Martin Grusenick | Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment

[witsend]

Hi tagor. Not sure if you're asking me about Champagne the drink or Champagne the province. Both are superb. My son drinks nothing but. And I might tell you it's not cheap here to buy the real thing. But nor is there anything like the real thing.

But it's the French food that is just so AMAZING. It's the only time in my life that I put on weight - 10 lbs. And the men. So charming. A rare and unique culture - certainly as I remember it.

APOLOGIES to all for getting off topic.

[quantumuppercut]

Hi Quantum. I missed this yesterday. Nice to see you around again. Indeed the implications here are really good. I hope the test results prove valid - but there's some question as to the dependability of the results. My personal hope is that von Grusenick will sort out the questions and then maybe publish? That would be just so nice.

Thank you witsend,

I hope you're doing well too. This is a very nice test. I went back and read many paper about Michelson-Morley experiment. It seems like the old test was valid and no aether is detected in the plane parallel to earth. This ruled out the static aether. The dragging aether also ruled out by stellar aberration, but it still leave alot of room for creativity about stellar aberration and I believe the answer lies here. I do not see any noticable parameter that could largely effect this apparatus . We'll have to wait and see.

[witsend]

Guys, the sad news is that von Grusenick's test is probably flawed. Not sure if it's nominal or critical. MileHigh discounts the whole thing - not surprisingly - but I'm inclined to think he may just be right. However - BEP has proposed an arrangement that holds - and MORE TO THE POINT - I'm quoting him from memory - ' When doing this same test the +/- shift is seen although little to none is expected...' Something like that. Certainly the essence of his post. He also loosely attributes this to coriolis effects or gravity. But sees this as a small effect. In my book - every little helps. I shall follow this up and will report here. He's on OU.com - and apparently not the troll that I assumed.

Also. I couldn't get my mind around the coriolis effect until I saw a neat video on this. Not sure if anyone else might need this but here's the link.
YouTube - coriolis effect (2-11)

My own opinion on this is that the 'clockwise' - Southern hemisphere and 'anti-clockwise' - Northern hemisphere - can be argued in terms of magnetic fields - perfectly. So. Nothing against it's being earth's magnetism and who knows? Possibly magnetism relates to gravity?

I guess that's a thin argument. But it'll do for now.

[quantumuppercut]

I have a different view. Coriolis effect is due to frame of reference. If it is the Coriolis effect, then it also would appear on the horizontal plane when the apparatus is rotated.

If the diffraction pattern changed, then light velocity has changed. I can imagine this is similar to magnetic flux. The line of aether flux could be in the direction of gravity. The change in flux can result in the change in velocity dB=dv . Since rotating parallel to earth surface plane result in no change in flux line, no change in light velocity. Rotating in a plane perpendicular to earth surface resulting in cutting the flux lines and velocity change resulted.
If this is the case, aether field = magnetic field = gravity field.

[morpher44]

homopolar generator

Could this be the reason that a homopolar generator generates power?
If that generator was laid on its side, with the disk of rotation spinning parallel to the earth, would it still generator power ... or would it fail to do so?

A homopolar generator does NOT operate as a motor when power is applied.

THE WEIRD BUBBLE

[Guest]

Aether Contorl

Her is the document that I think describe relation between aether field, magnetic field, and gravitation.

http://gravitation.org/Start/Experim...l%20fields.pdf

[quantumuppercut]

I think it's not neccessary to attach a magnet to a spinning disk. The spinning disk alone, when rotate fast enough, still give out a voltage differential. My opinion is that the centrifugal force separate out matters in density layers similar to centrifuge extraction of material.

I agree that there are so much in common with gravity, magnetism, electricity, sub atomic forces. After all... they're all forces and acted on matters. This is the reason that pull scientists to the idea of unification. I also believe that they're the same field with different desnity level and field geometry.

[witsend]

I have a different view. Coriolis effect is due to frame of reference. If it is the Coriolis effect, then it also would appear on the horizontal plane when the apparatus is rotated.

If the diffraction pattern changed, then light velocity has changed. I can imagine this is similar to magnetic flux. The line of aether flux could be in the direction of gravity. The change in flux can result in the change in velocity dB=dv . Since rotating parallel to earth surface plane result in no change in flux line, no change in light velocity. Rotating in a plane perpendicular to earth surface resulting in cutting the flux lines and velocity change resulted.
If this is the case, aether field = magnetic field = gravity field.

Hi Quantumuppercut. I wish it were that simple. I'm still trying to understand why it is that the horizontal rotation doesn't show a difference? That's obviously assuming that the test results point at anything at all.

Are you suggesting this? The earth's flux fields describe a shell around the body of the planet. The outer part of the shell is greater than the inner. I assume multiple layers making the whole of the shell like a series of skins. Then the horizontal axis would intersect at a smooth level with the 'skin' of the shell as at this level. Regardless of the height of the horizontal plane - this would hold - always assuming that each 'skin' is a perfectly smooth field. In which case I can see why the coriolis effect would be obviated when rotated on the horizontal plane.

And, indeed this would then explain the 'differences' as the apparatus then cuts through the vertical plane as you describe it. This could then be attributed to the movement through each 'skin' layer - each one smooth - but each one varying in size and uniformity with the next?

In fact, as this has already been proven and if von Grusenick's test is seen as a corollary to the Michelson-Morley experiment - then it could very well be considered as a test for the existence of magnetic flux. Unfortunately they're both intended to test aether. Nowhere has there been a suggestion from mainstream that aether and magnetism may be the same thing.

And from flux to aether to gravity is the next difficult step. Why should gravity and flux have anything at all to do with one another? I agree with you. But there must surely be some substantive argument to take it to these conclusions?

What an interesting subject.

[witsend]

Could this be the reason that a homopolar generator generates power?
If that generator was laid on its side, with the disk of rotation spinning parallel to the earth, would it still generator power ... or would it fail to do so?

A homopolar generator does NOT operate as a motor when power is applied.

THE WEIRD BUBBLE

Morpher - I just don't know. I read up the link. How interesting. My own guess here would be that as magnetic fields can shield themselves from other magnetic fields then the rotation of the disk parallel to the earth would make no difference. But I really have no idea.

[witsend]

Her is the document that I think describe relation between aether field, magnetic field, and gravitation.

http://gravitation.org/Start/Experim...l%20fields.pdf

Is this Bearden's philosophy? I must say it's seductive. My argument against this, would be that - consider how many electrons there are loosely bound to the atomic energy levels. If each one's movement precipitated such complex interactions with the 'aether?' then chaos would abound. In fact there is a general orderliness to matter. I'm quoting loosely from the conclusions to Bell's theorems (which I hasten to add that I do not understand) which states something like 'the statistical predictions of quantum theories cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. This conclusion is clear and unambiguous. That required 'orderliness' has to carry through all aspects of our visible and measurable.

I liked the picture of the spaceship. But I very much doubt it would work. Still. It's seductive. The argument nearly holds. IMHO

[quantumuppercut]

Hi Quantumuppercut. I wish it were that simple. I'm still trying to understand why it is that the horizontal rotation doesn't show a difference? That's obviously assuming that the test results point at anything at all.

Are you suggesting this? The earth's flux fields describe a shell around the body of the planet. The outer part of the shell is greater than the inner. I assume multiple layers making the whole of the shell like a series of skins. Then the horizontal axis would intersect at a smooth level with the 'skin' of the shell as at this level. Regardless of the height of the horizontal plane - this would hold - always assuming that each 'skin' is a perfectly smooth field. In which case I can see why the coriolis effect would be obviated when rotated on the horizontal plane.

And, indeed this would then explain the 'differences' as the apparatus then cuts through the vertical plane as you describe it. This could then be attributed to the movement through each 'skin' layer - each one smooth - but each one varying in size and uniformity with the next?

In fact, as this has already been proven and if von Grusenick's test is seen as a corollary to the Michelson-Morley experiment - then it could very well be considered as a test for the existence of magnetic flux. Unfortunately they're both intended to test aether. Nowhere has there been a suggestion from mainstream that aether and magnetism may be the same thing.

And from flux to aether to gravity is the next difficult step. Why should gravity and flux have anything at all to do with one another? I agree with you. But there must surely be some substantive argument to take it to these conclusions?

What an interesting subject.

I can see that you start sounding like Harvey

Yes, your description is exactly what I meant. You described it in orthogonal lines to mine as mine is orthogonal lines to yours. In fluid mechanic, one is potential line and the other line is path line. I do not see the Coriolis effect comes into play with the laser. My line is 90 degree to your zipons flow if it's easier to visualize.

The unify field theory is intended to unify all fields into one, so if one say aether and magnetism or gravity are different, then why bother unify them? Like I stated, they're different in density. Gravity is less dense than magnetic field from a bar magnet. That's why it pass though metal easy and the dense magnetic field from bar magnet get blocked. Light is even denser than magnetic, then air, then water, then solid...etc...

[witsend]

The unify field theory is intended to unify all fields into one, so if one say aether and magnetism or gravity are different, then why bother unify them? Like I stated, they're different in density. Gravity is less dense than magnetic field from a bar magnet. That's why it pass though metal easy and the dense magnetic field from bar magnet get blocked. Light is even denser than magnetic, then air, then water, then solid...etc...

Hi Quantumuppercut. I agree. In fact I see the challenge as being to explore the extent to which the magnetic may correspond to aether. But then one must not use the word aether as it's still too controversial. Maybe 'dark matter'? For some obscure reason this is more acceptable. Strange how picky are our mainstream thinkers.

'Like Harvey?' That's a compliment. Certainly no comparison in degree of knowledge. Not by a long shot. Unlike me - he knows whereof he speaks. But I'm more adventurous and explorative. And I give myself full license here - being unconstrained by the demands of logic. Lol.

[morpher44]

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

This article

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet - physicsworld.com

which is from 9/14/09 implies
Michelson–Morley experiment is just fine.

[tagor]

This article

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet - physicsworld.com

which is from 9/14/09 implies
Michelson–Morley experiment is just fine.

you can get the miller data here :

http://www.wbabin.net/miller.pdf

and analysis of this data :

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments


and a lot of reference to allais ...

to einstein , relativity and so on

[witsend]

This article

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet - physicsworld.com

which is from 9/14/09 implies
Michelson–Morley experiment is just fine.

Hi morpher44. I checked out the link. All they've done is refined the apparatus and measurement on the horizontal plane. Nothing about the vertical. Why is this never considered? Seems strange.