a dimension. If you
don't know about it, you can look it up. Anyway, sticking to the
analogy, light can not travel perpendicular to the "skin", it can only
travel along the "skin". But the farther the light you see has
traveled, the smaller the balloon was when the light started on its
way. That's why the Hubble deep-sky photos show a crowded sky.

All this is irrelevant to my observation that the OPs suggested
experiment assumes GR to be false, in the face of evidence supporting
GR such as gravitational lensing.


Mark L. Fergerson