Morley/Michelson Inferometer

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />I would like to ask TVF what aspects, if any in particular or at all, of the MMX he objects to.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

None that I know of. Michelson always did good experiments and gave them sound physical interpretations. The most important, of course, are Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale. Michelson believed in an aether and was a relativity skeptic until his end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The question whether FTL speeds exist plainly stated as such, is a red herring. ... the detection of a superluminal graviton would not negate Relativity, unless one could show that it was accelerated to that FTL speed by a causal process.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is a misunderstanding of special relativity, which is what I assume you mean when you say "relativity". (The qualifier is important because Lorentzian relativity is based on the relativity principle too.) In SR, nothing can be accelerated smoothly across the lightspeed barrier. And if anything exists that travels FTL, that "anything" must have mathematically imaginary mass and propagate backwards through time, potentially violating causality.

By contrast, PG gravitons have real mass and propagate FTL in *forward* time, consistent with causality. The detection of a superluminal PG graviton would again falsify SR in favor of LR just as much as the detection of FTL propagation of gravitational force in several experiments has already falsified SR.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If gravitons move at FTL speeds with no apparent cause to drive them to that speed...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Your statement presumes an absolute space. If there is no absolute space (as is true in the Meta Model, for example), then any speed whatever may be regarded as a rest frame. In MM, the local elysium medium is merely the "atmosphere" of a "meta-planet", but of no particular significance to the infinite universe beyond. Almost certainly (under MM premises), the average speeds in the visible universe do not signify any special reference frame. -|Tom|-

I hope this thread will not go off on FTL theories-I want more info on MMX data. I have no idea what would cause spin and not orbital speeds to be measured and the stuff posted so far makes no sense to me. Why is is pointless to the observer when she is on Earth when the experiment is done? Why is spin observed and is that motion any different,say, than spin of a planet around the sun?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Why is spin observed and is that motion any different,say, than spin of a planet around the sun?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Light is a wave at requires a medium in which to propagation. If that medium is the local gravitational potential field, then the Earth's orbital speed and the medium's speed are identical, and the speed of light will be the same in all directions because the medium is at rest with respect to the Earth.

However, observers on Earth's surface have a spin motion with respect to the medium surrounding Earth, so that motion changes the speed of light relative to the observer.

Doesn't that make sense? -|Tom|-

Jim,

I recommended this link above to enrico. Take a look at it. It gives both views. I favor Miller but that is a matter of choice and it isn't the one Relativists accept.

www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

You have to decide for yourself. there is no absolute winner yet.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

The spin of the Earth around its axis is different than the spin of the Earth around the sun? And why is the light carrying medium moving at the same rate and direction as Earth in the first place?

Jim,

That is a good question. It is all theory but the testing I linked above suggests that there may infact be an ether but that it is somehow entrained by mass (or gravity) and is dragged along, somewhat like air around a thrown softball.

The virtually linear speed of the earth in orbit can setup a wake or drag more efficiently than the sharp motion of the rotation hence there would be less ether motion congruent with rotation and therefor rotation on the axis would be more detectable than orbital motion.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.