I'm really confused now. The acceleration due to gravity is 32 ft/sec/sec. In 0.6 seconds the velocity, from rest, would be 19.2 feet/sec. Not 32 feet/sec. So is the 32 feet/sec wrong?

Please can you show how you obtain 32 ft/sec for the aether velocity given an acceleration due to gravity of 32 ft/sec/sec?

Can you then apply the same argument to an acceleration of 115200 ft/min/min?

The general class of test that this proposed experiment belongs to is called, I think, tests of Lorentz invariance, or tests designed to detect and/or measure Lorentz violation.

I would like to ask what literature searches you undertook, to ascertain what experiments have been conducted, since Michelson's famous one, to test Lorentz violations, particularly the kind your 'pushing theory of gravity' predicts (crudely, anisotropy in the speed of light)?

What experiments did you find, from your literature search?

All you are saying here has to do with scattered sunlight washing out a dim object. What I was challenging was your remark, "As to the Sun and a white dwarf star, however, no incoming light would be possible. Accordingly the outgoing radiation would dominate the scenery and no incoming light could exist", your very words. Merely being too faint to see in the glare is not the same as being impossible/non-existent.

As it happens, Mercury has been observed in full daylight under favorable conditions. See the following link.

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlin...ars/chap05.htm

Scroll halfway down the page and read about Schiaparelli's observations of Mercury in daylight. If that is not enough, try Googling "Mercury daylight observation". It turns up plenty of other references.

As for my remarks about infrared, I was not talking about visible light from the stars. I was referring to observations of incoming infrared in the same wavelength range as what the Earth radiates.

Your inconsistency between this post and the one I challenged strengthens my skepticism about any possibility that your ideas are of any genuine scientific merit.

Fortis,

My statement was ambiguous. The aether at rest would reach the speed of the acceleration of matter within .6 seconds according to my current estimates. This estimate which could be related to the speed of light going down vs. horizontal to be something different than the mean value predicted of 32 ft per second.

The theory would accordingly predict that the reason for the acceleration rate of gravity is directly related or proportional to the speed of the inward accelerating aether. Accordingly if something were dropped from a cliff straight down, the first second of its acceleration would be caused by the accelerating speed of the aether field at that point. The result accordingly would be the object traveling 16 ft. in the first second. If there would be a linear relationship between the speed of the aether, 32 ft. per second, and the acceleration rate of gravity then this speed of the aether would be multiplied by one second giving a continuous acceleration rate of 32 ft/ sec./sec. If is is not exactly linear at the surface of the earth then the speed of the aether would be different from my mean estimate.

This linear relationship applies to roughly a one second interval, any other time interval of acceleration would not apply to this estimate in a linear way. Of course the acceleration rate would be the same, per second, minute, or hour; the numbers, however, would seem to be unrelated. There would a reason for this seeming co-incidence. My current range of the estimated value of the aether speed is between 19 to 32 feet per second with an expected value of 32 feet per second plus an expected range of minus 20 feet per second.

Nereid,

I don't think you could call it a Lorentz violation because in this case light would still be moving at a constant rate relative to the aether at 300,000 km per second up down and sideways. Instead, I believe it would be a violation of Special Relativity since Einstein asserted that there was no aether, therefore the speed of light should be constant in all directions including here on earth.

That's a good question. There are a lot of investigators out there at this time looking at such possibilities. I'm not aware of what tests have been conducted in the past. Because my collective theories could essentially be called ramifications of an aether theory, it also makes the prediction that there will always be variable aether gravity currents with unpredictable causes. Through my readings I am aware of several sources working on apparent inconsistencies right now considering flaws with these formulations.

It seems to me Special Relativity would be the first to fall since it is not an aether theory. Lorenz, if he were alive today, might argue that such variances have nothing to do with his reference frame transforms, instead it would have to do with inconsistent variable conditions of the aether field. This is also my position. My prediction as to the speed of light would be related to the unknown aether souse as being the cause of gravity if a positive result were detected.

The only one that I can recall offhand was related to rotations of moving bodies relative to motions in our galaxy. Because of my theory of aether, I'm surprised that these types of claims were not observed and predicted long ago. The problem I'm thinking is that they will find no consistency to the inconsistencies they have observed so they will be reluctant to publish, if that makes sense to you.

respectfully, forrest

Hornblower,

Think about it for a minute. This is only a logical statement. It doesn't have anything to do with who said or did what. My contention was that you could not conduct such an experiment concerning the difference in the speed of light up vs. down on the surface of the sun or a white dwarf star. If your investigations lead you to believe that such experiments could be conducted there, if you could somehow be isolated from the heat, then that's your prerogative to have such a belief. Do you think this idea is related to this thread? It's a comment of mine that you have a right to disagree with. Please don't take such trivial comments as an important part of this thread, because it's not.

respectfully, forrest

I think that you are making the same error that others have made with regards to units of time. Perhaps this next example will help you to understand.

I assume that you have chosen 1 second as this is a short time interval, over which time the acceleration would be approximately uniform, or at least more so than it would have been over a minute. On that basis, things should be even better if we work with a smaller unit if time. 1 second good, 1 ns even better?

So the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth, using time units of nano-seconds (1 ns = 10^-9 seconds) is

g = 32x10^-18 ft/ns/ns.

Now, using this value, what is the aether velocity in units of ft/ns?

This is very mysterious. What does it mean?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I hope Nereid doesn't mind me jumping in here, but a test for Lorentz invariance, here on Earth, would detect a violation. Since, in your model, the Earth is not stationary WRT the aether. A test taken over several months, as the Earth moved through it's orbit, with the apparatus having a fixed orientation to Earth, would detect a difference in the measurement of the SOL, as the apparatus changes it's orientation WRT space. If you correct this by saying that the aether moves along with the Earth, then you run into the problems of aether drag, such as stellar aberation, violations of Snell's law and the fact that there would be different amounts of aether drag for different frequencies of light.

And, just for your reference, this test happens to fit the bill. Notice that one arm of the test was fixed east-west and the other arm was perpendicular, straight up. With contraints on a violation at 10^-13 for velocity independent terms and 10^-9 for velocity dependent terms.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

So if the experiment were conducted at a 1 degree angle, the speed differential at that angle would be only ~0.017 of the differential up vs. down, which works out as ~1 ppb (part per billion).

And if the angle were ~3.6" (arcseconds, 1/1000th of a degree), the difference would be ~1 ppt (part per trillion), or 1 part in ~10^12.

Could someone please check my arithmetic?

This question remains unanswered; when may we expect an answer, forrest?

respectfully, Nereid

Happy Sunday Nereid,

The tone of your comments are always confrontational, Why? You can ask the same questions and get just as fast an answer, and in many cases even faster, if you discuss the matter with a friendly attitude. We're talking about my theory here. If you believe there are faults of concept somewhere, try to explain your point and I'll try to explain mine. If you believe I've made statements that you believe to be false, present your sources and I'll either present other sources or propose a rationale for the statement. If you believe that I have missed some question of yours, simply point it out and I will either identify where the question was already answered, or I will answer it. That's all. It can all be done in a pleasant manner for all concerned.

Where's the happy faces in you questions and replies For most, disagreement does not equate with anger in the scientific community.

respectfully, forrest

Tensor,

Obviously this thread is impossibly long so very few or any would have read it all. Previously I have asserted that regardless of the linear motion of the earth, the aether would follow it for reasons that I've discussed on numerous previous postings. The aether field variance, and accordingly the cause of gravity, would be a resultant low-pressure area surrounding the earth caused by the earth's EM radiation which accordingly are outward moving pressure waves.

As the earth moves around the sun this low pressure area follows it. As the earth rotates on its axis however such a variance would exist. Michelson and Morly found this variance and reported it in their findings and attributed it to the earths rotation rather than to the existence of an aether. This experiment, which I have discussed, would be conducted in a North South orientation to generally eliminate this factor. The earth's surface is rotating at about a thousand miles per hour relative to the sun. The effect that I am testing for is a difference of 21.8 miles per hour, a much smaller effect than the rotation of the earth.

After transforming mathematically or mentally relative to the aether frame, I assert that the speed of light here on earth would always be constant in all directions, just an infinitesimal non-linear vector at the earth's surface due to a very small angle of non-linear vortex current at the earth's surface due to the earth's rotation. Einstein would call it frame dragging. It is possible, according to my theory, that different frequencies of light could be dragged at different angles relative to the earth's surface but this I believe would be unrelated to my experiment since I would be conducting the experiment North-South and using a laser of uniform frequency.

I've heard of the experiment on frame dragging that you were discussing but I'm not familiar with the details that you discussed. It wouldn't work for my experiment because they're shooting east-west. But maybe a variation of it could find what I'm looking for. I will seriously try to find the detailed info on their equipment and see if it's compatible with my needs and if a similar type experiment could be conducted using the same equipment for my purposes.

Thanks for the info Tensor.

respectfully, forrest

I can assure you that the tone of my comments is not intended to be 'confrontational'*, but my comments are always, directly or indirectly, intended to be just what this section of BAUT is for ... the attacking of ATM ideas, 'with glee and fervour'. So, from now on, I shall make a point of explicitly noting when my comments are intended to be confrontational, and hope that you will not perceive any others as confrontational, OK?

In the post of mine you are quoting, I repeated some questions I'd asked about your ATM idea earlier. May I ask if you have answered those questions? If so, where? If not, may I ask when you intend to answer them? I ask this because the rules of this ATM section are quite unambiguous wrt direct questions, and I certainly don't wish to ask a mod to step in for what seems to me to be a rule violation when it isn't.

Here is another of my questions that I think has not been answered. If it has, would you please point to where you answered it? If not, may I ask when you expect to answer it? Thanks.

post#252 (relevant extracts only):
respectfully, Nereid

* with one exception; in the post where I said I was having difficulty being respectful, after having spent hours on what turns out to be close to a wild goose chase.

If I found a positive result from my experiment within the expected range, as I predicted, it would be easier for me to hypothesize a linear relationship between the speed of the aether and the acceleration rate of gravity for other gravitational sources too. If eventually this relationship were instead found to be an equational factor rather than linear, then it would seemingly be more difficult to explain.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

Wow, you are certainly right about your approach to these ATM threads: "attacking.... with glee and fervor."

I thought this statement in the advice section was good advice for all participants:

"Have a sense of humor, be friendly and be polite. Taking yourself too seriously usually leads to frustration."

What do you think?

respectfully, forrest

Interesting comments, Tensor, and no, I don't mind.

As I understand it, Lorentz invariance constrains many classes of models and theories, not just (a)ether ones. It (Lorentz invariance) "is a cornerstone of relativity (and thus of all of modern physics)", to quote Sean Carroll, so forrest is quite right in saying that if his proposed experiment gave a non-null result, it would be pretty revolutionary.

Given its importance, in relativity, no one should be surprised to learn that a great many tests have been done, over many decades, looking for Lorentz violations; it should also not be surprising to learn - given how dramatic it would be if a positive result had been found - that no experiments have reported finding any clear Lorentz violation.

What is rather surprising is forrest's answer to your post, and to my earlier one. In less than 10 minutes I turned up several websites, and dozens and dozens of references to papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, many of which seem - at first glance - to be quite pertinent to forrest's proposed experiment.

Um, ... er, ...

"People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science." (source).

As I said earlier, the BAUT rules are quite clear about what should be expected if a BAUT member chooses to present an ATM idea (in this ATM section). Given that each ATM thread is closed, automatically, after 30 days, I also think the best thing I can do to help an ATM proponent develop their idea is to do exactly what the BAUT rule says, and for exactly the reason given.

Personally, I'm puzzled, and somewhat disappointed, to find that very few proponents of ATM ideas* welcome these questions, challenges, and attacks (when they are direct, and pertinent to the ATM idea, as presented, of course); most scientists I know are grateful for such critical comments (about their ideas, models, and theories), just as the BAUT rule says.

respectfully, Nereid

* there are some; Jerry is one, for example.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nereid,

Nereid, I think the laser shootings would have to be at least a 100 miles minimum, and an angle greater than lets say 15 degrees to be able to detect such a small difference with today's equipment -- and for the results to be decisive statistically. I'm hoping to shoot at least a 30 degree angle for a minimum of 100 miles. First I would shoot on the horizontal to confirm a null result. I would then switch the position of the instruments and test again. After confirming a null result I would then do the setup and shoot at an angle. After getting the results of many hours or days of countless shootings I would average the results one way vs. the other. After getting the results I would reverse instruments and repeat the testing.

After this completed testing if I got positive results at an angle I would do the same shootings in two other locations of the world. If all the results were consistently positive to the same extent I'd bring in a mainstream consultant. All considerations, methods, etc. following a positive result would be witnessed by a recognized mainstreamer. I would first publish the results in a prestigious journal probably in Germany, the proposed location of the third shooting. After the publication date was set I would write press releases in a number of languages and go public. If the results were all null I'd have no problem going to the local bar. Come to think of it, I'd definitely go if the results were positive!!

respectfully, forrest

Captain Swoop,

You must realize that if a person makes a bunch of postings with a bunch of questions in each that it takes some time to answer them all, especially in that each simple question may take 10 paragraphs to answer. It is easy to miss a question or two when you spend all your time trying to provide answers. You also realize that most of the answers are not thought up after the question. I have a whole book of some 340 pages of logic and observations the I can refer to and sometimes just copy. My only purpose is to try to answer all the questions, as soon as possible, and try to explain to those that really want to understand. Complaining that I missed a question out of 20, I believe is ridiculous, just simply point it out and wait for the answer. I also believe that no one person should have a priority over others concerning me answering their questions.

The most productive science dialog or ATM ideas, I believe, are discussions which exchange pleasantries, information, ideas, theories, hypotheses, and opinions. That's just my opinion.

respectfully, forrest

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Please quote your source(s) wrt the precision and accuracy of "today's equipment".

And all of this would be done through the atmosphere, right?

How do you propose to obtain a 100 mile sightline at an angle of 30 degrees (from the horizontal)?

What variations do you expect, in the results, due to the inhomogeneities of the atmosphere (both in time and space)?

respectfully, Nereid

Nereid,

This theory is now 50 years old. I have had a number of scientists look at these theories over the years. I do appreciate your questions, zeal, fervor, etc. concerning these matters. I would have to pay mainstreamers to look at my ATM ideas in most cases. A mainstreamer scientist might dare one or possibly two ATM theories/ hypotheses a lifetime, more than that he would no longer be considered a mainstreamer.

So don't get me wrong. I do believe you are doing me a service. I'm just hoping that you could try to make this process more pleasant. By doing so wouldn't mean that you're giving me slack.

respectfully, forrest

Nereid,

I think the problem is, what may seem to be pertinent to others, may not seem to be pertinent to me.

The papers that I'm aware of that assert symmetry breaking show a lack of consistency which would lead to no probable replication of tested results by others which I would expect. I also have seen no theory to accompany these observations or proposals either.

So Nereid, if you find any of these assertions or purported observations that seem to you to be pertinent to our discussion, please bring them to my attention. Just before making this reply to you I could find nothing new that I thought was somehow related.

respectfully, forrest

I find the most productive ATM dialogue is one that answers questions when asked.

If you want to exchange pleasantries and opinions there are other forums on BAUT.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

See Tensor's posting #369, the accuracy of the equipment today for such a test is available.

I live here in So Cal. A shoot from Mt. Whitney to the Mohave desert NS should do it. The null test would be 100 miles NS shoot in the desert. One side of the test would have platform elevation to get level line-of-sight.

I expect such minor anomalies as the atmosphere and local gravity variations would be very insignificant and, if present, could readily be averaged out over billions of shots and three different world wide locations of shooting.

respectfully, forrest

If the 'minor variations' are larger than the variation you are trying to measure, how will you know that the variation you are looking for isn't part of the 'noise'?

A Laser Theodalite used over a 1000m or so will show variations in the range it's measuring due to atmospheric conditions.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Forrest, I realise that you may have missed my post, among all of the other ones you are responding to. However I believe that the issue is important as the success, or otherwise, of the experiment that you are proposing depends on the estimate of the aether velocity.

Every ATM theorist can tell you that mainstream journals will not publish an ATM theory or paper unless the theorist has also published in recognized journals other mainstream perspective observations/ hypothesis based upon mainstream theory.

If I get a positive result on this experiment, mainstream journals from all over the world, I believe, will volunteer free publication. Until that time only off- the-mainstream online publication entities have considered my material.

respectfully, forrest

With emphasis on "answers", as opposed just respond, dodge or obfuscate with a wall of text.

Moreover, since there is a 30 days limit on topics, I hate to see time wasted on such side issues. Nereid has shown before to be well aware of the time limit, but I'm not sure forrest noble is fully aware of said rule and its implications. If he were I'd assume he'd focus on the questions rather than the (imagined) tone. With most ATM topics going nowhere quickly, at least this one still has active participation of the OP. I would hope it remains focused in the little time that is left.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

You have some evidence to support this of course?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►