Science > Physics > The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 07:35:59 AM |
| Object: |
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts,
but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian
theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was
rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s
orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects
analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different
calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this experiment
detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian
physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first
detection of absolute motion in 1887.
=========[End Abstract]=======================
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "Henry Haapalainen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
31 Aug 2005 12:29:45 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> kirjoitti viestissä
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts,
but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian
theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was
rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s
orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects
analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different
calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this experiment
detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian
physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first
detection of absolute motion in 1887.
=========[End Abstract]=======================
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
Recinald T. Cahill has done a lot of work. But I didn't find many answers.
Henry Haapalainen
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
01 Sep 2005 02:00:28 AM |
|
|
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
Recinald T. Cahill has done a lot of work.
But I didn't find many answers.
I found some of the questions he considers
of merit, because they naturally lead to a path
of unification of currently disparate theories of
physics (QM and GR).
For example, the consideration of gravity as some
solution of an inflow of space itself into (ponderable
massive objects such as) the earth.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
01 Sep 2005 02:49:46 AM |
|
|
mountain man:
"Henry Haapalainen" <kirppu@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
Recinald T. Cahill has done a lot of work.
But I didn't find many answers.
I found some of the questions he considers
of merit, because they naturally lead to a path
of unification of currently disparate theories of
physics (QM and GR).
Well gee, you don't seem to pay much attention. General relativity
is a classical theory. Most physicists expect it to be the classical
limit of a quantum theory, so the disparity to which you refer is
a strawman.
For example, the consideration of gravity as some
solution of an inflow of space itself into (ponderable
massive objects such as) the earth.
Once you've demonstrated the disparity you mention above,
explain how your buddy's conjecture resolves it. Using mathematics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
31 Aug 2005 09:48:08 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts,
but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian
theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was
rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s
orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects
analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different
calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this experiment
detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian
physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first
detection of absolute motion in 1887.
=========[End Abstract]=======================
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
Hmm... one or two years ago I had an argument with him because in his papers
he had neglected the Fresnel effect.
In the above article he now states that he also corrected for Fresnel drift
and gives references (2,9,10), but I didn't spot his derivation in two of
those references (available at
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm )...
Does anyone know where he attempts to demonstrate the validity of his
equation?
Thanks,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
06 Sep 2005 08:34:26 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4315c328$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts,
but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian
theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was
rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s
orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects
analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different
calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this experiment
detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian
physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first
detection of absolute motion in 1887.
=========[End Abstract]=======================
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
Hmm... one or two years ago I had an argument with him because in his
papers
he had neglected the Fresnel effect.
In the above article he now states that he also corrected for Fresnel
drift
and gives references (2,9,10), but I didn't spot his derivation in two of
those references (available at
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm )...
Does anyone know where he attempts to demonstrate the validity of his
equation?
Thanks,
Harald
Hey mountainman - even you don't know it?!
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
07 Sep 2005 12:11:34 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:431d9ae3$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4315c328$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
....[trim]...
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
Hmm... one or two years ago I had an argument with him because in his
papers
he had neglected the Fresnel effect.
In the above article he now states that he also corrected for Fresnel
drift
and gives references (2,9,10), but I didn't spot his derivation in two of
those references (available at
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm )...
Does anyone know where he attempts to demonstrate the validity of his
equation?
Thanks,
Harald
Hey mountainman - even you don't know it?!
Sorry Harald. Yes, I think you'll find treatment of this at the
end of his major summarisation work about "Process Physics"
last reviewed June 2003. The .pdf is available here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0306196 or
http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/PSS/index.htm or
www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf or
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP13
The treatment of Fresnel drag is given at the
Appendices (section 16).
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
07 Sep 2005 07:12:34 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:aEuTe.25299$FA3.12908@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:431d9ae3$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4315c328$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
...[trim]...
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
Hmm... one or two years ago I had an argument with him because in his
papers
he had neglected the Fresnel effect.
In the above article he now states that he also corrected for Fresnel
drift
and gives references (2,9,10), but I didn't spot his derivation in two
of
those references (available at
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm )...
Does anyone know where he attempts to demonstrate the validity of his
equation?
Thanks,
Harald
Hey mountainman - even you don't know it?!
Sorry Harald. Yes, I think you'll find treatment of this at the
end of his major summarisation work about "Process Physics"
last reviewed June 2003. The .pdf is available here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0306196 or
http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/PSS/index.htm or
www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS13.pdf or
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP13
The treatment of Fresnel drag is given at the
Appendices (section 16).
Thanks! I'll have a read to see why he gets a different result from Lorentz
and Einstein.
But by just a quick look at chapter 13.4 of the above-linked pdf: he admits
there that he didn't fully include relativistic effects, while Lorentz alleg
edly already obtained a perfect zero result around 1900 for the case that
those effects are included...
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
31 Aug 2005 09:22:58 PM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:PuhRe.18113$FA3.6706@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts,
but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian
theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was
rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s
orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects
analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different
calibration leading to a speed > 300km/s. So this experiment
detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian
physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first
detection of absolute motion in 1887.
=========[End Abstract]=======================
Full paper available from:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP27
Hmm... one or two years ago I had an argument with him because in his papers
he had neglected the Fresnel effect.
In the above article he now states that he also corrected for Fresnel drift
and gives references (2,9,10), but I didn't spot his derivation in two of
those references (available at
http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm )...
Does anyone know where he attempts to demonstrate the validity of his
equation?
Thanks,
Harald
xxein: The empirics(?) of this are already sloppy stains on the
spaghetti bowl. Forget it and re-invent physics. It's a lot easier
and would probably be more true (mention: 'productive').
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery ofAbsolute Motion |
31 Aug 2005 08:26:40 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29(2005);
arXiv: physics/0508174
Author/Date: Reginald T. Cahill, 2005
=========[Abstract]==========================
Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887
experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley
saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute
motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.
Cahill is flawed
Comments on Cahill's Quantum Foam Inflow Theory of Gravity
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407059
Authors: T. D. Martin
Comments: 4 pages
Report-no: GRI-040715
We reveal an underlying flaw in Reginald T. Cahill's recently
promoted quantum foam inflow theory of gravity. It appears to arise
from a confusion of the idea of the Galilean invariance of the
acceleration of an individual flow with what is obtained as an
acceleration when a homogeneous flow is superposed with an
inhomogeneous flow. We also point out that the General Relativistic
covering theory he creates by substituting a generalized
Painleve-Gullstrand metric into Einstein's field equations leads to
absurd results.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion |
01 Sep 2005 04:10:56 AM |
|
|
Can quantum foam be used as a birth control method?????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
