Looks like Cramer got his $$ to finish his retrocausality experiment:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/john-cramers-retrocausal-experiments.html
Terry
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
DJ: Please bring this
Hmmm ... this sounds like a case of attempted record skipping... g
Like Bill-Phil sez: Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one
today.
Ah ... now I know why you say hello when I say goodbye.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton
Looks like Cramer got his $$ to finish
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Hmmm ... this sounds like a case of attempted record skipping... g
Like Bill-Phil sez: Well, what if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one
today.
Ah ... now I know why you say hello when I say goodbye.
Just don't hook
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
Harry Veeder wrote:
I have no doubt the fringes will shift by pushing against
On Sep 11, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Horace, Thanks!
Now I understand the fringe motion.
Harry
Thank goodness. I was about to give up on my ability to write. It
takes me so many iterations to get things right and clear.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
Would running the test at temperature extremes to compare for change in sag
rate/displacement isolate the mechanical from the light path?
Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:11:50 +1000
In reply to Jack O Suileabhain's message of Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:20:35 +:
Hi Jack,
[snip]
The device looks flimsy: Centrifugal momentum at the bottom of the gravity
trough 'pendulum' swing
On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Harry
Slight correction made.
On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
On Sep 10, 2009
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the
interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what is
One more typo correction and some changes in wording for clarity.
On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the
interference pattern produced by
Please bring this century old debate to completion?
Can someone give a short status update on what different people think?
Please, I am interested but cannot read all of it. 10-15 years ago I was
really into this and then I dropped out. Seems like an endless debate.
David
David Jonsson, Sweden,
Mauro Lacy wrote:
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand
clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know the
interference pattern produced by two streams
Please bring this century old debate to completion?
It will be completed when completed, David.
Can someone give a short status update on what different people think?
Please, I am interested but cannot read all of it. 10-15 years ago I was
really into this and then I dropped out. Seems like
The Michelson-Morley experiment and interferometer, and the 1919
Eddington eclipse observations are discussed in the book by Collins
Pinch, The Golem Cambridge U., 1993. To summarize both the
experiment and the observations were a can of worms, and a lot less
definitive than most history book
What about Fizeaus theory. THe actual case can be anything like emptiness,
and then Einsten fits, and any combination of flows in different directions,
and then Fizeau fits. Is there any problems in just combining he two?
David
David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
On Fri, Sep 11,
David Jonsson wrote:
What about Fizeaus theory. THe actual case can be anything like
emptiness, and then Einsten fits, and any combination of flows in
different directions, and then Fizeau fits. Is there any problems in
just combining he two?
Why would you do that? SR fits in all cases,
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
To summarize both the
experiment and the observations were a can of worms, and a lot less
definitive than most history book portray.
Which is irrelevant because they have been replicated, with variations,
many times over.
That's what the book says. It also points
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
Which is irrelevant because they have been replicated, with
variations,many times over
-Original Message-
From: Mauro Lacy
DJ: Please bring this century old debate to completion?
It will be completed when completed, David.
I hope that everyone interested in this can take a moment to look at the
The Alternate View column of John G. Cramer article in Analog
Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence
sa...@pobox.com Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:32 pm Subject:
Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
Which is irrelevant because they have been replicated, with
variations
, 11 Sep 2009 15:22:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment
Below are some quotes from Collins Pinch, which
I find disturbing. As I recall from another
source, Miller was bitter at the end of his life.
[Miller] rebuilt the apparatus and took readings
again on 4, 5 and 6 September 1924. Miller now
found a persistent positive displacement, and
Harry Veeder wrote:
I have no doubt the fringes will shift by pushing against this
particular beam splitter. What one needs is a sag-o-meter. Wait...
doesn't this apparatus perform this function?
A sag-o-meter? You mean, like the one used in the Koreshan Unity survey
of 1897, which
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Below are some quotes from Collins Pinch, which I find disturbing.
Disturbing, why? Because they reflect badly on Collins Pinch?
As I recall from another source, Miller was bitter at the end of his
life.
[Miller] rebuilt the apparatus and took readings again on 4,
through stages B and C?
Harry
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 12:38 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
One more typo correction and some changes in wording
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Below are some quotes from Collins Pinch, which I find disturbing.
Disturbing, why? Because they reflect badly on Collins Pinch?
That is a complicated subject. It is a difficult to judge whether
they agree or disagree with the attitudes
Horace, Thanks!
Now I understand the fringe motion.
Harry
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Harry
On Sep 9, 2009, at 7:07 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
An unfolding story- and elegant and convincing demo (of something) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Rotatable Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.
Possible implications:
1) An optical gravitometer?
2) the mirrors
From Horace
I think the most likely explanation is that the beam splitter sags
multiple wavelengths
when the device is at the critical angle shown, i.e. when the beam
splitter is horizontal.
This explains maximum interference at the 180 degree opposed points, and
no interference
when the
...@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
From Horace
I think the most likely explanation is that the beam splitter sags
multiple wavelengths
when the device
From Francis:
Steven,
Isn't it going to be difficult to identify whether the change is introduced by
mechanical motion due to the variation in field strength or the effect on the
photon from the same variation?
In my original comments I was concerned about certain questions you bring up.
I
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca wrote:
Please elabourate.
What differences do you expect?
Instead of rotating the device I would like to see the results if it
were pointed in fixed directions relative to the ISS as it orbited the
earth.
Terry
But Terry, if not geosynchronous aren't you effectively rotating it, albeit
slowly?
Fran
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment
- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
I was speculating that my second suggestion might help deal that
question
the board. But some
people like Gouda some like Danish Delfino, so to each his own I guess. JO
From: hvee...@ncf.ca
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:48:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
- Original Message
etc.. to set this up?
Gibson
--- On Thu, 9/10/09, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca wrote:
From: Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 9:48 AM
- Original
Something else worth trying, an experiment that shouldn't be too expensive
to assemble would be to spin the apparatus while it is set in it's
horizontal position. IOW, turn the apparatus into a spinning centrifuge.
Make sure it's carefully counter balanced, then spin up the RPMs to
something
Jack O Suileabhain wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { font-size:
10pt; font-family:Verdana } The device looks flimsy: Centrifugal
momentum at the bottom of the gravity trough 'pendulum' swing is
going to amplify enough 'g's to simply torque the componants of
On Sep 10, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Gibson Elliot wrote:
I would think that running the device with the axis tilted 45 deg.
off center to the left, and then to the 45 deg. off center to the
right, would allow for normalizing out the effects of mechanical
shifting or warping.
Not true. Any
On Sep 10, 2009, at 9:58 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Something else worth trying, an experiment that shouldn't be too
expensive to assemble would be to spin the apparatus while it is
set in it's horizontal position. IOW, turn the apparatus into a
spinning centrifuge. Make
On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:
What one needs is a sag-o-meter.
At my age the invention of a sag-o-meter is less than comforting. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:18 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca wrote:
Please elabourate.
What
I still find the sagging beam splitter explanation inconsistent with
what is observed.
As the beam splitter rotates into and out of the vertical
orientation this is when the supposed sagging is nil so the pattern's
movement should change direction during this interval. When the beam
splitter is
If the warpage is on one of the mirrors instead of the frame, the max
occurs when the mirror is perpendicular to the axis of rotation, +/-
45 degrees to the horizontal.
Or not.
Terry
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Harry Veeder hvee...@ncf.ca wrote:
I still find the sagging beam splitter
Jones Beene wrote:
*An unfolding story- and e**legant and convincing demo** (of
something)** :*
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E*
*Rotatable** Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.** *
*P*ossible implications:* *
1) An optical gravitometer?
2) the mirrors
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I still find the sagging beam splitter explanation inconsistent with
what is observed.
As the beam splitter rotates into and out of the vertical
orientation this is when the supposed sagging is nil so the pattern's
movement should change
Mauro Lacy wrote:
By the way, I have a question for you, in the form of a zen koan: We
know the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one
hand clapping? We can reformulate it for the ocassion as: We know
the interference pattern produced by two streams of light, but what
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
I still find the sagging beam
An unfolding story- and elegant and convincing demo (of something) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Rotatable Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.
Possible implications:
1) An optical gravitometer?
2) the mirrors and/or the beamsplitter experience a torque
3)
I should add as possible implications:
1)An optical gravitometer?
.. one that may detect virtual photons (i.e. as an indicator of gravitons).
If the mainstream is correct on gravitons, then detection of individual
gravitons, although not prohibited by any fundamental law, would be
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
An unfolding story- and elegant and convincing demo (of something) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Rotatable Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment.
Possible implications:
1
nice video.
- Original Message -
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net
2)the mirrors and/or the beamsplitter experience a torque
If that is the cause wouldn't you expect the fringe shift to occur four
times in a revolution rather than the two shifts observed?
harry
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:10:58 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
nice video.
Indeed. Typical German gründlichkeit. It's one of the best short science
videos I have ever seen, and I find it very convincing.
Analogous to the discovery that the electric and magnetic fields are
I have always considered mass to be an aether sink. This experiment
needs to be performed on the space station.
Terry
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
An unfolding story- and elegant and convincing demo (of something) :
, September 09, 2009 12:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done
correctly?
I should add as possible implications:
1) An optical gravitometer?
. one that may detect virtual photons (i.e. as an indicator of gravitons
Please elabourate.
What differences do you expect?
Harry
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?
I have always considered mass
58 matches
Mail list logo
