"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> George Dishman wrote:
>> sean wrote:
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> > > > No, that is wrong.
>> > > > The MM experiment was based on light interference fringes and no
>> > > > time
>> > > > measurements were involved.
>> > >
>> > > The light sent down one leg of known distance
>> > > produces a time reference for the measurement of
>> > > the speed of the other leg. It is perhaps easier
>> > > to see if you think of an MMX oriented first with
>> > > one leg north-south and the other east-west. Then
>> > > rotate the apparatus such that the north-south
>> > > leg is not moved (it is the axis of rotation) but
>> > > the other leg is now vertical. The time the light
>> > > takes along the north-south leg is a fixed reference
>> > > against which the time for the other beam can be
>> > > measured in units of fractions of a cycle of the
>> > > light. Of course that isn't possible in practice
>> > > because of gravity but it should help you grasp the
>> > > equivalence.
>> > >
>> > > > The proposed experiment is based on time
>> > > > measurements only and no interference fringes are involved.
>> > >
>> > > Using an interference technique allows time
>> > > measurements with much higher resolution than any
>> > > simple clock. Bottom line is that your proposal
>> > > is just a repeat of the MMX and we already know
>> > > the answer, U1 as measured above will be zero for
>> > > _all_ inertial frames.
>> > I would have thought both sides of the argument would have a problem
>> > disproving the other.
>> Not really, Gurcharn's suggestion is to perform an
>> experiment to measure anisotropy of the speed of
>> light using atomic clocks and a spacecraft. My point
>> is that it serves the same purpose as the MMX so
>> the result is already known. I think we should be able
>> to settle that quite easily.
> Not so easy if you take into account the fact that aether models do not
> neccesarily imply that they be particulate and give drift. This is a
> myth perpetrated by GR supporters
Regardless, both techniques measure the speed over
a fixed path. Try imagining a solid rod between
point A and B in Gucharn's diagram as one leg of
the MMX and you'll see what I mean. The light will
behave the same in both whatever its nature.
>> > For instance if the refractive index of the suns
>> > atmosphere isnt sufficient to explain the amount of bending of light
>> What does that have to do with the Michelson-Moreley
> Generally this discussion is about aether vs GR and one point raised
> was whether or not the solar atmosphere in an aether model could
> account for the bending. For isntance you refer to it here in another
> post on this thread...
Then perhaps you should have replied to that post
so the context wouldn't be lost.
> (george).."Two reasons, first because the plasma density is
> known with reasonable accuracy and is many orders of
> magnitude too small to explain the amount of bending
> observed and second the bending is independent of
> wavelength which is not true for the plasma."
>> > then what is the refractive index or density of the atmosphere at that
>> > point to which it is being compared? My guess is that this vital piece
>> > of information isnt known ...
>> Your guess is wrong. Craig Markwardt gave references
>> in a thread a year or two back on exactly that subject
>> if you want to dig it out.
> If you mean those made in 2002 then he has offered nothing more than
> educated guesswork and unprovable assumptions.
He gave you references to actual measurements IIRC.
> He claims that delays are observed to be wavelength independent and
> this is observed. This is untrue.
I believe he pointed out that the _bending_ was wavelength
independent. That is what we are talking about. If it wasn't
then a star near the Sun would be stretched into a rainbow-
coloured line. We don't see that.
> He can only assume this is true as it
> is impossible for the same source to be viewed from the same position
> at the same time in more than one wavelength. Hence making it
> impossible to verify if the delay was different for each wavelength.
> Yes, its checked against whats predicted and maybe within some error
> margins it fits but the important point here is a second observation at
> a seperate wavelength at the same time is never made to show that there
> is definitely a *observed delay* between wavelengths at the same point
> and time. Anyways Im sure the error margins are large enough even when
> less than .01 per cent to cover any smaller predicted difference in
> time delays predicted by GR. And the argument made that the density of
> the atmosphere near the sun is " observed* to be not big enough is an
> odd argument to make. Where was this density "observation" made?
Again I believe he provided you with references to the
measurements. I'm not going to go hunting for them, you
can do that yourself.
> Nowhere near the sun and probably here near earth.
Still guessing, and still wrong. Goa and look up
the references and find out.
> In which case to
> assume that the density of the suns atmosphere would be the same near
> the surface of the sun as here near earth is totally illogical .The
> atmospheres density must fall off with distance similar to gravity
> fallof. Once thats taken into account Im sure if the solar wind at
> earth was x then near the sun one could infer 10^(13)x . Ie/Take the
> volume or mass of the atmosphere enclosed within lets say 1/4 solar
> radius around the suns surface and then spread that out over a volume
> bound within that of a larger sphere defined by earths orbit. That
> could easily make the density distribution 10-(13) for that near the
> suns surface
This was all discussed at the time and you were
shown to be completely wrong on every point.
> And my point on MM still stands. It is a fabrication that MM proved
> aether theory wrong when no wind was observed. Where in aether theory
> is the mechanism or stipulation that it can only be particulate and
> has to produce a wind?
The model that was being tested was a simple classical
wave in a medium. Remember it was a decade before
> All MM did was show that the aether was not particulate.
Nobody was suggesting it was particulate at that time,
I have no idea where you get that idea. What they tried
to measure was simply a difference in speed of light
along the two arms with no assumption about the nature
of the aether involved other than that the speed of
light should be relative to that medium.
> And if you still go for this assumption then tell me. If the aether
> must produce a wind then what mechanism in the aether produces this
> wind? .
The orbit of the Earth round the Sun should produce
a change of 'wind speed' of 60km/s over six months.
> No one ever worked out what the aether was supposed to be made
> of so how could anyone claim it had to be particulate.
Nobody did, where did you get that idea?
> For instance it could be a magnetic field only.
No, it was supposed to be the stuff that waved
to create a magnetic field in the same way that
water is the stuff that waves to make ripples.