by crawler » Sat May 21, 2022 9:07 pm
Here is some wordage that i made in comments for Grusenick's youtube.
I agree with many of the comments here & in the links.
(1) All vertical MMXs suffer from mechanical strain -- hencely Martin got "bogus" fringeshifts.
(2) Martin's gizmo is badly designed -- the bad axis location magnifies the strains -- the material (aluminium) is weak (stress-strain-wt).
(3) Martin's fringeshifts are periodic in a full turn -- a proper MMX is periodic in a half turn. The only MMX that is periodic in a full turn is Demjanov's twin-media MMX (air & carbon-disulphide), i call it a DMMX. Demjanov used his DMMX in 1968~72, & reported in English in about 2002~2017. A DDMX is about 1000 times as accurate~sensitive as an MMX.
(4) The main problem with MMXs & DMMXs is the question of calibration -- Demjanov uses permittivity (1970) -- Cahill uses refractive-index (2002). But fringeshifts are certain & non-deniable (except when done in vacuum)(the calibration factor for vacuum is zero). Laser light is problematic (best use acetylene) -- lasers introduce new problems (ironically these problems are due to the presence of aether, & the presence of aetherwind). Warning -- even a good MMX or DMMX can give a null result if the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some locations on Earth at some times of day (year).
(5) Aether is here (it never left) -- Einsteinians are dead ducks.
******************************************************************************************************
Here is some of my wordage from Feb 2017 (re Grusenick & re Pearce) to a guy called Dan........
".................... I had a look at your link for the Pearce vertical MMX on youtube. Very interesting. I measured the fringe shifts for all 6 of his rotations, 1 horizontal, 3 vertical (2 one way, 1 the reverse way), & 2 more vertical rotations examining Grusenick's finding that the fringe shifts change direction when the half-mirror is horizontal (ie when the arm is at 45 deg).
And i measured the fringe shifts in the Grusenick video, 1 horizontal rotation & 2 vertical. My measurements were mostly at 0.5 sec intervals, measuring (estimating) to 1/20th of a fringe. I now have more respect for M&M and Co.
Re the horizontal mirror business during vertical rotation, Pearce's rotations appear to give the same result as Grusenick's. Although Pearce says that the gizmo is pointing to 8 o'clock & 2 o'clock. I think he actually meant 7:30 o'clock & 1:30 o'clock (ie 45 deg, ie what Grusenick found).
This is interesting. Earlier i suggested that the 45 deg happens because of a fluke, when the bending flex-shift equals the compression-tension-strain-shift. But Pearce's gizmo uses a 1" thick granite tile for a base, whilst Grusenick's uses Aluminium. And Pearce's axle passes centrally through the mirror complex, Grusenick's passes well outside the mirrors.
Pearce made his gizmo only to show that Grusenick's 11 fringe fringe-shift (in the vertical plane) was due to strain, & wasn't a valid MMX result. He didn't know that Grusenick had already improved his gizmo, & Mark#2 gave a shift of 2 fringes, & Mark#3 gave 1.5 fringes.
Pearce's gizmo gave 3 fringes & 2 fringes & 1.9 fringes (for 3 vertical rotations)(my measurements).
Any MMX gizmo can detect an aether-wind (assuming it exists), but it wont be measurable unless the gizmo is well designed. The Grusenick & Pearce gizmos have a light path of i think less than 1m, much less than the 10m to 64m used by Michelson & by Miller. A calibration analysis might show that they need to detect shifts of less than 1/20th of a fringe (perhaps 1/200th). The approx. 2.0 shifts of noise in their vertical MMXs give them no hope. And their horizontal MMXs have about shifts of 0.9 (Pearce) & 0.5 (Grusenick) of noise (my measurements), still no good.
If anyone wants to carry out their own measurements, u will need to measure & allow for the floppy targets, & the floppy cameras. I found that i had to add or subtract up to 0.4 shifts (Grusenick) & 0.27 shifts (Pearce).
And despite their small sizes, neither gizmo returned to zero at the end of a rotation, this refers to both the horizontal tests & the vertical tests.
Pearce's horizontal test finished at 0.25 fringes right (after 360 deg)(should have finished at 0.00). His vertical rotations finished at 0.40 right, then 0.30 left, then 0.15 left (instead of 0.00).
Grusenick's horizontal turn finished at 0.30 left, & the vert turns at 2.00 right, & 2.00 right (instead of 0.00).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
..........edit 18sept2020
...........No i am wrong. No MMX ever returns to zero. Every MMX suffers from a linear ever-growing fringe-shift, which means that (for a horizontal MMX) the movement of the vertical fringes never returns to zero at the end of each rotation, the fringe-shift grows & grows with each turn/spin/rotation.
.................Miller called it "incline", alltho he also on his worksheets called it "Temp", ie a temperature-like effect (but he knew that it wasnt a temperature effect)(silly).
..................Demjanov reduced his "incline" to almost zero, he called it a "linear drift of zero" (LDOZ).
..............Michelson didnt i think give it a name.
................. I call it a "linear ever-growing fringe-shift" (LEGFS).
..........All horizontal MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Grusenick's vertical MMX belongs to this group. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect.
...........Because (in a horizontal MMX) at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs (& in Grusenick's MMX) the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn.
............University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing.
..............Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).....................
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
At the end of Pearce's 3 vertical rotations, if u keep watching, the fringes slowly drift 0.45 right over the next 26 seconds, while the gizmo is standing still, while Pearce is talking about something else."
Here is some wordage that i made in comments for Grusenick's youtube.
[i][color=#0000BF]I agree with many of the comments here & in the links.
(1) All vertical MMXs suffer from mechanical strain -- hencely Martin got "bogus" fringeshifts.
(2) Martin's gizmo is badly designed -- the bad axis location magnifies the strains -- the material (aluminium) is weak (stress-strain-wt).
(3) Martin's fringeshifts are periodic in a full turn -- a proper MMX is periodic in a half turn. The only MMX that is periodic in a full turn is Demjanov's twin-media MMX (air & carbon-disulphide), i call it a DMMX. Demjanov used his DMMX in 1968~72, & reported in English in about 2002~2017. A DDMX is about 1000 times as accurate~sensitive as an MMX.
(4) The main problem with MMXs & DMMXs is the question of calibration -- Demjanov uses permittivity (1970) -- Cahill uses refractive-index (2002). But fringeshifts are certain & non-deniable (except when done in vacuum)(the calibration factor for vacuum is zero). Laser light is problematic (best use acetylene) -- lasers introduce new problems (ironically these problems are due to the presence of aether, & the presence of aetherwind). Warning -- even a good MMX or DMMX can give a null result if the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some locations on Earth at some times of day (year).
(5) Aether is here (it never left) -- Einsteinians are dead ducks.[/color][/i]
******************************************************************************************************
Here is some of my wordage from Feb 2017 (re Grusenick & re Pearce) to a guy called Dan........
[i][color=#0000BF]".................... I had a look at your link for the Pearce vertical MMX on youtube. Very interesting. I measured the fringe shifts for all 6 of his rotations, 1 horizontal, 3 vertical (2 one way, 1 the reverse way), & 2 more vertical rotations examining Grusenick's finding that the fringe shifts change direction when the half-mirror is horizontal (ie when the arm is at 45 deg).
And i measured the fringe shifts in the Grusenick video, 1 horizontal rotation & 2 vertical. My measurements were mostly at 0.5 sec intervals, measuring (estimating) to 1/20th of a fringe. I now have more respect for M&M and Co.
Re the horizontal mirror business during vertical rotation, Pearce's rotations appear to give the same result as Grusenick's. Although Pearce says that the gizmo is pointing to 8 o'clock & 2 o'clock. I think he actually meant 7:30 o'clock & 1:30 o'clock (ie 45 deg, ie what Grusenick found).
This is interesting. Earlier i suggested that the 45 deg happens because of a fluke, when the bending flex-shift equals the compression-tension-strain-shift. But Pearce's gizmo uses a 1" thick granite tile for a base, whilst Grusenick's uses Aluminium. And Pearce's axle passes centrally through the mirror complex, Grusenick's passes well outside the mirrors.
Pearce made his gizmo only to show that Grusenick's 11 fringe fringe-shift (in the vertical plane) was due to strain, & wasn't a valid MMX result. He didn't know that Grusenick had already improved his gizmo, & Mark#2 gave a shift of 2 fringes, & Mark#3 gave 1.5 fringes.
Pearce's gizmo gave 3 fringes & 2 fringes & 1.9 fringes (for 3 vertical rotations)(my measurements).
Any MMX gizmo can detect an aether-wind (assuming it exists), but it wont be measurable unless the gizmo is well designed. The Grusenick & Pearce gizmos have a light path of i think less than 1m, much less than the 10m to 64m used by Michelson & by Miller. A calibration analysis might show that they need to detect shifts of less than 1/20th of a fringe (perhaps 1/200th). The approx. 2.0 shifts of noise in their vertical MMXs give them no hope. And their horizontal MMXs have about shifts of 0.9 (Pearce) & 0.5 (Grusenick) of noise (my measurements), still no good.
If anyone wants to carry out their own measurements, u will need to measure & allow for the floppy targets, & the floppy cameras. I found that i had to add or subtract up to 0.4 shifts (Grusenick) & 0.27 shifts (Pearce).
And despite their small sizes, neither gizmo returned to zero at the end of a rotation, this refers to both the horizontal tests & the vertical tests.
Pearce's horizontal test finished at 0.25 fringes right (after 360 deg)(should have finished at 0.00). His vertical rotations finished at 0.40 right, then 0.30 left, then 0.15 left (instead of 0.00).
Grusenick's horizontal turn finished at 0.30 left, & the vert turns at 2.00 right, & 2.00 right (instead of 0.00).
[/color][/i]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
..........edit 18sept2020
[i][color=#0000BF] ...........No i am wrong. No MMX ever returns to zero. Every MMX suffers from a linear ever-growing fringe-shift, which means that (for a horizontal MMX) the movement of the vertical fringes never returns to zero at the end of each rotation, the fringe-shift grows & grows with each turn/spin/rotation.
.................Miller called it "incline", alltho he also on his worksheets called it "Temp", ie a temperature-like effect (but he knew that it wasnt a temperature effect)(silly).
..................Demjanov reduced his "incline" to almost zero, he called it a "linear drift of zero" (LDOZ).
..............Michelson didnt i think give it a name.
................. I call it a "linear ever-growing fringe-shift" (LEGFS).
..........All horizontal MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Grusenick's vertical MMX belongs to this group. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect.
...........Because (in a horizontal MMX) at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs (& in Grusenick's MMX) the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn.
............University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing.
..............Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).....................[/color][/i]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[i][color=#0000BF]At the end of Pearce's 3 vertical rotations, if u keep watching, the fringes slowly drift 0.45 right over the next 26 seconds, while the gizmo is standing still, while Pearce is talking about something else."[/color][/i]