| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jong Kim" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2006 10:27:24 AM |
| Object: |
Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
Professors John Wheeler and Quentin Smith,
I would like your comments on the ethereal significance of the fact that
light exerts pressure, or in other words the mechanical truth concerning
light mathematically expressed by the Poynting vector. And, what about
the experimental findings of mainstream folks (Dayton Miller himself was
mainstream as long as he was alive) who have empirically demonstrated
that longitudinal electodynamic waves do exist? See the 2002 article
"Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", co-authored by
C. Monstein and J.P. Wesley and published in Europhysics Letters, 59 (4),
pp. 514-520 (2002):
http://saturn.ethz.ch/papers/monstein/7210.pdf
In light of these facts, don't you think Dayton Miller's meticulous
interferometer researches have merit? I am absolutely convinced that Robert
Shankland was a liar. The Spirit of the Lord God of Israel, right at this
moment (either 5:59 am or 6:00 am according to my clock), expressly has
signified to me that Professor Shankland did lie. (I was planning to not
mention the Holy Ghost explicitly, but the Spirit of God moved upon me so
strongly this morning at 6 am that even though you may think me a mad man
for talking about God, I must bring to your attention the Father, even the
Ancient of Days, the Son, even Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who are as
one God to us mortals, even the God of Moses, Isaiah, Joseph Smith, Brigham
Young, and now Art Bulla, who is truly the "mighty and strong one" sent to
the tribe of Ephraim, as prophesied in Isaiah 28.) I thank God for saving me
from having to laboriously pursue the papers of Miller and Shankland. Since
my claim of revelation on this matter of Miller vs. Shankland (both of the
Case Western Reserve University) is intensely personal, to give Gentile
credibility to Professor Miller's findings, I have presented you the
empirically
verified truth of the Poyinting vector and the mainstream-verified existence
of longitudinal electrodynamic waves, which is light also. The evidences are
irrefutable now, that something is rotten in Gentile natural philosophy,
because the original 20 Maxwell equations were reduced to 4 in vector
notation.
These things were taught at a qualitative level, and repeatedly, by Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young, the Lord's anointed of their respective times,
before James Clerk Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" was
published. Here's a sampling of the many quotes from the latter-day
Apostles, plus three Bible and Book of Mormon quotes:
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four 1839-42 Pg.181:
Elements Are Eternal
The elements are eternal. That which as a beginning will surely have an
end; take a ring, it is without beginning or end -- cut it for a beginning
place and at the same time you have an ending place.
A key: Every principle proceeding from God is eternal and any principle
which is not eternal is of the devil. The sun has no beginning or end; the
rays which proceed from himself have no bounds, consequently are eternal.
So it is with God. If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have
an end. In the translation "without form and void" it should be read, empty
and desolate. The word created should be formed, or organized.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.301:
Eternal Duration of Matter
Speaking of eternal duration of matter, I said: There is no such thing as
immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but is more fine or pure, and can
only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are
purified, we shall see that it is all matter. (May 17, 1843.) DHC 5:392-3.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.350:
Meaning of the Word Create
.... the word create came from the baurau which does not mean to
create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would
organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials
to organize the world out of chaos -- chaotic matter, which is element, and
in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he
had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be
destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They
had no beginning, and can have no end.
King James Bible, 1611 Edition (Apocrypha):
17 For thy Almighty hand that made the world of matter without form, ...
Wisdom of Solomon 11:17
3 ... things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(New Testament | Hebrews 11:3)
8 ... all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.
(Book of Mormon | Alma 40:8)
Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.2, Brigham Young, July 3, 1859:
If people understood true philosophy--eternal philosophy, they would
understand that there is an eternity of matter. Astronomers estimate that
there is between us and the nearest fixed star matter enough from which to
organize millions of earths like this. There is an eternity of matter, and
it is all acted upon and filled with a portion of divinity. Matter is to
exist; it cannot be annihilated. Eternity is without bounds, and is filled
with matter; and there is no such place as empty space.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.352 - 353, Brigham Young, July 10, 1853:
You may unite the efforts of the best mathematicians the world can produce,
and when they have counted as many millions of ages, worlds, and eternities,
as the power of numbers within their knowledge will embrace, they are still
as ignorant of eternity as when they began. Then ask people of general
intelligence; people who understand in a great degree, the philosophical
principles of creation, which they have studied and learned by a practical
course of education, and what do they know about it? It is true they know a
little, and that little every other sane person knows, whether he is
educated or uneducated; they know about that portion of eternity called
TIME. Suppose I ask the learned when was the beginning of eternity? Can
they think of it? No! And I should very much doubt some of the sayings of
one of the best philosophers and writers of the age, that we
call brother, with regard to the character of the Lord God whom we serve. I
very much doubt whether it has ever entered into his heart to comprehend
eternity. These are principles and ideas I scarcely ever meddle with. The
practical part of our religion is that which more particularly interests me.
Still my mind reflects upon life, death, eternity, knowledge, wisdom, the
expansion of the soul, and the knowledge of the Gods that are, that have
been, and that are to be. What shall we say? We are lost in the depth of
our own thoughts. Suppose we say there was once a beginning to all things,
then we must conclude there will undoubtedly be an end. Can eternity be
circumscribed? If it can, there is an end of all wisdom, knowledge, power,
and glory--all will sink into eternal annihilation.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.270, Brigham Young, August 14, 1853:
When the only begotten Son of God was upon the earth, he understood the
nature of these elements, how they were brought together to make this world
and all things that are thereon, for he helped to make them. He had the
power of organizing, what we would call, in a miraculous manner. That which
to him was no miracle, is called miraculous by the inhabitants of the earth.
On one occasion he commanded a sufficient amount of bread to be formed to
feed his disciples and the multitude. It was in the air, in the water, and
in the earth they walked upon. He, unperceived by his disciples and the
multitude, spoke to the native elements, and brought forth bread. He had
the power. We have not that power, but are under the necessity of producing
bread according to a systematic plan. We are obliged to till the ground,
and sow wheat, in order to obtain wheat. But when we possess the true
riches, we shall be able to call forth the bread from the native element,
like as Jesus Christ did. Everything that is good for man, is there. Jesus
said to his disciples, Make the multitude sit down, and divide them unto
companies, and take this bread and break it, and distribute it among them.
They did not know but that it was the few loaves and fishes that fed the
whole of them as they ate. The truth is, he called forth bread from the
native elements.
1 ... the spirit of man ... the native element from which it was formed or
begotten by me in that day, saith the Lord God.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 43:1
114 And now, thus saith the Lord, all things were created spiritually before
they were temporally.
115 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew was created in the spirit, yea even the earth
upon which thou standest had its creation before element combined with
matter, saith the Lord God, for the foundation of all matter is spiritual,
saith the Lord God.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 3:114-115
2 The same light which enlighteneth your eyes quickeneth your
understandings, saith the Lord, and is the law by which all things are
governed, and which, saith the Lord, changeth not, but remains constant,
that ye may have a standard by which to judge truth, and which constant is
called the law of light.
3 And it is that science, saith the Lord, which abrogates or does away with
the basis of true science, or, saith the Lord, that which is known as
physics and mathematics, which are my statutes, or the laws by which the
planets as wheel upon their wings in the immensity of space, is it not
false?
Revelations of Jesus Christ 159:2-3
"The Revelations of Jesus Christ", delivered through the instrument of Art
Bulla, the Lord's anointed in these the last days. Sirs, the Law of Light is
the governing principle of the Universe that you have been seeking all your
lives. It is the same law by which the Gods on high operate, and they are
one God to us mortals. I testify to you that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is
true, even if it's derided "Mormonism" now. Amen.
Emailed to:
John Wheeler, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University
matrhorn at princeton dot edu
Quentin Smith, Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University
quentin dot smith at wmich dot edu
Posted to:
alt.truereligion.EphraimManasseh.ArtBullaOMSBrighamYoungJosephSmith.
MoroniNephiIsaiah.BrotherofJaredShemEnoch.ChristNoahAdam
--
Jong Kim
.
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
23 Sep 2006 05:30:27 PM |
|
|
In article <12hakivdqqoadae@corp.supernews.com>, Dr.Jong Kim says...
Professors John Wheeler and Quentin Smith,
I would like your comments on the ethereal significance of the fact that
light exerts pressure, or in other words the mechanical truth concerning
light mathematically expressed by the Poynting vector. And, what about
the experimental findings of mainstream folks (Dayton Miller himself was
mainstream as long as he was alive) who have empirically demonstrated
that longitudinal electodynamic waves do exist? See the 2002 article
"Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", co-authored by
C. Monstein and J.P. Wesley and published in Europhysics Letters, 59 (4),
pp. 514-520 (2002):
http://saturn.ethz.ch/papers/monstein/7210.pdf
In light of these facts, don't you think Dayton Miller's meticulous
interferometer researches have merit? I am absolutely convinced that Robert
Shankland was a liar. The Spirit of the Lord God of Israel, right at this
moment (either 5:59 am or 6:00 am according to my clock), expressly has
signified to me that Professor Shankland did lie. (I was planning to not
mention the Holy Ghost explicitly, but the Spirit of God moved upon me so
strongly this morning at 6 am that even though you may think me a mad man
for talking about God, I must bring to your attention the Father, even the
Ancient of Days, the Son, even Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who are as
one God to us mortals, even the God of Moses, Isaiah, Joseph Smith, Brigham
Young, and now Art Bulla, who is truly the "mighty and strong one" sent to
the tribe of Ephraim, as prophesied in Isaiah 28.) I thank God for saving me
from having to laboriously pursue the papers of Miller and Shankland.
<snip>
Miller's circa 1933 experiment was not precise
enough to definitively establish the results
he claimed.
You are too LAZY to look into the experimental
procedure employed by Miller and why it is a
famous case-study in "experimenter bias"
-- prefering to treat it like some sort of
scripture instead of a science experiment,
and to treat Shankland's analysis that it is
flawed as if it were some sort of false religious
apologetic in opposition to it, a willful lie
inspired by Satan.
This is not surprising, because you are a priest,
NOT a scientist; you ought to stop petending that
you are -- for this pretense of yours is surely
a lie.
Let's take a look at what Miller actually did,
shall we? Why don't you come face-to-face with
it to see how "meticulous" his procedure actually was,
before you continue to "thank God for saving me from
having to laboriously pursue the papers of Miller
and Shankland."
The way Miller obtained his results was to rotate
his apparatus at a couple of rpm and walk around
with it with his eye to an eyepiece, calling out
the fringe position he observed every few seconds,
for 16 equidistant points of orientation.
Here's the problem. Miller made his observations
USING HIS EYES and SUBJECTIVELY ESTIMATING and
rounding off his rushed observations to the nearest
0.1 fringe -- but ultimately reported an averaged
final result of 0.08 fringe shift.
Surely you can see that his procedure cannot support
a result that must necessarily be derived from the
data created by an experimenter making thousands of
rounding-off decisions ON THE FLY EVERY FEW SECONDS.
Worse than that, the experimenter is aware of
the physical position of the apparatus at every
point where a measurement is made, and might
easily introduce round-off data that favors
a preconceived result -- it is this aspect
that makes the experiment a classic study
in "experimenter bias" and I can recall my
high school physics class spending an entire
class period on Shankland's analysis of
Miller for just such purpose.
Why do you think that Shankland "lied" by merely
pointing out that Miller's method of translating
enormous amounts of eye-balled observations to
rounded numerical values and then averaging the
heck out of them, is severely flawed?
But, you know what? Even if Shankland was wrong
about everything, it still would not matter at all,
because Miller's result for the velocity direction
of the Earth is incompatible with modern observation.
And it's not off by a little, it's off by a lot,
being almost perpendicular to the direction
established by COBE -- it is IMPOSSIBLE for Miller
to have obtained correct results without also
getting this correct.
And then of course there is the emperical evidence
that you completely ignore -- modern re-dos of the
MM experiment, some with resolutions MILLIONS of
times more precise than Miller could achieve, and
all coming up with the null result; look up those
done by Joos, Illingworth, and Brillet & Hall.
Do your homework instead of dreaming about
it being done for you by "The Holy Ghost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jong Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
24 Sep 2006 08:55:14 PM |
|
|
"RetroProphet" <RetroProphet_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ef4ci307ri@drn.newsguy.com...
In article <12hakivdqqoadae@corp.supernews.com>, Jong Kim says...
Professors John Wheeler and Quentin Smith,
I would like your comments on the ethereal significance of the fact that
light exerts pressure, or in other words the mechanical truth concerning
light mathematically expressed by the Poynting vector. And, what about
the experimental findings of mainstream folks (Dayton Miller himself was
mainstream as long as he was alive) who have empirically demonstrated
that longitudinal electodynamic waves do exist? See the 2002 article
"Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves", co-authored by
C. Monstein and J.P. Wesley and published in Europhysics Letters, 59 (4),
pp. 514-520 (2002):
http://saturn.ethz.ch/papers/monstein/7210.pdf
In light of these facts, don't you think Dayton Miller's meticulous
interferometer researches have merit? I am absolutely convinced that
Robert
Shankland was a liar. The Spirit of the Lord God of Israel, right at this
moment (either 5:59 am or 6:00 am according to my clock), expressly has
signified to me that Professor Shankland did lie. (I was planning to not
mention the Holy Ghost explicitly, but the Spirit of God moved upon me so
strongly this morning at 6 am that even though you may think me a mad man
for talking about God, I must bring to your attention the Father, even
the
Ancient of Days, the Son, even Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who are
as
one God to us mortals, even the God of Moses, Isaiah, Joseph Smith,
Brigham
Young, and now Art Bulla, who is truly the "mighty and strong one" sent
to
the tribe of Ephraim, as prophesied in Isaiah 28.) I thank God for saving
me
from having to laboriously pursue the papers of Miller and Shankland.
<snip>
Miller's circa 1933 experiment was not precise
enough to definitively establish the results
he claimed.
You are too LAZY to look into the experimental
procedure employed by Miller and why it is a
famous case-study in "experimenter bias"
-- prefering to treat it like some sort of
scripture instead of a science experiment,
My views on Dayton Miller's findings not truly reproduced by anyone else,
which is your main point of contention: Based on what little I've read on
this matter ... First of all, it seems Michelson tended to agree with Miller
to the end. So Miller wasn't the only one. I do believe that interferometers
of large dimensions ought to be used as Miller did, for increased
sensitivity. Miller did account for thermal effects, from what I read. I
believe the key to his detecting an aether drift more surely than others,
besides using a larger interferometer, is that he conducted his observations
at a higher altitude, though he got discernible results closer to sea level
also. Let's go over the assumptions of a Michelson-Morley interferometer,
simple but ingenious and powerful.
At any time, the planet Earth is both orbiting the Sun and rotating about
its own axis. From the perspective of a human observer on Earth, if the
aether does exist, it is as if the aether is moving toward or away from him.
From the perspective of aether, if it exists, any point on the surface of
the Earth is at a particular velocity = orbital velocity + rotational
velocity (a vector, with its greatest magnitude at the equator when the
Earth is closest to the Sun), and a light source at that point will emit em
radiation with a speed either greater than or less than c, which is an
absolute constant from the Maxwell theory, plus or minus the magnitude of
vector component parallel to the direction of the light beam as it reflects
off the mirror, as two light beams are generated from one source using a
half-silvered glass and two mirrors. To confirm this hypothesis, discernible
interference fringes must be observed, in a regular pattern over various
angles and time of the day over several months. Earth's rotational speed for
any given point is a constant, although over long periods of time it's been
found that the Earth's rotation slows down more often than not (very
slightly), compared to atomic clock. A bigger assumption in
Michelson-Morley, if I were doing it at least, is to keep the Earth's
(nearly circular) orbital speed constant, even though that's not true at
all. Fortunately, the difference between the maximum and minimum speeds is
tiny. I've seen modern measurements with differences a little less than 2
km/s and also 1 km/s, with rounded average orbital speed being 30 km/s.
It seems from what I read, Miller's claim is that to best be able to observe
the most obvious fringe displacements, it has to be done at a higher
elevation. His belief appears to be that in a more rarified atmosphere,
because of the reduced density of coarse matter, more aether drifts toward
or away from human observer's perspective. He called it Earth "entrained
ether", as opposed to static (but still vibrating) ether. If this sounds too
strange and personally to me it is also, although it could also be
considered in terms of water passing through media of variable permeability,
another way to view this to me, is that at higher elevations Earth's
rotational speed is greater than it would be at the same latitude and
longitude, at a lower elevation. Ideally, in the spirit of the master
experimenter (known also in acoustics field) Dayton Miller I imagine a very
tall structure wherein at least three identical interferometers are set up,
one at the very top, one on the ground floor perhaps, and one deep
underground. With the underground observation especially, the hypothesis of
less amount of local external aether penetrating more dense coarse matter
can be tested, and the Spirit of the Lord bears record of these things
repeatedly now shortly before 4:30 pm, though the natural man in me somewhat
finds it difficult to believe that it really works like this, so I type this
with a slight trembling unlike before, at least initially. Now another
intuitive view besides the higher circular speed at greater radius is the
effective c decreasing due to higher index of refraction at lower elevation.
Put simply, Dayton Miller was right in his approach, I mean everything. Most
importantly, all glory and power to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father.
May Their holy names be glorified and exalted forever.
The fact that Doppler effect exists for both sound and light also suggests
the existence of aether.
I'll write more later and provide some quotes.
Posted to:
alt.truereligion.EphraimManasseh.ArtBullaOMSBrighamYoungJosephSmith.
MoroniNephiIsaiah.BrotherofJaredShemEnoch.ChristNoahAdam
--
Jong Kim
and to treat Shankland's analysis that it is
flawed as if it were some sort of false religious
apologetic in opposition to it, a willful lie
inspired by Satan.
This is not surprising, because you are a priest,
NOT a scientist; you ought to stop petending that
you are -- for this pretense of yours is surely
a lie.
Let's take a look at what Miller actually did,
shall we? Why don't you come face-to-face with
it to see how "meticulous" his procedure actually was,
before you continue to "thank God for saving me from
having to laboriously pursue the papers of Miller
and Shankland."
The way Miller obtained his results was to rotate
his apparatus at a couple of rpm and walk around
with it with his eye to an eyepiece, calling out
the fringe position he observed every few seconds,
for 16 equidistant points of orientation.
Here's the problem. Miller made his observations
USING HIS EYES and SUBJECTIVELY ESTIMATING and
rounding off his rushed observations to the nearest
0.1 fringe -- but ultimately reported an averaged
final result of 0.08 fringe shift.
Surely you can see that his procedure cannot support
a result that must necessarily be derived from the
data created by an experimenter making thousands of
rounding-off decisions ON THE FLY EVERY FEW SECONDS.
Worse than that, the experimenter is aware of
the physical position of the apparatus at every
point where a measurement is made, and might
easily introduce round-off data that favors
a preconceived result -- it is this aspect
that makes the experiment a classic study
in "experimenter bias" and I can recall my
high school physics class spending an entire
class period on Shankland's analysis of
Miller for just such purpose.
Why do you think that Shankland "lied" by merely
pointing out that Miller's method of translating
enormous amounts of eye-balled observations to
rounded numerical values and then averaging the
heck out of them, is severely flawed?
But, you know what? Even if Shankland was wrong
about everything, it still would not matter at all,
because Miller's result for the velocity direction
of the Earth is incompatible with modern observation.
And it's not off by a little, it's off by a lot,
being almost perpendicular to the direction
established by COBE -- it is IMPOSSIBLE for Miller
to have obtained correct results without also
getting this correct.
And then of course there is the emperical evidence
that you completely ignore -- modern re-dos of the
MM experiment, some with resolutions MILLIONS of
times more precise than Miller could achieve, and
all coming up with the null result; look up those
done by Joos, Illingworth, and Brillet & Hall.
Do your homework instead of dreaming about
it being done for you by "The Holy Ghost."
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
25 Sep 2006 01:34:46 PM |
|
|
My views on Dayton Miller's findings not truly reproduced by anyone else,
which is your main point of contention: Based on what little I've read on
this matter ... First of all, it seems Michelson tended to agree with Miller
to the end. So Miller wasn't the only one. I do believe that interferometers
of large dimensions ought to be used as Miller did, for increased
sensitivity. Miller did account for thermal effects, from what I read. I
believe the key to his detecting an aether drift more surely than others,
besides using a larger interferometer, is that he conducted his observations
at a higher altitude, though he got discernible results closer to sea level
also. Let's go over the assumptions of a Michelson-Morley interferometer,
simple but ingenious and powerful.
At any time, the planet Earth is both orbiting the Sun and rotating about
its own axis. From the perspective of a human observer on Earth, if the
aether does exist, it is as if the aether is moving toward or away from him.
From the perspective of aether, if it exists, any point on the surface of
the Earth is at a particular velocity = orbital velocity + rotational
velocity (a vector, with its greatest magnitude at the equator when the
Earth is closest to the Sun), and a light source at that point will emit em
radiation with a speed either greater than or less than c, which is an
absolute constant from the Maxwell theory, plus or minus the magnitude of
vector component parallel to the direction of the light beam as it reflects
off the mirror, as two light beams are generated from one source using a
half-silvered glass and two mirrors. To confirm this hypothesis, discernible
interference fringes must be observed, in a regular pattern over various
angles and time of the day over several months. Earth's rotational speed for
any given point is a constant, although over long periods of time it's been
found that the Earth's rotation slows down more often than not (very
slightly), compared to atomic clock. A bigger assumption in
Michelson-Morley, if I were doing it at least, is to keep the Earth's
(nearly circular) orbital speed constant, even though that's not true at
all. Fortunately, the difference between the maximum and minimum speeds is
tiny. I've seen modern measurements with differences a little less than 2
km/s and also 1 km/s, with rounded average orbital speed being 30 km/s.
It seems from what I read, Miller's claim is that to best be able to observe
the most obvious fringe displacements, it has to be done at a higher
elevation. His belief appears to be that in a more rarified atmosphere,
because of the reduced density of coarse matter, more aether drifts toward
or away from human observer's perspective. He called it Earth "entrained
ether", as opposed to static (but still vibrating) ether. If this sounds too
strange and personally to me it is also, although it could also be
considered in terms of water passing through media of variable permeability,
another way to view this to me, is that at higher elevations Earth's
rotational speed is greater than it would be at the same latitude and
longitude, at a lower elevation. Ideally, in the spirit of the master
experimenter (known also in acoustics field) Dayton Miller I imagine a very
tall structure wherein at least three identical interferometers are set up,
one at the very top, one on the ground floor perhaps, and one deep
underground. With the underground observation especially, the hypothesis of
less amount of local external aether penetrating more dense coarse matter
can be tested, and the Spirit of the Lord bears record of these things
repeatedly now shortly before 4:30 pm, though the natural man in me somewhat
finds it difficult to believe that it really works like this, so I type this
with a slight trembling unlike before, at least initially. Now another
intuitive view besides the higher circular speed at greater radius is the
effective c decreasing due to higher index of refraction at lower elevation.
Put simply, Dayton Miller was right in his approach, I mean everything. Most
importantly, all glory and power to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father.
May Their holy names be glorified and exalted forever.
The fact that Doppler effect exists for both sound and light also suggests
the existence of aether.
I'll write more later and provide some quotes.
--
Jong Kim
Jong, you really need to look into the actual state of the art
in MM experimentation -- your concerns and proposed experiments
are naive and mired in out of date technology and methodology.
See my response Franklin Hu, and READ the papers referenced:
http://tinyurl.com/hg7c3
I will only respond to you on this subject
after you have demonstrated familiarity with
the approach utilizing Cryogenic Optical Resonators.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
24 Sep 2006 12:47:54 AM |
|
|
RetroProphet wrote:
But, you know what? Even if Shankland was wrong
about everything, it still would not matter at all,
because Miller's result for the velocity direction
of the Earth is incompatible with modern observation.
And it's not off by a little, it's off by a lot,
being almost perpendicular to the direction
established by COBE -- it is IMPOSSIBLE for Miller
to have obtained correct results without also
getting this correct.
And then of course there is the emperical evidence
that you completely ignore -- modern re-dos of the
MM experiment, some with resolutions MILLIONS of
times more precise than Miller could achieve, and
all coming up with the null result; look up those
done by Joos, Illingworth, and Brillet & Hall.
Do your homework instead of dreaming about
it being done for you by "The Holy Ghost."
My own research shows that the speed determined by Miller is a farily
close match to COBE and the direction was off, but it did match the
same longitudinal direction as COBE. See:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
There is also plenty of recent experiments supporting aether drift:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
The key here is that the effect does not show up in a vaccum which is
what Brillet & Hall used. There is a very convincing paper shown why
this is and how all of the previous experiments actually point to the
same value - thus proving that the results were genuine, see:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205070.pdf
I also determined that the main reason for believing that light is a
transverse phenomenon is the observation that light can be polarized.
This can be explained if light is a transverse phenomenon by thinking
that light is like a transverse wave going through a vertical slot.
However I have shown that light can be a longitudinal phenomenon and
still be polarized. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d2d3d50c3f119fe5
Light is NOT transmitted in a transverse mode. Transverse transmission
is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! The paper cited by the original poster now
proves it experimentally. Conventional physics appears to be great at
getting things backwards! No wonder we've not made any real progress
over the past 100 years. A 100 years ago, Dayton Miller got it right,
but physics has been on the wrong course ever since.
This is part of my Theory of Everything which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
fhupolar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
24 Sep 2006 02:44:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
[...]
Conventional physics appears to be great at
getting things backwards! No wonder we've not made any real progress
over the past 100 years. A 100 years ago, Dayton Miller got it right,
but physics has been on the wrong course ever since.
You are too kind. In a 2D world there are two ways to get
something backward, in a 3D world there are eight ways.
At least nature makes the temporal component a
little different for us so we don't have to remove
our shoes to count out harder stuff.
<<R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity
on Nuclear Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3]
The more accurate measurement with Snider.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1 >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Sue...
This is part of my Theory of Everything which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
fhupolar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
24 Sep 2006 03:26:20 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
BTW... I like your magnetism page. It is far better than most.
You might see in these pages some ways to state
the Coulomb/magnetic unification just a bit better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
It is difficult to explain the superposition geometry in limited
text space but you are where just changing a few pharases
could make that a really good piece of writing.
SR's 'time dilation is no more than this.
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Constant c in any frame:
"Incident Wave Impedance"
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
....no reason to explain it as mysterious. <puzzled>
Gravity/Inertia ?
<< Since gravity is caused by an overall positive electrostatic
charge on an object, this would mean that all astronomical
objects like the Earth and Moon would be positively charged. >>
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
That is totally absurd!. :-(
Look over these papers for *plausible* mechanisms to dreive
a neutral attractive force from the dipolar Coulomb force:
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
Experiments:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
You are misstating or omitting the induction mechanism in
several places in your pages. For magnetism, Van der Waals,
Casimir and ?likely? gravity and inerta too, it is quite simple:
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Regards,
Sue...
This is part of my Theory of Everything which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
fhupolar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dayton Miller, John Wheeler, Quentin Smith |
25 Sep 2006 10:51:07 AM |
|
|
My own research shows that the speed determined by Miller is a fairly
close match to COBE and the direction was off, but it did match the
same longitudinal direction as COBE. See:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/datonmiller.html
There is also plenty of recent experiments supporting aether drift:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/notnull.html
The key here is that the effect does not show up in a vaccum which is
what Brillet & Hall used. There is a very convincing paper shown why
this is and how all of the previous experiments actually point to the
same value - thus proving that the results were genuine, see:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0205/0205070.pdf
I don't see how data from the Miller apparatus could have
gotten the speed right but the direction wrong, but I will
look further into your research -- I think that critiquing
Miller's experiment is much less important than considering
more modern MMXs.
I certainly agree with you that that the various experiments,
regardless of conclusions they reach, should be evaluated
in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of their methodologies,
but I call into question that you have done so regarding
Brillet and Hall.
The Brillet & Hall experiment did NOT use a vacuum cavity,
it used a quartz cavity. And the refined MMX performed in
2003 by Muller et al utilized Cryogenic Optical Resonators
with a sapphire cavity:
Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment Using
Cryogenic Optical Resonators / Muller et al / 2003
qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/prl_91_020401_2003.pdf
In a more recently published paper, Muller proposes further
important refinements to MMX experimentation using matter-filled
cavities of COREs. The most important of these refinements,
I believe, is a method for eliminating thermal distortions
and, more importantly, gravity distortion.
Testing Lorentz invariance by use of vacuum
and matter filled cavity resonators / Holger Muller / 2004
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0412385
If your biggest problem with accepting this approach
was the assumption that it was invalid because it
was performed in a vacuum, what do you think of it now?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
