Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: X, Y and Z Interferometer Update
Posted:
Jan 19, 2012 6:37 PM
|
|
On Jan 17, 9:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Einstein said: ?If any Earth-based experiment ever detects Earth?s
> velocity in the cosmos, my Special Theory of Relativity will have been
> disproved.? In late 2000 my new interferometer?which I myself
> constructed for under $1,000.00 and then successfully tested?easily
> detected Earth?s velocity! Such fact was manifested by there being
> hundreds, if not thousands of fringe shifts in 360 degrees of rotation
> on a Lazy Susan. NOTE: Other than for there being a continual change
> in the orientation of the instrument relative to Earth?s velocity
> vector, nothing else can possibly explain the observed high number of
> fringe shifts. For you perfection-only skeptics out there, no
> instrument ?vibration? nor ?light course misalignment?, even if
> evident, could possibly account for the very high number of fringe
> shifts on the paper target. Vibrations of any kind, even intentional
> vibrations that I caused as a test, will totally negate seeing a
> fringe pattern on the target! The effect of the latter is much like
> having the signal be cut off on a TV. When that happens, all that you
> will see on the paper target will be (?red?) static. The static was
> red in color, because I used a helium-neon laser purchased from Edmond
> Industrial Optics for about $500.00. By carefully rotating my
> interferometer with just my fingers, the entire 360 degrees of
> instrument rotation can be affected without there being a single
> second in which the fringe pattern isn?t visible on the paper target.
>
> I designed my experiment to answer Einstein?s above-paraphrased
> challenge. Mine was a ?yes or no?, 1st generation experiment, which
> I?ve never purported would yield an accurate numerical Earth velocity
> measurement. Instead of faulting me for not providing reams of Earth
> velocity data for every possible spherical orientation and for every
> second of Earth?s yearly orbit about the Sun, why not acknowledge that
> my under $1,000.00 X, Y and Z interferometer provides experimental
> PROOF that the M-M experiment, now resting in a basement at Case
> Western Reserve University, was an improperly DESIGNED experiment for
> detecting light velocity. I repeat: The M-M experiment was an
> improperly designed experiment for detecting light velocity in any
> manner! That?s because such experiment had no CONTROL light course.
> It placed all of the optical components on the same, horizontal stone
> base, and then rotated every optical component on just the single
> horizontal plane. That caused both light courses to change in
> identical ways at the like-number of emissions; normal mirror
> reflections; beam splitter reflections and arrival at the target.
>
> ?Ether drag? is incapable of modifying the velocity of light over any
> length of light course, because ether is composed of polar IOTAS
> having a tangential velocity of ?c?. The ether NURTURES light on its
> course, and doesn?t drag it slower. [A proviso: Light traveling for
> millions of light years began that journey with the velocity being V =
> ?c? +/- v, or the velocity of the source. Because the tangential
> velocity of the IOTAS is ?c?, over very great distances, light will be
> speeded up, or slowed down, to be traveling just at velocity ?c?.]
> Nothing about that STUPIDLY designed experiment justifies making any
> statements about the existence or the non existence of the aether
> (ether) nor the motion or non motion of the ether. Ether, or more
> correctly the IOTA, is the primal energy unit of the Universe, and not
> some nonsensical reference object for defining motion or for distances
> traveled in space.
>
> Unlike the M-M experiment, my X, Y and Z interferometer places the
> control light course on the Z axis only. The laser shines down to a
> normal (180 degree reflection) beam splitter, then straight back up to
> a paper target glued to the front of the laser (an approximate 5?
> shorter light path. As much as I tried, I could not get the laser?s
> manufacturer to provide me with an accurate measurement of the
> location of that back mirror inside of the laser.)
>
> There is a precision pin hole in the center of the paper target to
> allow the laser light to pass out. Because there is no 45 degree
> mirror (a 90 degree reflection) or beam splitter in the control light
> course, even though the entire apparatus is moving laterally at
> velocity v, the TIME of travel of the light from the laser back mirror
> to the beam splitter and up again to the target will never change!
> However, because the TEST light course does strike a 45 degree mirror
> (It makes a 90 degree light bend.) then any of the constantly
> occurring, Earth-motion-caused, lateral movement of the entire
> apparatus will force the TEST light course to hit OFF CENTER of the
> point of aim on that 45 degree mirror.
>
> The effect of missing the center point of the 45 degree mirror is to?
> PHYSICALLY CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE TEST LIGHT COURSE and to cause a
> corresponding change in the TIME of travel from the laser; through the
> normal T70/R30 beam splitter; to the 45 degree mirror, located about
> 1? below; to a normal, precision flat mirror, that?s about 12? from
> the 45 degree mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; back through the
> normal, T70/R30 beam splitter, and up about 36? to the paper target.
> The exact distances aren?t important in a ?yes or no? experiment. Of
> course the answer is YES and Einstein has forever been disproved!
>
> The ?Update? referred to in the title of this post regards my
> realization that the PULSING light seen on the paper target as my
> interferometer is being rotated has a mathematical, harmonic cause.
> Some of you out there might like to calculate the number of fringe
> shifts that are uniformly occurring in each one of those pulses. It
> would then be quite easy for me to calculate the number of pulses in
> 360 degrees of apparatus rotation. By knowing that number, it will be
> possible, for the first time by Earth born humans, to calculate the
> velocity of the Earth. The accuracy would probably be plus or minus
> 5%! Not too bad for an under $1,000.00, home made, X, Y and Z
> interferometer.
>
> As much as I might like, my present (year 2000) interferometer won?t
> allow determining the ?inflection? point when the fringes shift from
> an advance to a retard (seeming to come out from the pin hole, then
> seeming to move in toward the pin hole). The inflection points will
> occur every 180 degrees of apparatus rotation. My later generation
> interferometers will allow space ships to precisely determine their
> speed and course without once needing to look out at the stars nor to
> check a spinning gyroscope!
>
> To understand the needed math for determining how many fringe shifts
> are occurring between the pulses of light, consider these parameters:
> The known helium-neon laser passes out of the 1 mm pin hole in a
> narrow cone of light. That cone, in the control light course has a
> SHORTER distance of travel back to the target than does the TEST light
> course that travels about two feet further back to the target (six
> feet of travel vs. eight feet of travel). The latter disparity means
> that the ?component? bulls eye (which is not yet a visible light and
> dark fringe) will be 33.33% bigger (more blown-up in scale) for the
> TEST light course, than for the control. *** The maximum brightness
> of the pulses on the target will occur when there are the LEAST number
> of dark bands on the target, and the maximum number of light bands.
> By making a computer graphic of the target bulls eye, which occurs in
> just a nominal 3/8? circle centered on the pin hole, the motion of the
> two different fringe ?components? should be able to be plotted and the
> number of fringe ?component? shifts necessary to cause the pulses can
> be calculated.
>
> I realize that doing the above harmonic pulse calculation could well
> require a ?Good Will Hunting? level of mathematical proficiency. Once
> that calculation has been made, hopefully, proponents of The
> Scientific Method, if there are any out there from anywhere in the
> World, will rush to replicate my X, Y and Z interferometer
> experiment. One day, such interferometer is destined to be housed in
> the Smithsonian in Washington.
>
> I invite non-crackpot readers of this who know real science when they
> hear it described, to inform any of the staid math professors and
> possibly grad students they know who might like to strive for having
> their own 15 minutes of fame. I will gladly reply with an attachment
> of a schematic drawing showing my interferometer to any real scientist
> or mathematician who will request getting such by emailing me,
> directly. I apologize for being spread so thin, time-wise, with my
> many personal projects that I can?t calculate the fringe shift in each
> pulse of light myself.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> ? NoEinstein ?
>
> AKA John A. Armistead
Folks: Have you ever had a key that can only go into a lock one of
two ways? Then, why is it that there are times when it seems you put-
in that key, wrong, time and again? The beam splitter called out
above is a mini-example of that key. When I constructed my first
(trial) interferometer, the beam splitter needed to be a T70/R30. To
improve the contrast on the target (in a different design), I changed
to a T60/R40 beam splitter. Visually (not optically) those two are
indistinguishable. When I constructed my X, Y and Z interferometer, I
inadvertently glued on the 70T/30R when I should have used the other
one. That confusion caused this "I had had it wrong" idea about which
beam splitter was correct. I had wished to write 60T/40R when this
voice said, I got it wrong. I changed that, and now must tell any of
you SERIOUS scientists out there to use only a 60T/40R beam splitter
in replicating my X, Y and Z Interferometer. Such will illuminate the
target with the relative brightness being 40/36 or 36/40, depending
upon one's manner of reference. Long ago I read that smart people do
make mistakes. But it went on to say that smart people will usually
catch those mistakes without outside assistance. Did you "catch" the
mistake, Peter and Sam?? Ha, ha, HA! ? NoEinstein ?
|
|
|
|
