Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => The Aether => Topic started by: pese on September 08, 2009, 10:43:29 PM

Title: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: pese on September 08, 2009, 10:43:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebNmmBib3aI     Erweitertes Michelson-Morley Experiment 2009, Deutsche Version

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E  You are invited to view this documentary about the extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment on Youtube!

 Was given today at YT from my frend Martin.
Please load it down to your harddisk  with "keepvid".
Pese
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: armagdn03 on September 08, 2009, 11:54:52 PM
Really great stuff Pese, thank you ;D
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: Moab on September 09, 2009, 12:57:47 AM
Yes Thank-you much Pese.

that opens the door to a new way to observe a scalar function. im not so sure its never been done, But this is the first i've seen a laser used like this tho. very interesting stuff. mind bending  :)
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: wings on September 09, 2009, 09:24:44 AM
great video  ;D ;D ;D

now what about Einstein special relativity?

Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: zerotensor on September 09, 2009, 09:52:10 AM
Wow, cool experiment.  I wonder if this is due to torque on the mirrors / beamsplitter from gravity.  If the optical elements were securely sandwiched between two plates instead of just one it would be more convincing.  11 fringes @ 532nm corresponds to 11*532 = 5852 nm of displacement between the two beam paths.  That is only 5.85 microns.  This displacement could easily be produced by gravitational torque, even with a very secure mount.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: pese on September 09, 2009, 11:07:03 AM
Wow, cool experiment.  I wonder if this is due to torque on the mirrors / beamsplitter from gravity.  If the optical elements were securely sandwiched between two plates instead of just one it would be more convincing.  11 fringes @ 532nm corresponds to 11*532 = 5852 nm of displacement between the two beam paths.  That is only 5.85 microns.  This displacement could easily be produced by gravitational torque, even with a very secure mount.

Hi,

Many people ask for the gravity forces.

IF this is so.
it cant be possibel , the the "otical stripes" can change
the sense of tork, IF that come over ZERO (at 12:00 and 6:00)
Give attention  1:00to 5:00  and 7:00 to 11:00 the tork change
right to left turning the stripes

Pese

The German Version of that Vidio is now on 3. place in YT !!
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on September 09, 2009, 11:38:30 AM
Excellent demonstration!

I suspect this is merely confirmation of light being bent by Coriolis force.
If so, then the reverse effect would be seen when the experiment is performed in the Southern hemisphere.

It would be interesting to know what is the experiment's orientation to Earth's magnetic poles and does the effect change with a different orientation?

BEP
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: pese on September 09, 2009, 11:52:05 AM
Excellent demonstration!

I suspect this is merely confirmation of light being bent by Coriolis force.
If so, then the reverse effect would be seen when the experiment is performed in the Southern hemisphere.

It would be interesting to know what is the experiment's orientation to Earth's magnetic poles and does the effect change with a different orientation?

BEP

HI BEP.

YES, good Idea.

BUT THIS WAS TESTED.
( With on strong Neodym Magnet, directly in the near to the (only 10cm arms of equiplemnt.... It mak NO Differnce to the Inference-Strips.,will follow!
So the no any Magnetfield (als not of the earth) is the cause to this .

Gustav Pese


ADD:

Also not Gravity  is the cause.
The ZERO (Null) Point oft the turns (left to right) is not
at 0:00 ant 6:00.

I study the Vid and have seen this.

The Autor (Martin) say  the point are at about 1:30 and 7:30

AND CHANGE +/- 3 to 4 Degrees !! to the Time !! 
In Morning and Evening , the Zero point ist different !!

Very surprizing

Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: zerotensor on September 09, 2009, 12:08:58 PM
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5852+nanometers (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5852+nanometers)

if the distance between the beam-paths move by an amount on this order of magnitude, then this could explain the effect.  I can imagine that this might occur when the interferometer is mounted vertically.  The experiment needs to be repeated with this in mind.  I recommend using interferometers held tightly between two plates.

Blood-cells and spider's silk are not very big...  We need to design the apparatus to make sure that the mirrors, laser, and beamsplitter do not sag under the influence of gravity.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on September 09, 2009, 12:31:05 PM
Before possible magnetic effects are discounted the magnets should be removed from the experiment and the polar orientation changed in the experiment. I know this is hard to believe but there is a difference between the two fields. That discussion is for another thread.

Distortion by gravity is a valid thought. Distortion by several microns is indeed possible. This would occur where it is shown.

This is a consideration in fine laser alignment of precision machinery.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on October 04, 2009, 02:46:50 AM
Before possible magnetic effects are discounted the magnets should be removed from the experiment and the polar orientation changed in the experiment. I know this is hard to believe but there is a difference between the two fields. That discussion is for another thread.

Distortion by gravity is a valid thought. Distortion by several microns is indeed possible. This would occur where it is shown.

This is a consideration in fine laser alignment of precision machinery.

I withdraw the above comments...

Preliminary attempts at replication discount common magnetic fields as a possible reason for the shift.
The original M-M experiment was reported as a null result in most texts. I found this to be untrue. There was a shift. It just wasn't the direction or amount expected. Most later commentary concludes the amount was outside the margin for error.

I must do better experiments but I am convinced this gentleman is correct.

BEP

P.S. Einsteinian worshiper flames will be ignored.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: sm0ky2 on October 04, 2009, 05:33:58 PM
photons ride on the propegation of their own magnetic field.
this is why light is not affected by the magnetic field in most situations. the field surrounding the photon deflects external magnetic fields from interfering with the photon itself.

the observations in this video are likely to come from two sources.

the first being the possible movement of the equipment on their mounts.

the second being the measurable effects of gravity on the travel of light. - something which is not easily percievable in einsteinian experiments, but becomes readily visible when examining the effects on the interference patterns, or in photon-scattering experiments done with and without the presence of a gravitational field.

further testing would be required to rule out the movement of the equipment in this video.

Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on October 04, 2009, 07:52:42 PM
photons ride on the propegation of their own magnetic field.
this is why light is not affected by the magnetic field in most situations. the field surrounding the photon deflects external magnetic fields from interfering with the photon itself.

the observations in this video are likely to come from two sources.

the first being the possible movement of the equipment on their mounts.

the second being the measurable effects of gravity on the travel of light. - something which is not easily percievable in einsteinian experiments, but becomes readily visible when examining the effects on the interference patterns, or in photon-scattering experiments done with and without the presence of a gravitational field.

further testing would be required to rule out the movement of the equipment in this video.

All may be true but I have less than five microns deflection in my setup for the horizontal axis or points radial from it. Even when that is considered the pattern shift is extreme and the wrong direction. When locked-down (the machine I used has the ability to lock all axis) the shift slowly increases until midnight and decreases until noon.

Like I said... I need better experiments. If I am correct these shift distances will change with orientation to the Earth's rotational axis. Who knows? Maybe even moon orbital position?

The first test was rotation around a vertical axis. I found no measurable shift.... until I locked it down and walked away for dinner. 2 hours locked resulted in a measurable shift.

In any case.... all must be repeated on a calibrated granite slab in a controlled environment to be conclusive.

I still don't see any of this as proof of aether but I do want to know what proof I'm seeing.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on October 11, 2009, 04:23:53 AM
It seems my growing suspicions about the effects shown by Martin have exceeded the 'suspicion' stage for others long before me....

http://www.biochem.szote.u-szeged.hu/astrojan/munera.pdf

Martin,

Your expansion of the experiment is still unique.

If torsion by gravity was the cause there would be two angles, relative to the horizon, where we would see a shift reversal.

I think the scientific community should stop floating blocks of granite in mercury and start rotating the table about an horizontal axis.

I think M & M were wrong in what they expected. They were Earth-centric when they should have considered much more.

So 'space' is either leading or lagging mass by 45 degrees? My continued thoughts on this are much deeper and even more Einstein heretical so I'll stop here  ;)
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: MileHigh on October 11, 2009, 05:13:46 PM
Zerotensor is fundamentally right about this one, but I am not so sure about his calculations.

The slab of aluminum deforms as the apparatus rotates vertically due to varying stresses on the frame because of the changing gravity field relative to the apparatus.  When the apparatus rotates horizontally the gravity field is constant and therefore the stresses on the frame are constant.

It is outrageous that the German experimenter didn't think of this and it makes his experiment pure junk science.  It is equally outrageous that he built this apparatus with such a huge flaw:  He did not take into account that the slab of aluminum that forms the miniature optical table would deform due to mechanical stress.

Here is a posting on his YouTube clip:

Quote
mrdualspace (5 days ago)

The evidence produced by this experiment is false. A fixed pattern of fringes is simply swept across the screen as the mirrors turn due to flexing of the frame. A true finding would show a changing of the spaces between the fringes, which doesn't happen.
I previously posted this and I see it's been removed.

Double junk science:  Comments that describe the humongous outrageous flaw in this experiment are being removed by the YouTube poster "Gruma09."

The author of this experiment should not be trusted as being able to generate credible data for any experiment that he does.  He built a junk apparatus and got junk results that he was not smart enough to interpret properly.  It is simply unacceptable.

MileHigh
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: BEP on October 11, 2009, 09:55:21 PM
@MH,

Your opinion please...

Why would this torsional stress only show when the axis of the apparatus is aligned between the 2 and 8 o'clock positions and not also when aligned with the 10 and 4 o'clock positions?

The clock positions are not precise but you should get my drift.

As far as the many different commentators (as I've seen across the web) mentioning that a change in spaces between the fringes is required.... All I can say is that should require a change in wavelength or angle of interference. I can't imagine either happening.

Time will tell on this one. Until then it is not scientific to post insults. That is just something scientists normally do.
As for me.... I will continue on this one. My opinion is the distance the beams travel must be made as great as possible, if this is a speed issue. As for mechanical deformations - yes - the most likely reason for almost any basement experimenter - not for me.

My initial try was not in my basement or garage. If the machine used had such 'flexing' it would have been scrapped a long time ago - yes, I checked for flexing before and during. I didn't think a rotating table made of 4" thick high grade tool steel would flex much. It didn't.


 



Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: zerotensor on October 11, 2009, 11:43:59 PM
Zerotensor is fundamentally right about this one, but I am not so sure about his calculations.

The number of fringe shifts, N, using a monochromatic light source with wavelength, lambda, is given by;
N = L / lambda
where L is the difference between the lengths of the optical paths in the two arms of the interferometer.

Because of the geometry of the MM interferometer setup, this means that a displacement of one of the mirrors along the beam axis by a distance, d, will cause the path length along that arm to change by a factor 2d;  expressed mathematically, L=2d.  In this case, a shift in the interference pattern by N fringes indicates that the mirror has moved a distance d=(N * lambda) / 2 .

Of course, we don't know which elements of the interferometer might be moving here, so the best we can do is say that the difference in path length, L, changes according to,
L=N*lambda.

Inserting lambda = 532 nm, and N=11, we see that the shift in the interference pattern can be explained by a variation in the path length of 5852 nm.  A displacement of one of the mirrors by half this amount along the beam axis is sufficient to explain the observed shift.  Other kinds of displacements of the optical elements, including angular displacements, could also be responsible  for the effect.  Because the maximum displacement of the fringe pattern occurs when the beam splitter is horizontal, it seems likely that movement of the beam splitter is the culprit in this situation.  Taking steps to minimize any stresses on the optical setup by gravity is therefore an important prerequisite to future experiments along this line.

Quote
The slab of aluminum deforms as the apparatus rotates vertically due to varying stresses on the frame because of the changing gravity field relative to the apparatus.  When the apparatus rotates horizontally the gravity field is constant and therefore the stresses on the frame are constant.

While deformation of the aluminum slab might play some role, I think that it is much more likely that movement of the mirrors and/or the beam-splitter are to blame.  The reason the MM experiment and the myriad others which followed it always employ a horizontal setup is to minimize any stresses on the apparatus due to gravity.

Quote
It is outrageous that the German experimenter didn't think of this and it makes his experiment pure junk science.  <snip>

I wouldn't be so hasty.  While the results are probably due to deformations of the instrument under the influence of gravity, we shouldn't rule-out the possibility that a more careful experiment might yield some evidence of an interesting new phenomenon.  The fact that Martin's setup does not exhibit a shift in the horizontal configuration shows that the apparatus is quite stable.  Furthermore, the observation of periodic 24-hour shifts indicates that the interferometer is sensitive enough to observe the earth's rotation.  I applaud the experimenter and encourage him to perform further experiments which will address the possible shortcomings of the apparatus.  This is the way real science is done.  Simply declaring that we should disregard the main idea of the experiment because of possible instrumental flaws (as you do) is more akin to "junk science", if you ask me.

To the experimenter I say, "Good idea-- but there are possible instrumental artifacts which are probably influencing your results.  You should repeat the experiment with an eye to addressing these concerns."
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: zerotensor on October 12, 2009, 12:05:03 AM
@MH,

Your opinion please...

Why would this torsional stress only show when the axis of the apparatus is aligned between the 2 and 8 o'clock positions and not also when aligned with the 10 and 4 o'clock positions?

Well, even though I'm not MH, I'll take a stab at that one.  If the beam-splitter moves, even by a micron or two, that could explain the shift.  We see the maximum displacement when the beamsplitter is horizontal, which is where one would expect the most flex under gravity, considering the way the beam splitter is mounted to the frame.

Quote
As far as the many different commentators (as I've seen across the web) mentioning that a change in spaces between the fringes is required.... All I can say is that should require a change in wavelength or angle of interference. I can't imagine either happening.

I agree.  The width and spacing of the individual fringes is actually very complicated to work-out, and depends strongly on the precise alignment and geometry of the setup.  Fortunately, the shift in fringe number is almost totally immune to these considerations, which is one reason why Michelson interferometry is such a useful and robust technique.
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2009, 05:53:23 PM
BEP:

Quote
Why would this torsional stress only show when the axis of the apparatus is aligned between the 2 and 8 o'clock positions and not also when aligned with the 10 and 4 o'clock positions?

I don't see that at all.  I see the interference patterns moving back and forth with a slow sinusoidal motion.  This is exactly what you would expect to see as the device rotates vertically about a horizontal axis where the slab of aluminum that forms the optical table acts like a piece of deforming rubber.  That's exactly what is happening - the aluminum is deforming like a piece of rubber.  We should all know that metal is flexible and deformable because we see it every day in our daily lives.

I used strong language and I think that it is justified.  This experiment is pure junk and any first-year physics student with two weeks experience in an optics laboratory would be able to point out this major flaw.  LASER interferometry is used every day to measure very tiny changes in the dimensions of materials - and that is exactly what you are seeing in this experiment.

Quote
My initial try was not in my basement or garage. If the machine used had such 'flexing' it would have been scrapped a long time ago - yes, I checked for flexing before and during. I didn't think a rotating table made of 4" thick high grade tool steel would flex much. It didn't.

The joke about this experiment is that the aluminum slab that forms the optical table is part of the rotating structure itself, and it is absorbing all of the stresses induced in it from the two metal rods bolted to it as the device rotates.  It is being twisted and deformed by the variations in tension and compression in each rod as the device rotates vertically.

All that the experimenter had to do was mount the optical table on top of the rotating structure with a layer of foam insulation or something like that between the rotating structure and the optical table so that none of the stresses associated with the rotation would be transferred to the optical table itself.  Also, perhaps it would require a real optical table that uses a honeycomb metal support structure mated with a hard steel plate with tapped holes in it for bolting optical components in place - a real optical table and not a slab of aluminum.

The fact that the optical table is not isolated from the stresses of the rotating structure is a joke - how could anybody doing an experiment like this make such an incredibly stupid mistake?

My words are harsh but they are justified.

MileHigh
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2009, 10:40:17 PM
Zerotensor:

I am not going to disagree with you about the calculations.  My gut feel is that as a general principle an interference pattern can move by one bright band, and the overall geometry of the setup may be such that a fraction of a wavelength difference can induce the displacement of one band.  I could be wrong.  Way back when I was in junior college I did the classic "double slit" experiment in my physics class.

Anyway, here is a thought experiment:  Fix the apparatus so the optical table is not deformed when the device rotates about a horizontal axis.  Then there will be no displacement in the bright and dark bands.

MileHigh
Title: Re: YourTube Extended Michelson-Morley Experiment
Post by: pese on October 18, 2009, 10:17:07 AM
Other constructions
result the same differiencies between MIN an MAX values !!
over days.

Other Construction
(7 JPG's)

http://otto-gb.150m.com/MG/index.html


It will be seach nor if planet constelation or other (possibel) results are to find, that corelate with  them

G.P.