[Snip] 4) A 4th dimension interface is measureable perpendicular to gravity vector?
[Reply] The research by Di Fiore et all proposes opposite to gravity vector not perpendicular. An equivalent acceleration first considered by Italian researchers Di Fiore et all in a 2002 paper "Vacuum fluctuation force on a rigid Casimir cavity in a gravitational field <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0109091> " proposed the possibility of verifying the equivalence principle for the zero-point energy of quantum electrodynamics, by evaluating the force, produced by vacuum fluctuations, acting on a rigid Casimir cavity in a weak gravitational field. Their calculations show a resulting force has opposite direction with respect to the gravitational acceleration, their proposal indicates an equivalent acceleration outside the cavity relative to inside the cavity. Their 10 E^-14 N of force may appear inconsequential but it is a constant acceleration which in the spatial confinement of a cavity allows "falling" hydrogen atoms to accumulate velocity. Regards Fran ________________________________ From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:07 AM To: [email protected] 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) An optical gravitometer? 2) the mirrors and/or the beamsplitter experience a torque 3) Michelson-Morley got it wrong to a large extent, and there is an aether drift that becomes most apparent when amplified by the strongest local field, which effectively overwhelms the contribution of larger non-local fields ? 4) A 4th dimension interface is measureable perpendicular to gravity vector? 5) When you make incorrect initial assumptions, nothing you do thereafter is valid 6) ?????? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley> Why would the "luminiferous aether" operate this way? M-M and subsequent research based everything on assumptions which may not be valid - i.e. the way aether would operate relative to the solar mass and to a lesser extent the galactic center of mass. The earth's field, although weak in comparison to the Suns, is relatively strong so that the vertical alignment shifts all of the prior assumptions into a different focus, so to speak. ... but hey, someone back then did have the foresight (or luck) to call it "luminiferous" which might point to a photonic connection which has been minimized in the past?
