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 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? >
Because gravity is no more than a form or a manfestation of electromagnetism? > 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? > Yes. Many things very minimized, while other where maximized, during these past decades. To the point that now an experiment made by an amateur in his home is more important for the progress of science than many scientific endeavours. And regarding so called "virtual" things: If something is (temporarily) not manifested, that does not mean it's not real. 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 the interference pattern of one stream of light?" Or better yet: "We know the gravitational effect between two material bodies, but what is the gravitational effect of one material body?" Think about that. Best regards, Mauro
