|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the
apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:07:42 -0500, kenseto wrote
(in article ): The MMX null result does not mean that there is no absolute motion of the apparatus. It merely means that the speed of light is isotropic in the horizontal plane. In order to detect anisotropy of the speed of light using the MMX, the plane of the light rays must be oriented vertically. This conclusion is supported by the observed gravitational red shift (gravitational potential) in the vertical direction. Also this interpretation is supported by the results of the Pound and Rebka experiments [5]. It should be noted that this new interpretation does not mean that the earth is moving vertically in the ether (the E-Matrix) on all the locations where the MMX is performed. It merely means that if the plane of the light rays is oriented vertically then the apparatus will give non-null result with respect to these local light rays. Additional proposed experiments supporting the above interpretation are described in the paper entitled "Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 "They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, what their experimental programs are, etc. Tom Roberts |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Dear Tom Roberts:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... Cygnus X-1 wrote: This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, what their experimental programs are, etc. I haven't followed the thread, so I am not saying these have anything to do with what Cygnus X-1 is talking about... http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD005322.shtml ENVISAT http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17451435 SWIFT http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/windii.asp WINDII Spacelab had SITE and WAMDII, don't know if they ever flew http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/15/12/009 .... a paper discussing a proposal ... http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Wh...CESEGMENT?l=en IASI http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_S...xperiment.html ACE-FTS EO3-GIFTS is supposed to go up in 2007-2009 COROT goes up in December FIRAS and COBE, of course... http://grus.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ngst/michelson.html NASA-TIMED http://www.timed.jhuapl.edu/WWW/comm..._factsheet.pdf .... not sure if it qualifys... Getting bored, and Google won't accept more than 10 keywords... ;) HTH David A. Smith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
[bunch of references] Thanks. My google searches only found proposed missions, not any real ones. Tom Roberts |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Dear Tom Roberts:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message m... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: [bunch of references] Thanks. My google searches only found proposed missions, not any real ones. You are welcome. I had two google sessions open. One used "michelson interferometer satellite", and as I found missions I'd add the "-COBE", "-FIRAS", etc. to the search phrase to bring new ones to the top. In the second window, I would bring a promising "candidate" from the first session and use that name and add "launch"... within a couple of screens I could have whether the launch was successful or not. I noticed the Japanese are planning a really extensive satellite-based interferometer experiment (size 1+km) looking for GR effects, but it doesn't launch for more than 10 years. Thermal effects will be really problematic. Good luck and good hunting. David A. Smith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:19:47 -0500, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote
(in article ): Dear Tom Roberts: "Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... Cygnus X-1 wrote: This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the Earth and one orbiting L1. References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, what their experimental programs are, etc. I haven't followed the thread, so I am not saying these have anything to do with what Cygnus X-1 is talking about... http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD005322.shtml ENVISAT http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17451435 SWIFT http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/sciences/windii.asp WINDII Spacelab had SITE and WAMDII, don't know if they ever flew http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/15/12/009 ... a paper discussing a proposal ... http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Wh...METSAT_Polar_S ystem/ Space_Segment/DF_METOP_SPACESEGMENT?l=en IASI http://directory.eoportal.org/pres_S...iteAtmospheric Chemis tryExperiment.html ACE-FTS EO3-GIFTS is supposed to go up in 2007-2009 COROT goes up in December FIRAS and COBE, of course... http://grus.berkeley.edu/~jrg/ngst/michelson.html NASA-TIMED http://www.timed.jhuapl.edu/WWW/comm..._factsheet.pdf ... not sure if it qualifys... Getting bored, and Google won't accept more than 10 keywords... ;) HTH David A. Smith Good, I seem to have caught most of them. MIPAS on EnviSat: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/ WINDII on UARS (not sure if this is still operating) http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GS...RS_WINDII.html SOHO/MDI operating at L1. http://soi.stanford.edu/ You can get orbital info on SOHO he http://sscweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...r_graphics.cgi I was reworking the Michelson analysis to deal with some Biblical Geocentrism claims. I've been examining the instrument sensitivity if significant changes in the data would result as they moved if you define some fixed frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment Note that imagers based on this configuration are called Fourier transform spectrographs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier...m_spectroscopy Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 "They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Cygnus X-1" wrote in message . net... On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:19:47 -0500, N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) wrote (in article ): Good, I seem to have caught most of them. MIPAS on EnviSat: http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/group/mipas/ WINDII on UARS (not sure if this is still operating) http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GS...RS_WINDII.html SOHO/MDI operating at L1. http://soi.stanford.edu/ You can get orbital info on SOHO he http://sscweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...r_graphics.cgi I was reworking the Michelson analysis to deal with some Biblical Geocentrism claims. I've been examining the instrument sensitivity if significant changes in the data would result as they moved if you define some fixed frame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment So your claim that the orbiting michelson interferometers refute my interpretations of the null result of the MMX is incorrect.....right? Ken Seto Note that imagers based on this configuration are called Fourier transform spectrographs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier...m_spectroscopy Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1 "They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated. Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
[references to Michelson Interferometers on spacecraft] Thanks. I was wondering if any of these could be turned into a test of SR. They cannot. They use a Michelson interferometer with variable arm lengths to generate an "interferogram", which is a high-resolution Fourier transform of the input spectrum. I had not realized the instrument could do that. Different missions use the resulting spectrum for different purposes. For instance, SWIFT uses an Ozone line to both measure the concentration of Ozone in the atmosphere, and to measure the wind via Doppler shift (hence the need for a high-resolution spectrum). Again, thanks. Tom Roberts |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Interpreting the MMX null result
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message et... | Cygnus X-1 wrote: | This doesn't mesh with the operation of (by my count) three Michelson | interferometers that are currently flying in space - two orbiting the | Earth and one orbiting L1. | | References, please. Or at least tell me their names or the names of | their spacecraft. Who are the principal investigators? I am VERY | interested in learning if this is actually true, what their results are, | what their experimental programs are, etc. It doesn't matter whether it's actually true or not, this is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant. Ref: om |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proper explanation for the MMX null result. | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 23 | September 28th 06 10:58 PM |
"Interpreting Astronomical Spectra", D. Emerson | Greg Heath | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 29th 06 05:44 AM |
Best novice result yet | Spurs Dave | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 11th 06 03:58 PM |
Astronomy Course Result | Sir Loin Steak | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 18th 04 11:41 PM |
Null test lens for a 30" F/4 mirror? | Lawrence Sayre | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | March 4th 04 06:54 AM |