Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I just caught this:

It would reflect in some distortion of the actual pattern - surely?

I take it that you mean the actual banding pattern of the interferometer as seen on the small "screen" that forms part of the rotating apparatus would be changed or distorted due to the flexing of the block of aluminum.

The interferometer pattern will always be an alternating pattern of light and dark bands.  That will not change.  You would see the bands move as per the clip if the aluminum block was deforming or if any hypothetical "ether" affects were somehow affecting the speed of the propagation of light in a certain direction.  You may want to read up some more on interferometers.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

I just caught this:

I take it that you mean the actual banding pattern of the interferometer as seen on the small "screen" that forms part of the rotating apparatus would be changed or distorted due to the flexing of the block of aluminum.

The interferometer pattern will always be an alternating pattern of light and dark bands.  That will not change.  You would see the bands move as per the clip if the aluminum block was deforming or if any hypothetical "ether" affects were somehow affecting the speed of the propagation of light in a certain direction.  You may want to read up some more on interferometers.

MileHigh

Hello MileHigh  -  I barely know what I mean.  Let me try again.  if the results of this experiment were distorted due to the 'flexing' of the frame holding the apparatus - then - the lenses, laser, mirrors and so forth - fixed to the frame - would experience different tensions due to the different weights attached.  Therefore would there be 'greater' or 'smaller' momentary separations of the equipment.  This, in turn, would influence the focus of the lens reflected off the screen.  In point of fact this focus does not change.  Therefore whatever fractional variation is involved - does not effect the results.  Something like that?

But.  Here's my point.  Why are you not commenting on Harvey's last video?  Did you miss this. 

edit :  And Poynt?   What do you say now?

2nd edit :  MH  I know the argument I've used here is weak.  But Harvey's isn't.  If that is theoretically possible then - WOW.  Come on MileVeryHigh.      How far is up?   

[BEP]

Interesting arguments.

Does no one understand this shift? Anyone ever heard of the laser alignment anomaly? Where results are badly skewed if the laser source is place on the rotating surface to be checked... the axle being horizontal. In this case good measurement can only be obtained if the mirror is centered on the measured surface and the laser source external to that measured surface.

I've read some complaints the distortion is thought to be affected by the time of day, month and year - along with latitude.

I think mechanical deflection could be a problem but don't you think the pattern shift would be the other direction?

Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?

I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light 

Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Interesting arguments.

Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?

I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light 

Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner 

BEP - I take it that you're able to vary the apparatus so that the laser is external to the 'measured surface'?  How then does one keep it focused on a rotating mirror?  Does it also move somehow?  in synch?  Sorry if the question is elementary.  I just can't get my head around it. 

EDIT - actually - maybe this could be done with a mirrored sphere?

The other point is this.  I understand the implications as it relates to aether - being that the original Michelson-Morley experiment could not prove the existence of this based on analysis of these interferometer measurements.  Correspondingly, if there are variations to the interference patterns then this would - conversely - prove the existence?  Is this wrong?  If, in turn, this aether 'field' is proven - then my assumption is that this - in turn - may be the source of a field that allows the propogation of light through space.  Is this also wrong?

If proven - my own assumption would be that this could be the 'dark' fields that are identified as 'extant' by our astrophysicists.  But that may, indeed, be a personal bias and not based on the actual conclusions to this test.  Please enlighten us.

[Harvey]

Interesting arguments.

Does no one understand this shift? Anyone ever heard of the laser alignment anomaly? Where results are badly skewed if the laser source is place on the rotating surface to be checked... the axle being horizontal. In this case good measurement can only be obtained if the mirror is centered on the measured surface and the laser source external to that measured surface.

I've read some complaints the distortion is thought to be affected by the time of day, month and year - along with latitude.

I think mechanical deflection could be a problem but don't you think the pattern shift would be the other direction?

Even if folks reproduce this.... is there anyone who will understand what this implies?

I have the devices needed to reproduce this experiment with no time, now. In a few months I will try it. I hope it isn't proven to be just an effect of Coriolis force producing helical polarity from perpendicular polarized sources of light 

Bendable light beams? Why not? We have radar that can look around a corner 

I might know just a little bit about it. Using BOINC and the Einstein@home interface (which you can join here:http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/, I have been involved in in the MPP number crunching necessary for proper analysis of the retrieved data for the Ligo Project. But I really think the Lisa Project will be a much better test because of local frame dragging here on the surface and the way it will distort these waves even when they are presented by strong pulsars. I am (or actually my computer is) currently crunching the data for h1_0932.60_S5R4_S5R5a_0.

Q. How do you suppose the vernier adjustments on the mirrors move the mirrors, and what observation do you make as to the interference pattern as they are being adjusted?