Please elabourate. What differences do you expect? Harry ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?
> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 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 > > > > 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? > >
