• Re: Volney, please define "Perfect M

    From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 05:29:01 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 03:29:40 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 10/1/2023 8:52 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 16:52:39 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:59 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 30 September 2023 at 06:31:24 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/29/2023 7:33 AM, Alan B wrote:
    Is such a thing even possible?
    I'm sure the LIGO devices are pretty damn close!

    Sensitivity maybe yes. But for MMX to be of any use
    one has to be able rotate the table on its Mercury bed
    to check if each arm gets the same reading both
    n+S and E-W
    You can’t rotate any of the arms at Hanford or Livingston
    They always point the same direction.
    So LIGO could never be a MMX device.
    They rotate with the earth.

    LIGO arms can’t rotate 90degrees, like the MMX arms do on the
    Mercury bed in the original experiment.
    LIGO rotates along with the earth, just like you've been whining about
    the MMX for the last zillion or so posts. Wait 6 hours for a 90 degree rotation.

    The only rotation of the earth that the MMX could possibly measure is a
    small amount of rotation that occurs as the setup rotates slightly over the
    time the light takes to go out and back on LIGO arms vs the 1600k/ hour rotational speed of the LIGO arms in that same ns time frame.
    How exactly is earths rotational speed of 1600/k/hour going to change
    Over any of the 24 hours it takes the earth to do a full rotation?
    It’s always rotating at 1600k/hour. All day long.

    In other words the Time of flight on either of the two LIGO arms
    NEVER changes during earths rotation. The difference in path speeds
    is *between* the 2 arms. Where one arm always faces the EW direction
    of rotation compared to the other arm always facing N-S
    LIGO could never be an MMX.
    You relativists are SO stupid.

    Are you suggesting that if the Michelson Morley experimental setup
    could not have been rotated on a Mercury bed....they could still have confirmed a null result?
    It would have taken longer, but yes. Didn't they also wait 6 months to capture the ether wind from the other direction?

    Wrong. The experiment was only conducted for *at most* 4 months.
    (Wiki)”The MMX experiment was performed between April and July
    1887 by American physicists Michelson and Morley.”

    In that case..why did they bother with rotating the setup on a Mercury bed?
    To get more useful readings in a shorter time.

    I think the mercury was also used for isolation from vibrations.

    And as far as your fantasy that the experiment does not need to be rotated in the lab to detect a change in the interference pattern.... As usual, for a fact
    free delusional relativist, you are completely wrong.
    It does need to be rotated in the lab to see if there is a fringe change when the arms change from being parallel to perpendicular to the
    expected “aether wind”

    (Wiki) ”The mercury trough allowed the device to turn with close to zero friction, so that once having given the sandstone block a single push it would slowly rotate through the entire range of possible angles to the "aether wind", while measurements
    were continuously observed by looking through the eyepiece. The hypothesis of aether drift implies that because one of the arms would inevitably turn into the direction of the wind at the same time that another arm was turning perpendicularly to the wind,
    an effect should be noticeable even over a period of minutes.
    The expectation was that the effect would be graphable as a sine wave with two peaks and two troughs per rotation of the device. This result could have been expected because during each full rotation, each arm would be parallel to the wind twice (facing
    into and away from the wind giving identical readings) and perpendicular to the wind twice.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)