I have been thinking a lot on how to differentiate between rotational motion where the curvature or rotation radius is very high and translational motion. In the case when gravity balances centrifugal acceleration it becomes hard. There are methods involving thermal motion. I have mentioned these effect before on the list in other subjects.
David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar> wrote: > On 04/23/2011 01:53 PM, francis wrote: > >> On Sat 4/23/11 Mauro wrote >> >> [SNIP] >> >> The proposed explanation is as follows: >> >> 1) Light is not "pushed" by the emitting device. It leaves the emitting >> device as a perturbation in the medium, and propagates at a fixed >> velocity. >> That velocity is dependant only on the medium, and is c when the medium is >> a >> vacuum. 2) The receiving device is also moving, in the same direction as >> the >> emitting one(they are solidary, fixed on the same experimental setup). 3) >> If >> the whole experimental setup is moving(due to earth's rotation and >> translation, tipically) the receiving device will be going farther from >> the >> emitted ray in some cases, and towards the emitted ray in some other >> cases. >> Because, as we said before, the emitted ray is independent of the emitting >> device's velocity. That way, absolute motion will be detected in the >> direction at which the time delta is greater. The light ray will take >> longer, travelling at a fixed velocity, to reach the receiving device, >> because the travel distance in that direction will be greater. Again, >> because the receiving device will be moving away while the light ray is >> travelling towards it. >> >> >> >> If this is not the case, we must postulate that the movement of the >> emitting >> device affects the velocity of the ray of light. And therefore c is not >> constant. Or, we must postulate that the medium is moving solidary with >> the >> experimental setup. And we have detected ether entrainment. >> >> >> >> Take notice that I'm not talking about relativistic effects, because there >> are none. The emitting and receiving devices are both solidary. That is, >> their relative velocity is zero. >> >> [/SNIP] >> >> >> >> Mauro, >> >> I have only read the Consoli& Constanza abstract so far >> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576 and was looking at the pdf when >> your >> new thread arrived so I will first reply to you and then delve further >> into >> the paper you recommended. I don't agree that measurements from your >> device >> would vary with direction other than mechanical limits of perfectly >> matching >> multiple light sources and measuring devices but I have to admit that I >> haven't yet studied these "lesser" deviations that you mention which were >> measured in the M&M experiment or their significance. You seem to imply a >> much lower than expected difference was measured but I am not clear on >> what >> significance you ascribe to these values. The biggest hurtle with your >> alternative measurement remains that we are already at the limit of >> measurement devices using fringe patterns. I can see the merit of your >> relative measurements to any pattern CHANGES as you rotate the device >> between the X,Y,Z axis, It could easily mitigate what we saw gravity do to >> the measurements last year of a vertically designed M&M fixture - but I am >> unsure if the opposite fringe patterns would have any meaningful static >> relationship to each other -your hope would be a min/max measured beam >> delay >> in one orientation that reverses to max/min measured beam delay when you >> reverse the orientation? >> > > Yes. I'm propossing using light detectors and synchronized clocks(very > precise clocks) to measure > the differences in departure and arrival times in one-way travel, instead > of using interferometers in two-way travel. > I suggest you to take the time to reflect on the experiment, and to > evaluate the possible outcomes and its consequences. > Reading about the Sagnac effect is probably also a good idea. > The proposed experiment is probably not easy to perform, because of the > needed precision and stability of the clocks. Although it must > be feasible, given current technology. > > > I would not expect any changes at all since my >> premise is that any spatial direction is 90 degrees displaced from time so >> spatial direction becomes unimportant and only changes in velocity if >> measured relative to another inertial frame would reveal changes in the >> rate >> at which the ether intersects with our spatial axis. Perhaps measuring >> changes in the half lives of radioactive gas caused by a catalyst or the >> propagation time of a laser through the lower energy density of a Casimir >> cavity would reveal more about the ether and it's orientation than >> revealed >> by the M&M technique. I still refer to the ether as having an >> "orientation" >> even though it remains forever in a hidden dimension from within one's own >> inertial frame because we know that highly accelerated objects shift to a >> different angle between time and space from our perspective and that >> proportional to their velocity those accelerated objects perceive as >> normal >> space that which to us appears as the non physical time axis. In the case >> of >> vacuum energy suppression I posit this angle to always be 90 degrees while >> with relativistic travel it remains the Pythagorean relationship between >> V^2/C^2. I do agree with your statement that there are no relativistic >> effects because your devices are fixed to a common axis and you are not >> comparing measurements made while being accelerated at different values or >> experiencing different equivalent accelerations due to changes in >> gravitational value -disregarding the negligible like lunar effects on the >> gravity field in your lab. >> >> Regards >> >> Fran >> >> > >
